6/22/2006

Jenny Dubnau

21 comments:

Painter said...

Jenny Dubnau
Girls gone Wild group show @
Exit Art
475 Tenth Avenue
New York, NY 10018

brambles said...

I saw her solo show at PPOW a few months ago and really liked it. She's got serious skills and a sense of humor that comes through in the work; she's not afraid to poke fun at herself. There's a deftness to the paint handling, & a sense of specificity of texture & light that she nails without being too render-y. They're really satisfying to see.

albino radio1 said...

yeah, i think everything could be abstract, except where the red frames the face.

everything threatens to become abstract, except the eyes, because everything is flush with red. and the entirety of the image threatens to pulsate out of sight at any second.

this painting says to me that the further away you more from her expression (or expression), the more abstraction sets in.

the painting i think wants me to move into a deep, confusing abstraction, especially since her eyes kind of force you to leave her as a steady point.

the intenseness of the red and its humming put me into an emotional place, maybe that is the same as an abstract place.

bigsurprises said...

I am sorry to have missed a whole show of this painter's work. I have seen a couple in group shows, fortunately, and love them. There were two in a group show at David Krut projects last month that were the best in the show.
I can't wait to see this in person.
I am in total agreement with Brambles about this artists' paint handling abilities. From the paintings I've seen, she manages, with thin layers of paint, to attain an incredible richness and a heightened emotional state.

no-where-man said...

promo for Exit Art 2nite? - y do i doubt the "wild"

Cooky Blaha said...

u lost me on this one

rumble said...

What is the criteria for the evaluation of art?

rumble said...

Better yet, what are the criteria for the evaluation of art?

harold hollingsworth said...

so Cindy Sherman has taken up painting?

cornflower said...

i saw this show and didn't get much beyond the quality of the painting, which is very nice, the color, texture, etc. but i don't think she reached far enough(if at all)beyond her reference to make a Painting. it would have worked much better if she simply showed the photographs.

painterdog said...

"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.

no-where-man said...

hey there, - back of cindy, shes hot in a towel...!
this chick is kinda sumgly with what are those pants?

zipthwung said...

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 said...

uh, i meant beyond her photographic reference, the one she painted these from. art school jargon? you're giving me too much credit. i was simply talking about process.

painterdog said...

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.

serena said...

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.

josie said...

I agree with zipthwung, I wouldn't want this painting above my bed either.

I caught the show at PPOW and I found the work depressing. They portray either a place I don't want to go or a person I don't want to meet.

And what is the point of the silly costumes? A witch hat on a grown woman? Is a silly costume or expression enough to make a painting interesting? I don't think so. Also, there has to be something in a painting that isn't ugly or dreary. The work is too politely painted (staid) to be bold and brash. It's some tentative place between realism and expressionism.

The paintings are repetitive. I looked her up online and her earliest painting (2000) is the same as these, figure in the center, against a solid color wall, painted the same way. How about a full figure? A location? A different subject? A development in technique?

The artist seems stuck and needs a change.

Question for the crowd: why do artists make the same thing over and over and over? Do they not realize they are doing it?

josie said...

I caught the show at PPOW and I found the work depressing. They portray either a place I don't want to go or a person I don't want to meet.

And what is the point of the silly costumes? A witch hat on a grown woman? Is a silly costume or expression enough to make a painting interesting? I don't think so. Also, there has to be something in a painting that isn't ugly or dreary. The work is too politely painted (staid) to be bold and brash. It's some tentative place between realism and expressionism.

The paintings are repetitive. I looked her up online and her earliest painting (2000) is the same as these, figure in the center, against a solid color wall, painted the same way. How about a full figure? A location? A different subject? A development in technique?

The artist seems stuck and needs a change.

Question for the crowd: why do artists make the same thing over and over and over? Do they not realize they are doing it?

ec said...

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.

seymourpansick said...

Great painter.
Great facility of technique.

Period.

Jaffe said...

Hey, I recently added a news widget from www.widgetmate.com to my blog. It shows the latest news, and just took a copy and paste to implement. Might interest you too.