10/26/2006

Anton Henning

58 comments:

Painter said...

Anton Henning @
Zach Feuer Gallery
530 West 24th Street
New York, NY 10011

Fake Tattoo said...

could have been painted 50 years ago, but i still like it.

tomas said...

I'm pretty sure it would have looked out of date 50 years ago.

tomas said...

Saw the show. It seems filled with easy ironies about painting from about 1880 through modernism, though I'm not sure I understand the context the work is made in. Kind of unusual but I thought some of the paintings look better on the gallery's website than in person.

zipthwung said...

The woodwork is pretty allright, but the show would have been better if the joints were dovetailed.

Cooky Blaha said...

the interior decorator as artist. I actually think that was a title of a magazine piece about this show. agree it looked better online. Something unsettling in a negative way about the work when seen in person.

camron said...

the point is that its out of date. hence the yellow stain on the tables. The idea of art as an abject for sale isn't an irony its an understated reality.

camron said...

object

zipthwung said...

abject

tomas said...

What makes it understated as opposed to ironic? The show looked pretty heavily ironic to me- the fake religious atmosphere, the darkened space, the furniture, the frames...

Art objects are often made for sale. That is not their only use.

zipthwung said...

something about the palette reminds me of Gregory amenoff

I had a friend who studied under him - he said he couldnt reach her. She lifted the curtain and clicked her heels together.

I dont know about content though. Seemed like an art joke where GA prob gets stoned...ill go with GA, cuz smokin and trippin is all that I do.

heidilolatheayatollah said...

Is this for real? This is horrible.

Funny, just because it is at LFL gallery does that mean it is more important than if it was in a basement with dad's oil paint and watercolor experiments? Because they look the same to me.

Context is an odd, odd thing.

kelli said...

You know that old expression for people you aren't serious about but find appealing on a surface level: "I wouldn't kick them out of bed".
I wouldn't kick this off my wall.

epilepticadam said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
brent hallard said...

There's a funny kind of edge there, and it's between that old, odd and tired (less the heaven and hell)--goo with playful ironic; 'motif' as curl's twist, like a cat plays up to, who knows who has the bait.
They remind me of naughty garden tools, less spatulas of re: design, I can guess probably they do look even more color-tired in person. But it is the season, of the color, before, brightly turning red, or yellow, or orange--here anyhow! But be that what may, the fun is there in jpg!

Cooky Blaha said...

its just like I'm in london
http://www.veoh.com/search.html?query=scope+art+fair&type=&numResults=20

no-where-man said...

Ceci n'est pas un hosted event.

Hans said...

Does somebody know what the prices are at the Gallery ?

chicomacho said...

zach the Feurer = mostly shit artists that get way too much attention! Got to hand it to him, he obvioulsy is great witht he PR bullshit!

zipthwung said...

Dudes making fun of some kind of interior decor esthetic but by doing so is in fact perpetuating the same sickness, parody of a parody. Pretty self reflexive, and thus modernist. This is a great example of the terminal moron of modernism.

zipthwung said...

moraine.

Cooky Blaha said...

those some bold words chico..if thats the case, then whose your idea of a good, honest art dealer.

kelli said...

I love Ridley Howard's work and Natalie Djurberg and I respect Schutz- I think she deserves all her success. Feuer has a reputation as a decent guy. I've seen him talking respectfully with students at Hunter about their work.

chicomacho said...

as for schutz, she deserves all her success???? I wouldn't say that! Have you seen her 'retrospective'? Its obvious when walking around it that she can paint too a point, but shouldn't be in the position she is in. Her being in 50 shows a year isn't her talent, its zach promoting the shit out of her till everyones brainwashed!

and...I didn't say all the artists at the gallery were shit either, but a hell of alot of them are!

Just as most of his artists, he has also been WAY overhyped as a dealer.

but hey what do i know? I don't live in nyc, so maybe I am just not aesthetically deficient as most of the art world has become! aka barnaby furnace's show????

these are supposed to be the great artistic talents of this time, YOU GOT TO BE FUCKING KIDDING ME!!!

Cooky Blaha said...

yet other good artist at Feuer: Jules de Balincourt, Stuart Hawkins, Christoph Ruckhäberle, Tim Lokiec....
I agree that Furnas show was weak, but some of the small works had promise. No one really seems to be lauding him as one of the great talents though.

zipthwung said...

bF

LOT 70

l - BARNABY FURNAS
B. 1973
HEARTBREAK RIDGE

400,000—600,000 USD


My bet is it sells to a friend of the family. That or someone gets a horses head int he bed sort of thing.

Cooky Blaha said...

sva mfa motherfucker what

kelli said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
kelli said...

I'm just saying he has a reputation as an honest artist friendly dealer.

chicomacho said...

the fact that barnaby furnas is talked about, in major exhibitions, and (as our good friend zip lets us know) auctioned etc... means he is being put in the ranks as a talent of this time!

Everyone would be in the magazines and the major shows if it had nothing to with the projection of possible cultural importance.

What I'm saying also is not completely about the aesthetics either...

there are a hell of a lot of people who can paint well

conceptually though??...schutz, furnas, balincourt etc.. are WEAK and hailed (because they are in publications and in MAJOR museums) as the great talents of this time which is all PR and not because they are actually this important and the sad thing is, the critics and most viewers have totally bought into it!

As for THE DEALER, i don't know him personally, but from what I have been told he is a bit of an asshole and often has disrespected other dealers etc...

Ever wonder why he started NADA? It wasn't because he just didn't want to be in Art Basel!!!!

kelli said...

I guess saying somebody is ethical and nice for an art dealer is like saying "you give great blowjobs for a nun"but still.

Cooky Blaha said...

personal attacks based on 2nd hand info is cheesy dude. btw where do you live [out of curiosity](i assumed ny cuz you mentioned greene naftali)

Cooky Blaha said...

and if your in the answering questions mood, who would you name as conceptually strong contemporary painters?

chicomacho said...

who is making personal attacks? I didn't say i hate the guy or anything, i just said he is overhyped and from what I heard, has been a very mean person at times. ITs nothing against him personally, I'm sure there are other dealers too who suck too.

The Art Basel thing speaks for itself....one of the hottest dealers and he has never been in one?

no, i don't live in ny (i said that above) and who mentioned greene naftali?

as for painters...im too tired too think of names...my point anyways isn't about one artist over another, its that there are many artists out there who are getting an awful a lot of attention and they are better at bullshitting than making work that isn't bullshit

zipthwung said...

Art dealers are unethical? Didnt dude get pissed at the SVA admissions counselor who sells "counterfeits"?

Or am I thinking of someone else.

Anyways, Barbara Gladstone showed some crafty stuff - maybe thats what this show is about.

THe ceramics - its hard to get the red, (or at least It is for me) I know that. Good craftsmanship. The knit or macramed rothkos are nice too. I'd go for them but I hate art jokes. Still, as objects they arent bad.

FOrget all that blather about resituating the seat of feminism in the chakra of the mantra. Just put em up in the hacienda and make some fucking sangria.

YOu are escaping your friends with rothkos. YOu are going to big sky country. Pay no attention to the dentists drill. Thats an illusion.

zipthwung said...

How many dealers use exclusivity and the duality of in/out to market the work? All the suckcessfull ones?

Cooky Blaha said...

@chico.I'm only hearing negative rants.if that floats your boat, go fer it. to keep it interesting please offer one positive comment about a specific contemporary artist. i like naming names. thats how i expand.....

kelli said...

Chico you are certainly entitled to your thoughts and I've always liked your comments but I have to restrain myself from spilling first hand gossip about other dealers ( openly racist, cheating artists, dropping an artist for just disagreeing with a collector). Where there is smoke there is fire and this guy does not have that kind of smoke.

kelli said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
kelli said...

Zip if anyone tells you to resituate anything in your root chakra you should probably get angry.

chicomacho said...

i honestly am not trying to make negative rants...(sometimes i have hard time explaining what i mean without making it sound horrible)

In the end, I'm cool with anyone who is doing there thing and its working, but...

I guess the jist of it is...I just feel like there is a lot of bullshit out there (in all aspects of the artworld) and I feel like know one is really stepping up and admitting it!!! Yeah, i know its always been there, but fuck, are we just gonna let the same old shit keep happening?

There are too many good artists out there that aren't getting any attention and the same ones are getting all the shows! and these same ones a lot of the time, are not that great!!!

Like i said, i give props too the dealer cause he knows how to work it and many of his artists are CONSTANTLY talked about and put in all the shows! But I feel like its more him than the artists talents a lot of the time!

I'm just saying (based on kelli's comments) he might not be as nice as everyone thinks! This isn't hearsay, and I'm not telling specifics, I'm just saying people that I respect and trust were disrespected by him! thats it! I'm sure he isn't the first or the last.

kelli said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
zipthwung said...

Yeah I get mad when people talk over my head with big words like that.

Who dropped someone for not dancing like a trained monkey for a collector? Isnt that why you serve/limit the drinks at the dinner? Or I mean, does the artist have to talk to a collector? Ive heard of artists who dont even exist! Put that in your idea grinder and so on and so forth. I bet ninetynine percent of all artists are at least partially cyborg, if not organ donors.

zipthwung said...

chicomacho, I dont think half of what you said is wrong, more the tone, which puts people on the defensive and raises hackles. DOnt appologize! fuck that.

Youll just get more pissed.

Rather than address each point though, Ill just let Jim Beam do the talking.

Me: Jim?

Jim: Yo yo.

Me: you are a major player.

Jim: Yeah, well Jack daniel was higher proof, but they changed that and now I'm less expensive.

Me: You mean cheaper.

Jim: No, less expensive.

Me: thats semantic bullshit.

Jim: Yeah.

Me: Fucking cut the shit.

Me: Quit it.

Jim: I know.

Me: Ok!

Jim: I hate most art dealers as a class.

Me: Now Jim, thats just not fair.

Jim: No, its my oppinion, asshole.

Me: Ok, allright. But its your oppinion, you have your math and I'll have THE MATH.

J: THats a Rumsfeld QUote

Me: Yeah. Spirally Jetty dude said he hates fucking galleries.

J: oh yeah?

Me: Yeah.

Me: see the art world is an ecology with runners who make deals between galleries, collectors who finance deals and store art at galleries and get tax...

J: Im losing my buzz

Anonymous said...

in defense of dana.

i don't have a problem with people getting attention---even if it is attributed to the marketing of certain individuals as some allege. my problem is more with the fact that others don't get their work shown and don't have enough avenues to get their message across.

i actually think some of dana's work can be inspiring for younger artists in that her overt mark making is easily discernible and can give a person a sense that they could paint like that as well.

i have no beef with the ability of one artist to captivate the interest of another.

cocomacho said...

chicomacho - what was this experance you were so upset by? lets hear some gossip.

feuer is in artbasel miami. many of the nada dealers could be if they sent in applications, john connley, cristina wilson, white columns, etc.

heidilolatheayatollah said...

I understand exactly what you are saying about the current situation of things chicomacho, but what is the solution?? To become an influential tastemaker (and how that is done is pretty impressive in it's own right) at the expense of doing less art (I assume you are an artist from your passionate response) .

Hey-- did anyone look at that link cookie b posted? Oh geez now I'm going to have to compulsively go through the whole thing , so much to go through and see. Good link!

dotor kunst said...

Chico, sounds like a severe case of sour grapes hombre. Unfortunately, if the press and the media say it’s important, it’s important. I wish it wasn’t true, but they are the recorders of culture. Your opinions might be correct for you, but until you can convince the 2000 people who make up the top levels of the art world you’re just another whining looser. Tough love.

kalm james said...

I saw the show last week. When I walked through the door I was hit with the smell of curing linseed oil, always a good start for me. (Same smell at the Keith Mayerson show too.) The paintings are kinda fun, recalled George Condo circa 1988, but with more chunks and goo.

The woodworking raises the question of production methods i.e. did Henning actually do some of the work or just suggest designs to some pros. The frames also seemed to be an extrapolation of devices used by other artists in the Condo circle of 80s Neo-Expressionists/Neo-Surrealists, google “The Frame is Now Part of the Picture” by Grace Gluck. The installation was intriguing though a bit over hung and cluttered. I thought the video was extraneous, but had some irony as a commercial for the high end luxury furnishings.

Ironic self-referenciality seems to be eating its own tail; Henning refers to Condo, who refers to Picabia, who references Ingres (and everyone else). So much contemporary production is lost in a maze of troups, philosophical dialectics and, fashion trend blow-back that the actual; practice of painting is lost, or at least placed in a subordinate position. Maybe it’s easier to have a clever strategy than to actually learn how to make good paintings.

chicomacho said...

I think Kalm James last comment was sort of hitting on the head of what I am talking about!

I don't know how to change things or if they can be changed, but it just seems like everyone has become complacent about it all.

my views or comments are not coming from a negative place either (if that is what your referring too doctor kunst) I live off my work, things are going well for me, I'm grateful and have no complaints, so my comments are not stemming from jealousy or anything to that effect!

I just think there is so much more out there that is better than what is being represented and if I am wrong, and this is the best of the best, than things really are in a sad state.

The article in the New Yorker talking of Furnas's show. Him in in studio drinking his red wine as Boesky comes over to help his 2 assistants make these big abstract paintings???? Is this a fucking joke??? These Big paintings about blood and the parting of the red sea etc... NO, ACTUALLY, THEY ARE JUST BIG RED ABSTRACT PAINT Splashes! Geez...the concepts of that show, they are a fucking dredged over joke!

The article on Blake Rayne in Artforum, WHAT THE FUCK? Is this shit serious??? Can anyone even understand the damn thing?

I guess ultimately what bothers me is, does anyone outside of this thing we call 'the artworld' really give a fuck? and if they don't (which i think is probably pretty true) then what are we really doing? After this insane history of painting, is this the best we have left? Self-referential bullshit or lame attempts at protraying issues in bad aesthetics?

Cooky Blaha said...

the art world is so vast now that you dont have to concentrate on these kind of tidbits and vanity pieces. Looking at a place like Chelsea from a distance does put you at a disadvantage though, to skewing your eyes towards the more negatively splashy aspects. J saltz said something to this effect recently, and I had formulated the same opinion myself over time: if you go through Chelsea, 1 out of 15 shows is decent, 1 out of 25 is good , 1 out of 50 is really great. The margin is sometimes higher, especially for decent shows, but it sill makes it a thrilling place to be able to look at art at times, though yeah, if you see 20 shows and they all sucks then its depressing....in a place like NY though, there is almost always something good to see, which accounts for my puzzlement at your negativity....btw I never rely on artforum to lift my spirits.

zipthwung said...

I rely on artforum to kiss my ass.

kelli said...

Chico I have to agree with your general frustration if not the specifics. But if art is more uniform and orthodox than it could be ( strange considering that more artists than ever are able to survive ) don't we really have ourselves to blame? I haven't read Artforum for years: it gives me panic attacks.

chicomacho said...

Yes Kelli!

thats my point really, I think we could be trying so much more than we are. I think its great and amazing that there is so much creativity now and that so many more artists can survive (its about time). I don't want to come across like I am looking down on that part, cause I am not.

I just think the line has gotten very blurred between what is an artist and someone just making pictures.

There seems to be a lot of people just making cool images. I have nothing against this, but if thats all its about, then can't anyone pretty much call themselves an artist?

I don't know, I just thought an artist was someone who did more than just make pictures, there was something very relevant about it all.

It seems like an awful lot of things out there are more clever in the description than in the actual image. So clever that the outside world doesn't connect too it at all. Some artists don't mind this, but for me, this is a key failure of this time period.

Someone like Furnas I give all the credit that he is attempting at what he is, but in the end, no one really gives a fuck. Of course, he is smiling all the way to the bank, but is that the best we can do?

kelli said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
NNCGT said...

in repsonse -- as for whether the show could have been painted 50 years ago, that's not the point of this art. not only COULD these paintings have been painted fifty years ago, but they are deliberately in this outmoded style to conjure an atmosphere of the past. however, the PIECE, i.e. the installation, would not have been made 50 years ago -- it is very much based in a contemporary strategy not largely used as art per se then (Dali being one excpetion). So, what is this deliberate retro access of decidedly outmoded styles all about? Nostalgia for the Oedipal battles of Modernist painting, one central concern of a number of ZFGallery's artists -- it's conforting to remember a time when there was a purposeful march to zero in painting, and it's enjoyable to reenact it.

NNCGT said...

ps to chicomacho. you're lumping stuff together and getting things wrong -- balincourt is not really concpetually weak -- since he has a wide-ranging painting and sculpture practice, it is plausible to find certain painting practices more or less effecive. for example, the maps strike me as somewhat didactic/preachy, while "blind faith and tunnel vision" (the ptg. that looks like shakedown street) to me is quite poetic and still politiclaly resonant (though a bit pricey i hear...) i don't think furnas is exactly conceptually weak either --perhaps he's clever as balincourt, but still someone who sometimes presents something intersting to think about -- for example, painting on animal skins is very interesting -- conceptually at least as much as visually. very primal and worked pretty well with that subject. that work reminded me of a max ernst painting. the floods, i need to think abot more, but conceptually weak is not what comes to mind. What is weak are his Jesus-painting skills. As an aside, I do think that with figure-painting chops like that, he's better off as an abstractionist.
Anyway, again, Chico these three artists you mentioned are not un-conceptual but the location of the concept is different in this kind of work than it was in more overtly concpetual work of the 90s

NNCGT said...

oops i meant -- perhaps he's NOT as clever as balincourt. typo.