geez, another painter dana schutz rips off....they just keep comin!
reaaly good painting. like "the scream" exponentialoverpopulation, my dead anscestors, the voices in my head(i dont see much shutzy in it)
Chico,You're an idiot. At least try to expand your list of artist to hate for no reason. You look like a shit fingered loser. Everyone here is influenced by someone. I don't see much Schutz here eithher.
im not going to respond with insults to resort to your level, um, all the faces...the schutz painting in the MOMA!!!!! I didn't say the painting overall looked like schutz! The faces do though!Usually people who get offended by an influence comment have similar issues in their work!
No you won't resort to my level. You'd rather start the blog off with empty hater talk. You've done a disservice to the artists and the blog. This painting is really interesting and there's so much that you can talk about, without pulling out your "looks like so-and-so" trick pony.
all i was trying to do was start off with a little fire to get things going rather than, oooh, this is really nice, i like the color and form.. bullshit... if we all stop being so nice to each other nowadays, maybe someone would actually make something great rather than a bunch of really cool looking empty things!
you have a good point about cool and empty things-
I like the scale-shifts,....kinda reminds me of a page of Rubens' sketches,...it has that same sort of "wispy" quality in its drawing.
The schuts in the MOMA is a bombastic pile of techniclor yawn. A well trained monkey could make simular, and many do. So what. Apparently her market is really hot. I don't get it but I'm sure its nice to see a female Picasso out there selling the lie that tells the lies that jack told, first. Its a quilt. A quilt of lies. MacArthur wanted to turn China into a post apocalytic hell belted by a nuclear fence. WHere would we get out shoes from?Harry Harrison wrote an excellent novel about overpopulation called "Make Room!" which was turned into a science fiction movie in the seventies "No blade of grass" or something. I think they move people with earth movers. Its intense.THis painting uses too much white but also, it uses purple, which is great. One thing about purple is it is hard to mix from the low grade Utecht red hue I have used in the past. I like that green grey - it does make the painting.A heavenly choir or the damned. Who can tell?
Looks more like a gritty Chagall more than anything. I like what this artist is doing.
this looks great - very 70's childrens book illustration explosion. Is this up anywhere right now, painter?
I don't think it is up anymore just came down. I have to check where.
http://www.bettycuninghamgallery.com/exhibitions.htmlSorry I am slacking off.Judy Glantzman @Betty Cuningham Gallery541 West 25th, ground floorOpen until May 26th
I like the fact that although it is crowded (literally), the overall piece has a sense of mass and unity, even organic movement, like light glowing through tree leaves. I'd have to see it in person in order to decide if I liked the technique or not--I can't really see it too well on the screen. What's the scale?zipthwung, I agree with you about the green-grey, but not about the white. Why do you say 'too much'? Too much is when you thwack it on every time you're perplexed, and it doesn't feel like she did that.For good purples I've actually started using Rembrandt permanent violet--it is substantially different than trying to mix it yourself with student-grade paint. And damn, I'm still just as POOR as I was when I was a student, but student-grade paint won't cut it any more. Life is so unfair. ;-)
arts n' craftsy
Sorta Chagall meets Ensor. Ensor heads have a specificty these lack(in a jpg) and can't say I dig the floatiness.
I like Schutz better. I love the physicality of her paint. This seems less interesting. It's not bad, just not as gripping as Dana's.
i can't believe glantsman is being compared to schutz... totally weird. am i blind, or is there absolutely no relationship between the two? now, ensor i can see.
I like this painting mucho, but it falls a bit short. If you double click on the image it gets bigger and you can see much more detail. I like the stories in Ensors work. Judy's feel more decorative and less commited. Something about the blank background. The mass of people make me think of a rock concert or over-population, but she is vauge. Ensors work was so straight forward. Why make something vague? why not show more? She seems scared to commit to an idea, or maybe she has no ideas just ability?
I don't really know anything about this artist, but I think the idea is more in the process of drawing these repeated faces as automatic marks similar to Michaux's more figurative mescalin drawings...
Yeah it kinda sort of looks like a fibonacci pinecone peyote button flower sort of thing. Humanity is flowering like a skunk cabbage.No white is a rule like no black. As a rule I prefer the palette of Henri Rousseau to Marc Chagall. I have a distrust of repetition - hit it and quit. Popa's got a brand new bag.
the crowd of faces painting is a popular subject in the air right about now; its interesting to see subjects float around in people's heads at the same time. I'm kinda tempted to make one...Other artist that I see similarities to in this subject:Yayoi Deki,Chris Johansen...this also reminds me a bit of Wolsi cant really tell how good this is from jpeg..
i like it. but i couldn't tell you why.
Sometimes obsessiveness and repetition works in art but here it just seems like a crutch. I remember blinko's drawings at Feigen that really made me uncomfortable. These drawings with hundreds of faces were a world onto themselves. Maybe knowing that Blinko did those drawings off of his schizophrenia meds made it a little deeper for me. Here with Glantzman's paintings (that I saw online) they just don't create any intrigue and curiosity in me. It seems like she wanted to just fill up the space with a bunch of faces that look the same. It's just weird. The color does nothing for me nor the play with composition. It's like the painting I did once on weed and promised never to repeat. When you're stoned even a Doritos bag is a work of art. I haven't read an artist statement so I have no clue what this work is about. Painters shouldn't require artist statements. That goes for all painters. I never read anything by Rita Ackerman and her stuff says loads to me. These clouds of faces just go over my head.
i am stoned and i am not sure if this is a work of Art... or a Doritos bag
chicomacho said... all i was trying to do was start off with a little fire to get things going rather than, oooh, this is really nice, i like the color and form.. bullshit... if we all stop being so nice to each other nowadays, maybe someone would actually make something great rather than a bunch of really cool looking empty things! 11:20 AM >>>a little jaded? new art is the shit
odd comment from a graphic designer.
W.W. said... i can't believe glantsman is being compared to schutz... totally weird. am i blind, or is there absolutely no relationship between the two? now, ensor i can see. >>>>>yeah...i think it's becuase of the crowd...ensor is the comparrison that should be made being that he is so amazing and infleucnail and did it a while ago. Not that Dana's is bad...i love that painting, but she knows she's referencing ensor too.maybe it's becuase the faces are also painted with non local color...but again, reference should be brought furthur back to Fauvists or whoever. Looking at the rest of her work, I feel that they do remind me of stoned paintings that don't really change from one to another. They don't seem knew...they seem old. THey don't seem timeless, they rather seem dated from the 70's or 80's.
...just for the record, Glantzman has been around for a lot longer than Shutz, so id there is any cross- influence going on it'd be the reverse
Even artists are susceptible to the art worlds' marketing geniuses. Schutz Schutz Schutz Schutz Schutz Schutz Schutz Schutz Schutz Schutz Schutz Schutz Schutz Schutz.Holy Schutz! As if her work is REALLY so fantabulous.
Q: What’s the truth of the story that you would only sell Dana Shutz’s paintings to people who said they’d donate them to a museum?No, that’s not true. We had one show where we gave priority to people who were willing to donate work. The idea was that as soon as they donated the work, we would replace it very quickly, so they could have another one. But when things were really crazy and there were 20 famous collectors pushing for the same work, we said, “OK, who’s going to give it to the museum?” and that was who we sold it to. We’ve done it with a few artists.>>> Lisa Hunter said... An art consultant told me a variation on this story that wasn't nearly so altruistic and civic-minded..
Glantzman has been showing in New York since the early eighties, when she was a part of the East Village scene. She's a painter of great integrity and her work continues to grow. She's an excellent draftsman with a very personal sense of color and space.
A bunch of little doodle faces says nothing much to me-its just a big,frontal wad of anonymous sort-of -people
What a hurricane of comments! Glantzman is the real deal. Here's my two cents
I'd have to agree with gloo. Glantzman has been smushing around in the paint since Schutz was in daipers. That's not to say that influence only runs down hill, but just because there are similar forms doesn't mean someone is stealing from someone else. This kind of Expressionism was all done at least as well by the 3 Cs and the Germans back in the 80s. With all due respect, seems like now we just need to repackage the whole thing so that some ladies can get in on the action. Female Elvis impersonators.
Thumbs up, really dig her work.
Post a Comment