Summary: In J.D. Salinger's "Catcher in The Rye," Holden Caulfield's red hunting hat, when combined with the passage in which the novel's title is explained, is symbolic of how he wants to preserve the innocence of childhood against the "phoniness" of the adult world.
Scarf, hat, whatever. Is it some sort of renaissance merchant sort of thing? I dunno. I missed that class.
Maybe it means nothing, and art is just stuff. In that case, I like this painting despite my distaste for the academic - I find it a bit creepy. Imagine hanging it above your bed!
Cornflower, you said "beyond her reference to make a Painting" which is something I heard in grad school all the time, hence the jargon comment.
Well I can see what your saying as Jenny's process is so wound up in photography. Maybe she just wants make them paintings as they start to take on more dimensionality and start to move away from the flatness of photography.
This way she can control picture plain and so on.
Or maybe she just wants to make goofy portraits of herself and friends.
I don't think it's creepy, and I'd hang it above my bed. It's simple and bizarre and bizarre in its simplicity, and she nailed the technique, which is a whole other dimension beyond pretending to paint like this and NOT nailing it. Which I see an awful lot of in this pretentious post-post-modern whatever-it-is that we're in.
I saw her solo show at B & W, probably two years ago now, and it was great but this is better.
Why do artists make the same thing over and over? Eternal return, the human condition, dig for the truth. There's building on something. Wanting to see it precisely so, which takes time and effort, maybe years--this is not about John Lurie's approach but an enquiry into the pictorial--into perceiving over recognizing. There's deepening the point of view. There's the challenge of painting, which is harder than photography, sorry, it is exacting and demanding, especially at this level. This painter whips up a painting like milkshake--her marks fly and land precisely where needed--the strange props and fixed gazes bely the sleight of hand with a psychological tug. It is important these paintings exist. They are as good as any throughout history, but painted NOW and painted by a woman. What, stop the presses after 1865, because we've seen enough of this kind of painting?! She's one of the best. She fights her facility with her subject matter and that makes the work smarter. The costumes are metaphors and although they might be too overt for some, the paintings seen in person insistent on multiple realities at one time.
11 comments:
Jenny Dubnau
Girls gone Wild group show @
Exit Art
475 Tenth Avenue
New York, NY 10018
promo for Exit Art 2nite? - y do i doubt the "wild"
u lost me on this one
so Cindy Sherman has taken up painting?
"but i don't think she reached far enough(if at all)beyond her reference to make a Painting"
Uhh, let me see, yes reference to making a painting...
She is making a painting, why would you need reference something that already is.
This is just art school jargin.
I think she is a good painter, also nods towards Susanna Coffey.
There a bit to cute for me, I like the older work.
hey there, - back of cindy, shes hot in a towel...!
this chick is kinda sumgly with what are those pants?
I googled red hat +symbolism and I got:
Summary: In J.D. Salinger's "Catcher in The Rye," Holden Caulfield's red hunting hat, when combined with the passage in which the novel's title is explained, is symbolic of how he wants to preserve the innocence of childhood against the "phoniness" of the adult world.
Scarf, hat, whatever. Is it some sort of renaissance merchant sort of thing? I dunno. I missed that class.
Maybe it means nothing, and art is just stuff. In that case, I like this painting despite my distaste for the academic - I find it a bit creepy. Imagine hanging it above your bed!
LASSEN!
Cornflower,
you said "beyond her reference to make a Painting" which is something I heard in grad school all the time, hence the jargon comment.
Well I can see what your saying as Jenny's process is so wound up in photography. Maybe she just wants make them paintings as they start to take on more dimensionality and start to move away from the flatness of photography.
This way she can control picture plain and so on.
Or maybe she just wants to make goofy portraits of herself and friends.
I don't think it's creepy, and I'd hang it above my bed. It's simple and bizarre and bizarre in its simplicity, and she nailed the technique, which is a whole other dimension beyond pretending to paint like this and NOT nailing it. Which I see an awful lot of in this pretentious post-post-modern whatever-it-is that we're in.
I saw her solo show at B & W, probably two years ago now, and it was great but this is better.
Why do artists make the same thing over and over?
Eternal return, the human condition, dig for the truth.
There's building on something. Wanting to see it precisely so, which takes time and effort, maybe years--this is not about John Lurie's approach but an enquiry into the pictorial--into perceiving over recognizing.
There's deepening the point of view.
There's the challenge of painting, which is harder than photography, sorry, it is exacting and demanding, especially at this level.
This painter whips up a painting like milkshake--her marks fly and land precisely where needed--the strange props and fixed gazes bely the sleight of hand with a psychological tug.
It is important these paintings exist. They are as good as any throughout history, but painted NOW and painted by a woman. What, stop the presses after 1865, because we've seen enough of this kind of painting?!
She's one of the best. She fights her facility with her subject matter and that makes the work smarter. The costumes are metaphors and although they might be too overt for some, the paintings seen in person insistent on multiple realities at one time.
Great painter.
Great facility of technique.
Period.
Post a Comment