9/06/2006

Nicole Maynard

49 comments:

Painter said...

The Bowery Gallery
530 West 25th Street, 4th Floor
New York, NY 10001

zipthwung said...

Didactic art is hard. Sue COe might be the best - not my taste but you know. Richard Serra tried one. He should stick to killing people.

I prefer didacticism to be gut wrenchingly funny. This seems more in the realm of womens studies classes at second rate colleges.

There is still hope - take off the first place prizes from the resume and spend some time in NY looking at actual picassos.

zipthwung said...

Keep the liquitex award and hold on to the weird religious thing - for cerial.

kelli said...

been seeing a lot of skeletons and skulls recently.
So hard to compete with the old school.
http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en/thumb/7/7e/180px-Holbein-death.png

exu said...

I thought it was carl andre who killed people

chucky said...

But everybody dies and I am the crying jester of the future.

operation enduring artist said...

looks like the skeleton is a shout out to mccarthys penis hat.
...well, i guess jesters dont wear hats, just pirates...

af said...

this is a total aside, please forgive me, no disrespect to the artist, but does anyone know the name of the artist(s) who surveyed the public and came up with the best and worst painting and then painted them. maybe they're russian if i remember correctly? i'm using them in a calass tonight and i cant find them on google. seems there are a lot of best and worst paintings out there.
thanks

Mothra said...

Komar & Melamid: America's Most (and least) Wanted Paintings.

af said...

you are so awesome! thank you.

devinlevin said...

really, it's come down to this? the fact that this is even being shown in a gallery
makes me question everything.

chucky said...

what do you mean exactly devinlevin? Please explain because I am listening.

burrito brother said...

Why is the "Bowery" Gallery in Chelsea? It's nowhere near the Bowery...

kalm james said...

This reminds me of the works of Byron Brown and Abraham Rattner. Both were popular after WWII and both kept working figuratively while everyone else was going in for the Ab-Ex. Both of them did clown series which in retrospect look horrible (maybe good in today’s reassessment mode). They were practitioners of a funky figuration like Phil Guston before he switched to abstract impressionism. Crusty paint, cheesy narrative, bombastic symbolism, kinda Picassoesque pastiche. If George Condo had painted this, everyone would be thinking how ironic and clever it is.

During the East Village scene sculls and crosses were required symbols in virtually every painting, Rick Prol, David Wojnarowicz and Sue Coe included

The Bowery Gallery is a co-op gallery that started out on the Bowery in the mid seventies. It moved to a couple of locations in Soho through the eighties and nineties then like every other gallery slid over to the “Mall of American Art” (Chelsea) about two years ago.

dharmabum said...

please explain why this painting is even on this site. I'm listening.

Cross said...

Can't believe no one has used the phrase "But there's something about it that is just so haunting..." yet. I can just hear that whispered in wine-induced awe at the gallery opening. One good cliche deserves another. Dia de los Muertos meets Picasso. Soulful-ish.

lion king said...

Jesus, this is getting so mean spirited. What's the problem? Is it too sincere? Is it the gallery that offends? Using old fashioned themes shouldn't be grounds for dismissal.

poppy said...

we seem to be making connections soley on symobolism here.. tis' a tad bit shite, horrific surface.. and why on site? why not?, something to talk about.. like its shite'ness.. Condo and this person have the same agenda?.. guaranteed not so, I don't even have to familiarize myself with this persons work to see that..this painter has just learned how to paint with variations of one color me thinks.. Unlike condo, he figured out monochromatics a while ago..way to go bro!

kelli said...

James is on point: if Condo made it we would love it.

poppy said...

no it isn't true, Condo wouldn't make this... where is the connection besides in the theme... nothing else..

and nothing wrong with old themes... lets post some contemporary painters one after the other that use old themes and see if we can find any differeces in the paintings outside of the theme?.. shall we?

lion king said...

poppy, what do you think is the difference? the paint handling is current. maybe you want more specificity.

SisterRye said...

There's more humor in Condo, and a better use of ugly color.

poppy said...

this is dumbed down fauvist paint handling..
and because she has a handle on what she is doing doesn't make this a stand out piece of work.. Bob Ross had a handle on his brand as well so where are his postings?.. i bet you could learn how to gunk paint on like this in a month given the proper instruction..

JpegCritic said...

I agree with poppy and SisterRye.

no-where-man said...

i am going to go with omg. this sucks.

kalm james said...

A better use of ugly color? How about an uglier use of better color? Dumbed down Fauvist paint handling? How can you get dumber than the “beasts?” Don’t get me wrong folks, I don’t think this is a masterpiece, but I’m convinced that the branding affects the “seeing.” Sometimes you can learn more from a failed piece (not saying that this painting is one) than from a success. Take a bundle of clich├ęd narrative elements, add slapdash and gooby paint handling, throw in a repulsive palette selection, and hell you might have gone through what Schnabel has called the “Sea of Shit” to finally arrive at some kind of, maybe, semi, sort of, kinda interesting painting---or maybe not. The tears of a clown,… when there’s no one around.

wade said...

The Kapp, baird and Clemente had uglier color. Baird and clemente were light and pasty, kapp has too much icing, which is fine for cupcakes but isn't good for cars and trucks.

Here's a quick change More a break dance of death over a crying-clown/man-o-sorrows.

zipthwung said...

Seriously, the statement should be re-writtten. Its didactic and destroys what little sincere charm the paintings have.

"Using old fashioned themes shouldn't be grounds for dismissal.


NO, in fact I think you take themes and group them into genres - it makes sense. In the past there were what 4 genres? Now theres horror, sci-fi, monster movies, blaxploitation, prison movies...then there are the sub genres - women in prisons, women in Nazi concentration camps, prison planets, prison boats, prison islands, prison cities, intelligent animal farms, gulags, death row, death aisle, prisons in hell.

Then there are movie cliches - eyes gouged out, eyes being gouged out by thumbs, eyes being punched out then blowtorched and then cut. Its equal opportunity in that last movie.

Point being that no one says, hey that isnt original, isnt any good. They say, wow, I saw that in another movie but in this movie its a lot better. Hostel, for example, is pretty good, in the genre.

SO then we can say, hey, is this good, in the genre? And I say, no, not really, go look at the masters more, because your parody/satire

misses the mark.

I mean from a NEW YORK point of view. We are so very EXISTENTIAL here.

zipthwung said...

ain memory of timothy treadwell

zipthwung said...

I hope this isnt another one of those paintings from a photograph (like a haloween party). Theres a lot of that. I hope its a wheel of futuna, a harlewuin and death as a skeleton.

Reminds me of ingmar bergmans "The Seventh Seal"

some great stuff in that movie. Fuck Picasso, no one I know even looks at his shit anymore.

kalm james said...

So let me get this straight. Bad painting is good painting if the artist knows that he or she is making “bad” painting i.e. Condo, and we assume, knows how to make good paintings but finds it more challenging to the aesthetics of the status quo to make “bad” but not really bad paintings. Meanwhile, if someone makes bad paintings but doesn’t know that they’re “bad” and sincerely thinks they’re good but is mistaken or maybe their trying to make “bad” paintings but not doing a good job of it, then the paintings really are bad “bad” paintings? Does the sincerity of the painter making the bad “bad” paintings count for anything and perhaps raise the aesthetic status of the bad “bad” to mediocre? Is that about right?

Cooky Blaha said...

a painting can be ugly but still formally powerful, for instance most late Oehlen. He's the king of ugly painting, often making his pieces into georgeous, impactful statements
right?

zipthwung said...

yes, absolutely.

Sincerity is everything.

For example - I saw a Kiki Smith piece at the Armory SHow - it was at a booth towards the front, which are the more expensive blue chip booths, the wquivalent of Pixar and stuff at a licensing fair. you might like to know.

The piece was "Woman Tied TO Her Nature" (2001).

THe bronze statue features a woman on the underside of a goat (tied to the goat). I didnt see any rope.

Anyways this is an art joke based on another piece by.....drum roll....Picasso, which consists solely of a bronze goat -same proportion etcetera. Picasso owns the goat I guess - something this artist objects to, no doubt.

THis bronze struck me, because not only do I think Kiki smith is like anne hamilton or dude who -got a sunburn with a theory book to demonstrate for or against scientific empiricism in theory and art. (as a nineteen year old student I understood why one would be that interested in theory, but I didnt, feel oppressed by it. DO you?

All three artists mentioned are ironic duchamp inflected alchemists (otherwise why not just go WICCA? or Gnostic)

Duchamp made the alchemy of art the butt and crux of his art, obviously - of some of the dominant art of the time - they being totally sincere (supposedly) but more probably more insincere than even Kinkade!!!!!!!!

Oh and:

- im sure there's someone in China who can reproduce any one of the paintings on PNYC - if youre not too picky.

here

YOu might even learn a thing or two. Those that cant teach.

are doomed.

no-where-man said...

marilyn manson called he wants his aesthetic back

wade said...

Oehlen is ugly?,
ugly?

i'm offended.

JpegCritic said...

I think it's sweet. Not well done, but sweetly honest.
But not as honestly sweet as olivia newton john in her
country days. Now that's sweet, and don't you deny it.

I'm all into vanitas but..

This is why I avoid Jung at all costs.
The same reason why i avoid the word dionysian.

But I think it's cool that this kind of work
shows in chelesa. Co-ops are cool.

JpegCritic said...

awwww.

dharmabum said...

http://www.kleinartgallery.org/

second prize

lion king said...

I don't get it zip, do you mean that you liked the kiki smith because of the context and historical references? That it was knowing? (I personally wouldn't have related it to picasso at all, but to fairy tales maybe. I did't see the piece so it is hard to say what I would have thought.) I think Kiki smith's work is very sincere. Also I think that is the funniest overview Kalmjames. Maybe contemporary artists really just want to get in touch with their inner primative in which case the faux naive artist is sincere. Like Gaugain, not picasso.

brent hallard said...

I don't know the true interpretation of 'good is bad' as a sign pushing an elitist knowing what deserves savvy. Instead, I look at the obvious--a skeleton that is white and throws contrast, the fauvist account of fauve color mixture, acts as a halo around the hatched darker portrait/face image. Just there, without going further into delineation, lay reasonable enough interest.
How good, bad, or ugly, this image is, it probably best gets discovered in the original, or, better, following the artist's work as it progresses or declines.

Mark said...

this image makes me happy.

closeuup said...

you cant bring up appolonian to complain about it-- and avoid dionysian

zipthwung said...

"do you mean that you liked the kiki smith because of the context and historical references?"


No, I brought it up as another example of art IN THE GENRE of: art based on art history. A long and hallowed hall...
who did it best? Is what I am saying. Because this painting is so IN the genre, I find little PERSONAL and more ACADEMIC.

THis painting is dyonysian with a facade of appolonian.

here

and then here

Kiki has colonized famous white males, as well as relatively unknown contemporary artists as part of her political project, is my theory. Maybe this is news to her.

Tell me I'm wrong? Otherwise we dont call it homage, or appropriation, we call it STEALING.

Just like Picasso.

Without making it your own.

WHich is an unwritten rule in art, which I will write here:

1) All art should have the distinct mark of the mind of the creator.

THis painting may have that mark, but it doesnt sufficiently differentiate itself to be noteable.

And its ugly.

Next.

painterdog said...

very ugly.
its ugly and it wants to die...

Kate said...

The subject matter is cliche, and the painting technique unoriginal & awful. The head makes a big dark hole smack in the center of the composition. Looks like a bad beginning painting student made it. To be kind, this person needs a lot more looking and painting before they show their work. Makes me want to slit my wrists when I think of all the amazing artists who would give their cats to have something hanging on a wall in a NY gallery.

no-where-man said...

just got back - nothing to write home about in ChelSEA 2night. tis Art Mall... a shadow of itself from 7 yrs ago,
The ditch was pretty damn good Wed. This painting kinda mascots it up for first day o the season.

tofu-powered art-chick said...

Well, all I can say is that I appreciate the honest, thought-filled feed-back and I will think about it. Maybe I have no talent; the merit of the work is obviously debatable, but I can say that I am sincere in my intent. Maybe it's not this and maybe it's not that, but words can certainly shape perception. As far as being disappointed that my work is what is being shown in Chelsea, you can be glad to know that it probably won't be again because the co-op is too expensive to stay in and apparently the critics and galleries agree with you that I should pack it up. I am starting a blog called Art Weekly where I will make a new artwork each week to post. http://artweekly.blogspot.com Feel free to check back and give me your two cents.

tofu-powered art-chick said...

I forgot to say that I like ugly art sometimes. And not to make you feel guilty, but my dog had cancer and was just put to sleep last night. Alright, I lied, not about the dog, but it would give me a small degree of satisfaction if you felt a little guilty...

tofu-powered art-chick said...

Oh, and that work isn't hanging in the show, but some other equally poorly conceptualized and executed work of mine is.