Joe Fig @Plus Ultra637 West 27th StreetNew York, NY 10001Extended until June 3rd
This is Bill Jensen's Studio.I know this is not a painting. Go see this show. I really enjoyed it.
omg love it, remember his studio at SVA well, now that was heartwarming, the studio full of studios!
For Jerry Saltz's review, scroll down to the 2nd review:http://www.artnet.com/magazineus/features/saltz/saltz5-17-06.aspI'm so glad there is someone taking serious time into the study of artist's studios. I have always been interested in the place where the magic is created. Leaving the work out of the sculptures (mostly) lets you think about the materials- what would all those ab. ex's think?They remind me of my little Ninja Turtles and Ghostbuster's toys. If I owened one I would want to make a land for it to live in.What about the size? Could it be pushed so it wasn't a toy size? maybe he could make a life size sculpture? How creepy would it be? Especially for the artist (they would look back in time)Painter....thank you for this opportunity. I think it's a great way for all artists...especially ones who are out of school and need that push. When i first started reading I was a little scared about painting...now I realize that reading everyone's critisim makes me work harder. Seriouslly...i have been reading this too much and it has stumped me in my studio (in the best way possible) It's like a ongoing critique for life....thank you.I think you should post Trenton Doyle Hancock. Does the artist have to live in new york or just show?
I really don't see the point of regurgitating Jerry Saltz, Charles Saatchi, Michael Kimmelmann or any other middle-of the-road opinions from boring art personalities.
Didn't ilya kabakov make an artist's studio?
these are amazing in terms of craftsmanship, and i am also fascinated by artist's studios.. but the whole genre of minutiae kind of bugs me. somehow it's just too cutely provocative. remember when mini M&M's came out? totally ridiculous.also, why are they always famous people? again, just pandering to what people want to see.
I'm curious. How is this different from say a model train hobbyist recreating the Chicago switching yards. Great attention to detail and its nice to see that other painters are even bigger slobs that me but what is the purpose of this. Maybe its a critique of Art collectorism, "got the painting, got the minature studio, it's a set". I've got a friend that makes Art trading cards maybe this is a movement.
I agree WW about "cutely provocative" but I don't mind cute. Alot of work I like is cute, Bendix Harms, Guston, Sillman, I liked Koons's puppy... I think it's more interesting that he is doing famous people because we all know their work and the peek into the studio reveals something of the artists process.
exactly! we get the complete package, sans mystique. it's all about realizing who it is and then dollhouse star-gazing. i think there needs to be a balance of power between fig's objects and the built-in intrigue of the subject matter.
i have kind of given up on the 'y is it Art' conversation - intention of the Artist? context? market? it is very similar to y are so many of these paintings not illustrations. thats a great movement, Art about Art vs. Art for Arts sake - the new modernism? Fan Art. - it feels real good! i like the set idea as well, - Super Pop? High Memorabilia?
Maybe some other things as well. The scale of these pieces suggest that the viewer has a God's Eye view of the arena of creation. Like a child's dollhouse, it is implied that if the tiny artist were present we could manipulate their actions. They would become our puppet. Perhaps its a statement of the relative power scales between the artist and the collector.
Sorry if that last post was just a restatement of w. w.'s post. I wasn't sure.
This is art for people who really like New York Magazine.
About the "famous people/stargazing" comments: First, they aren't all famous people. JF did some sculptures of his friends, or of teachers whose fame has waned. Second, maybe JF is just responding to the precedents of art that features famous people (Chuck Close portraits, some Alex Katz portraits, Lina Bertucci portraits, etc).
I had a teacher who insisted that "the studio is dead." His evidence was the growth of video and fabricated sculpture. Art existed in mechanical (or digital) reproduction and in the foundry. Drove me nuts.
i'd like to see the studios of ny mag's top-ten messiest artists.
This Week: TimeOutNewYork rates the 10 sexiest studio visits! Get you paint-splattered pulse racing!
I took this book out of the library once on artists studios--Jack Pierson, Ross Bleckner, etc. It was a voyeristic experience, and an envy experience, like any home decor mag. Plus I was interested in their setup, for professional reasons. Still, there was a huge feeling of glamour in the photos. As photos are so good at portraying.These dioramas are a little voyeristic, but not glamourous at all.
PinkandlacePony said...In the 80's I had a great pair of splatter painted pants and my sister had a great splatter painted sweater. My Mom redecorated are dinning room in splatter painted wall paper.
get emI'll make them for you if you send me a pair. Let me know if you are an action painter, house painter, or model railroad conceptualist.
I am SO glad someone is pointing out that the critics are middle of the road. I believe in magic.
sorry if anything i mentioned implyed "famous people/stargazing".. as a "other" thing... i b stargazing my best friends...
It's fascinating to look at this work about someone else's work space. A studio of an artist is really a nest surrounding their imagination. Unfortunately they really only look like just art studios to me. As obsessively detailed as they are they are more cute dollhouses then anything else. If anything they are an interesting and different way to do a portrait.
i like seeing artists studios cause i'm an artist, problem is, no one else gives a shit. we can keep making art about art and that fine if you want to stay in your own little INSIGNIFICANT world.
This show had so much to offer. There is wonder in all the little tiny things along with the portraiture aspect. I've always liked dollhouses because tiny representations of big things are uncanny and wonderful.
You're right Lion King. That's what painters do all the time: make tiny representations of big things.
I usually like miniatures, but am tired of art about the art market. I like the comment about the "whole set". Studio mystique? Pandering to collectors is a sharper read IMO.
I agree with you Fisher6000.
I have to say that I find Joe Fig's work to be some of the most useless cutie-pie crap I've ever seen. It is on par with photos of babies wearing costumes and magic-eye posters. It is mediocre at best.
truly stupid work
Post a Comment