Larissa Bates @Monya Rowe526 w 26th st #605new york, ny 10001
well ok. I like it very much. Go womb-man.Hurrah i awake from yesterdayalive but the war is here to stayso my love catherina and medecide to take our last walkthrough the noise to the seanot to die but to be re-bornaway from a life so battered and torn....
I likey! Can't wait to see it in person. This is the best art so far on the October line up.
It's hard not to find these works appealing,tho some of the elements that make them appealing are the same things that wall them off from a deeper resonance
Have to agree this is the most interesting from the month. People were complaining in the Henning thread about just phoning it in. So there you go.
hereTheres something that reminds me of William T wiley, too.
did she have paintings of high school wrestlers in her last show?
The most interesting post of October? This j-peg is too small to really tell what’s going on. I think that it’s somewhat derivative of Rockman, with the tropical landscape and cut-away views of the water. The press release seems to indicate a green-feminist agenda. Neo-Neo-surrealism for the tree huggers and granola crunchers. That said, I’d still like to see it in the gallery .
Maxfield Parrish anyone????
Why arent these oil paintings?Why are they on linen?WHat is a drawing?If I turn in a painting can it still count as a drawing? WHats the cut off?I like oil paint, is why I ask.
Mafield parish and Ill raise you a japanese print.
And an Indian Miniature painting for your closet full of bounty towels. Or your sea sponge.
And a Chelsea rainbow for your pot of gold.
I'm seein it tomorrow....by the way in the middle ages the word for brush was pencil, if that adds any spice to drawing painting discussion
baba yagaooga booga.
after reviewing the website a bit more, and seeing larger pictures, I think I will not be seeing this show. I just cant take the faux naieve genre any longer.... Please artworld move on. What makes something an illustration as opposed to not? Seriously?
well maybe it is an illustration, but it still works. I am of the school of thought that if something falls in that camp, does not make it instantly dismissible.....but that is a whole other topic.
Is anyone going to t
...alk about imagining the future... the female man thing? The continuing utopian imagination thingee?
how can you see all that from that teeny weeny jpeg?
You can kind of tell from the titles. Agreed she fits into the imagined utopia, Darger,shelter porn, teeny brush genres. Just think much better than the others.
this reminds me of progress real and imagined by Nicole Eisenman which I wasnt a fan of, plus some of the figures look like Rosa Loy which I was a fan of,..but falls short of either? this one doesnt do it for me , havent seen the show in person yet though.
Speaking of the themes, this is one of the only shows where the press release and the art seems to match up perfectly. Made me wonder if it is possible to be too aware of what one is going for, where you start capitolizing on it and becoming so clear that the term illustration could be used as a criticism in this case....maybe it is not so good to be so hyper aware of what your work is about lest it gets pushed to that corner?
just thinking out loud, i'm mostly a fan though.
marcel dzama, john currin, eisenman, mumford, debalincourt, etc... so many fall into illustrator-like imagery... that it becomes stupid to classify it simply... i personally believe it has to do more with content than the form that makes something illustration( although both can address very similar ideas). but both can look 'illustration-like'... and both can be equally poignant or bad... it all has to do with their own audience... subjectivity...
so then you all seem to be saying that illustration is tied to narrative. Where does that put surrealism? does that mean that non narrative ie matthew barney which upon first inspection has no cohesive narrative, is just a new form of narrative? Is that Meta narrative? No, that would be narrative inside narrative. So what would you call this disjointed narrative structure. is there a word that someone knows of? One that is in use?
Barneys film origins come from a history performance documentation and have grown increasingly mainstream narrative over the years.
a ton of illustration is non-narrative
can you give me an example of non narrrative illustration? Do you mean abstract?
bats:do you me by narrative -"telling a story"? please define ...
whenyou have more than one person in the picture,seems like a narrative then-
so are people saying:if there is a figure in the image it is deemed 'narrative'=illustration? that's silly... bats please define...
yeah,a lot of works with figures are figure studies,I suppose-althuogh there is not too much of that right now,Pearlstein..is al I can think of
Why does it matter anymore?
A narrative is some kind of retelling, often in words (though it is possible to mime a story), of something that happened (a story) ...I liked that definition. I dont think for a minute that narrative = illustration, that would be silly, and I am not trying to get into semantics, but we are all talking around it not of it. I think figuration is an integral part, but figuration can be personification of inanimate objects as well. Barney being the example extension out of performance, that fits narrative. What is disjunctive postmodern storytelling, or surrealism? Amy Cutler. That is narrative right? Is it illustration? If so of what? what is the disjunctive story telling narrative of?Maybe it has to do with literalness. I am just probing here to see what people have to say on the matter, not to try and nail it down.If your narrative (painting) tells a specific story, or leads to a specific result/ending, then is it illustrative. Would an instructional narrative be considered illustrational? say a painting that told you how you should think politically, or intimated it, and was not openended in interprutation like say Blake, the path to knowledge is through excess. If something arrives, is it illustrative?Supportive of text or propogandistic literature?It just goes to the whole problem of symbols, in that PoMo says symbols can mean anything. I would say sure they can but they dont.So perhaps narrative is not by definition illustrative yet illustration by definition is narrative?anything?anything?
As to why it matters anymore...Pictures are used to influence the viewer, that is why it matters anymore. Pictures are encoded symbolic messages. So of course it matters.
how about photography
I would posit that a lot of artists don't even know what their narrative is ,if any,but want an excuse to paint pretty and cool things in pretty colors-to make a picture-and throw some oddball stuff in to add mystery
good observation exu--> oddball stuff=hipster.bats:"A narrative is some kind of retelling" really? re-telling? what if this 'thing' hasnt or cant happen. a narrative work can depict something in a way that doesnt insinuate 'retelling'. sometimes it is just telling. also why has all of this narrative talk revolved around figurative work? often a relationship between marks or between two works hung side by side create a conversation, is this a narrative?
closeuup your quoting Jimi...so down and down and down we go, hurry up and lets not be late for the show...
hmm... when i look at her paintings, I do hear the word illustrative in my head (not this is a negative thing, but just the word comes up) maybe its....when everything is rendered in a realistic way but doesn't actually look realistic than it is illustrative? I don't know, just a attempt at defining it! I guess if they looked they way they looked and then there was some sort of gestural or glob or something very paint like, maybe that would kill the illustrative feel of them?oddball stuff=hipster, what does that mean?aren't most artists hipsters to some effect?and what is oddball? to my mom, brice marden would be oddball!
I'm sure your mom could deal with Birce's 4 luxurious homes and 7 figure income.
Bryce marden Daily schedule:Wake and bakesay hi to wifesay hi to kidsplay with dogHave orange juiceHave coffeeRead paperMix luxurious brownSmoke a bowlGO for a walkPaint for half an hourSmoke a bowlLook at painting (1-5 hours)Smoke a bowl.
you forgot, crumple up and enjoy his bounty paper towels!!!
oddball=hipster means the same way a hipster may define who they are by an odd conglomeration of contrasting things and tastes, to differentiate themselves from the hipster next to them -- so do many contemporary artists by borrowing from a bunch of unrelated sources and combining them to equal new art that they reclaim as their own. In fact, the more far out the sources and relatively unclaimed, the better. Just like hipsters!
ouch. at least Moma didn't title the retrospective the Big Chill.
It's all recycled, only the personal choice of combinations can make the art somewhat unique nowadays and "standout" .
A lot of this genre reminds me of Piero DiCosimo (who I love) as much as Darger and I kind of think his paintings were an excuse for pretty colors and bits of oddball imagery. I'm not sure that's a new thing.
What is imagination anyways?As you know I can wield any word as a perjorative, including "the" = as in "the... .. . where was I?I think sometimes people like to read, but others like to be read to.With marden, he emptys his work so that egomaniacs (i.e. people with money) can fill them (i.e. with anecdotes - see six degrees of separation/kevin bacon, pop culture, and secrets!)THis work doesnt look expensive does it? No. Imaginative side scrolling stuff is for the lower eschelon with their x-boxes and their entertainment.What is entertainment?
oh, so like i said, basically most artists are hipsters? (nowadays) shit I always hated hipsters, but according to your definition, thats like everyone i know under 50. I always thought hipsters were those who look the part, but can't actually play it!
its not marden's fault that his paintings cost lots. that's the fault of his dealer.
I ment that "why does it matter anymore" comment generally, and not as a responce about the narrative. I feel quite estranged, and that was my question towards nothing. Everyone can talk as much as they want but it makes no diffrence. Mainly because when I look at many things, lets say 85% of the work I see, I ask why (which could be answered by a why not). It boils down to a person's connections and who they whore themselves out to, so is what we seeing even mattering? What we do see is a trickling urine flow blocked by the prostate of the bigwigs. Its always been like that and always will be. I think I just confused myself more.
My current vote is for geographical cultural dominance. SOrt of Red state Green state kind of thing, to go with the urine metaphor.Im also into political machines - Boss Tweed, Turkeys for the poor, that sort of thing.Horatio Alger and Great Expectations is an intruiging narrative but I prefer Penny dreadfulls about marauding indians scalping settlers than young shoeshine boys making it with pluck and luck by pulling their own bootstraps out of the muck.Oh and life of the mind. Cant misunerestimate that.Thats the probelem and the solution, for me. The donut and the hole.
cathy and zip, I lost you both there, urine? penny dreadfuls? could you expound more? and yes chicomacho, we're all hipsters deep down, borrowing from everywhere. just avoid the skinny pants......
kelli: I agree with you about DargerI think this work is pretty wonderful, so I can't understand why people are so eager to belittle it. Categorizing as a means of dismissal. I don't understand this "conversation." Exu, you are bitter. Stop now.
Chucky you're baaaaack! My comment was about Di Cosimo as well as Darger. I think it's OK for people to be critical. Maybe it might be more helpful to compare her to others in the category though?Roberta Smith was off in comparing her to Echo Eggebrecht. Both good but Eggebrecht is dark Americana not Utopia.
That Marden schedule is funny.
Maybe I'm naive, but reading the illustration discussion it did not seem belittling to the artist, just seemed like a jump off point for a wider topic, people just hashing it out, that's all. On another topic, do a lot of people posting here know eachother in non posting on the internet life? Just curious....
I meant know eachother in *real* life....urgh
Does anyone else see some Ernst? Those deep green eerie hues.....nice.
I am a robot.Theres a clear line drawn in the sand (see the urine dealio) dont you fucking cross it.Look at Rothko's early ashcan identified stuff and tell me how pure he is. WHen exactly did he add the flux and pour himself into the oblivion mold?Marden is living with it, heroicly, sublimely, with his family and 300 of his closest vintages.SOmetimes I feel like Im Chevy Chase on the way to Wally World except wall world doesnt have any rides I can afford. AND its closed.Other times I wonder why this fantasy we call art has any traction at all.
Heidi if we rule out illustration and pastiche there goes half of Western art history.In the old guild system apprentices inherited their teacher's drawings and often worked from them. Pretty or beautiful as a trivial or suspect trait ties into the Marden thread. (I don't know her. I've met Eggebrecht).
chico,when something is "...is rendered in a realistic way but doesn't actually look realistic " perhaps call it 'linear' (drawn); some painters and illustrators are more line-oriented as others use broad strokes of color, value etc, etc, to paint...
I just mean its hard not to be bitter about all of this. Why should we whore ourselves out you know? I ment that around 85% of work I see in galleries and so on I dislike because they are not that great to me visually and conceptually. But maybe because I am bitter. Maybe through time it will change when I look back. Maybe I expect to much? The flow of artists we "see" in the art system is so little for the obvious reasons. A big flow and prices go down. It bothers me that art is supposed to be seeing and because of economics and such we don't see what we could be seeing and what we could be seeing can be so much better than what we are "made" to only see.I'm sorry
That was all commonsense right?
Interesting question, (illustration?)
common sense? hum.. Are there not more Artists being shown right now then ever? is chelsea not the largest collection of gallerys ever together in history? hum, but sampling, well that'z my jam and letmmme see here hipsters eh Andy, hum... check, MisShapes oh word, my roomies are regulars, oh yep most of those movies are on my shelf.. roots in beat culture - well if the disco ball fits.
As I said, I'm just bitter and going off without ever of needing to.
I'm really happy to see more people in the system but wonder why it doesn't create more variety and more access for people who have traditionally been excluded.
I think there is such a thing as art purgatory.
"I meant that around 85% of work I see in galleries and so on I dislike because they are not that great to me visually and conceptually."nwm's point about the grand total of galleries is the case but the percentage of good shows seems to remain about the same regardless of how many galleries there seem to be. The work one might like is probably close to cathys15%, but just at some point in time for certain tastes and not others. In ten years, maybe sooner, fashions will change and young artists will have a different opinion of what to fill their hipster flask with. It was true in the past and it will be true in the future.I would be cautious about equating "prices" with anything other than the pure mercantile aspects of the artworld. At the moment there seems to be a lot of money chasing art, this can change and fairly suddenly. For example, in the late 60’s a number of ‘Greenbergs painters’ fetched high auction prices, fashions changed and today they are out of favor and sell at 1/10th of the currently favored artists.I would be cautious about equating "prices" with anything other than the pure mercantile aspects of the artworld
kelli,"…but wonder why it doesn't create more variety and more access…" The artworld seems to act like the other media models, look at the majority of movies which get made. Even if one has a great idea for a movie, it can be hard to get financing, everyone is playing it safe. The artworld seems to function more or less the same way.
Hmm. More ordinary architecturally benign fantastical landscape painting. This trend seems far from over. I guess asking who paints the best clouds or best water becomes the real conversation...Waterworld vs. The Dark Crystal II.
I suppose we just wait for the art market to crash.Music, fashion and art have been following eachother quite closely. 70's and 80's throwbacks?
it will take quite a while for the market to crash as it is the wealthy who buy it; and it is the wealthly who have benefitted from the economy of bush...
Is this artist really the best example though? I'm not that put off by the genre product placement or press release: within it she's doing something unusually beautiful and specific. It seems more on point for a LOT of the recent posts especially Henning.
Marden schedule LMAO.Trolling this blog for some time- no one ever talks about art & economics glad to see. Taboo subject. A few people in the market make most of the dough, while everyone else can sink or swim. What is creativity anymore, but either being skilled and relevant or finding a rich spouse? By learning to negate your marxist heart and latch on to the social order. That's how most older artists I know did it. Pretty damn creative. I think it takes a lot of personal dishonesty to achieve that. Seriously, it takes a lot of energy. I give them credit. They are more ambitious than lazy bastards like me. All I want to do is paint, I don't want no damn family.Global warming will change everything.
"it will take quite a while for the market to crash as it is the wealthy who buy it;" This isn’t quite the case, in an economic downturn the artmarket will be affected. What has occurred in the past is that the market for emerging and mid-career artists shrinks dramatically, the market for ‘blue-chip’ art sees softer prices but isn’t as affected.
well we will all find out soon enough with the upcoming auctions... the real question is what is going to happen with all the surplus when those gallerys flip into fashion boutiques and condos - air rights on the block anyone?... and to me when my our lovely huge hipster w-burg loft is fliped... GOD FORBID the market crash and put a damper on my 6-8 T-S cocktail promenade.
Laughing My Ass Off
teenspeak for "funny"
yes george,that is more accurate; but art will still be for the rich and they will buy, perhaps at a slower more cautious rate- 'it is still a good investment' for the wise shopper; the sex, alcohol and entertainment industy always survive when the economy is down... i view art as falling into the entertainment catagory..pretty p captured it well:"A few people in the market make most of the dough, while everyone else can sink or swim. What is creativity anymore, but either being skilled and relevant or finding a rich spouse? By learning to negate your marxist heart and latch on to the social order..."
e, Yes, the super rich could care less but in a downturn, gallery sales could contract by at least 50%
i view it as falling into the sex and alcohol. - saatchi's upcoming sales - any thoughts? feelings? predictions?
have pets not kidsavoid drugs and alcohol or get to rehabbuy your primary residencelow overheadevery old artist I know followed all those rules.
Sex is fine but avoid sex with more successful artists.
Why did this pop up in this thread? I feel less cynical about her than many recent posts. Henning deserved it.
Yes, it all comes down to how to weather the storm.Being really devoted helps, everything Kelli said follows suit. Alot of artists have the 'all or nothing' ideology. When times get hard they aren't willing to scale down. Art is not a fantasy, it is a reality. Make it yours. Like arte povera they worked with what was around. Evoke the most amazing out of the most basic. The problem with the market is that much of the nouveau riche are art dumb and ignorant. Not like there isn't wealth to go around. If you care about posterity and want to save the market, and therefore yourself, go be a teacher. Do your craft the ultimate service.
The question about what makes a painting look 'illustrational' is interesting (more interesting than the auction market). The earlier comment about emphasis on line (outline) makes a reasonable point but I wonder if it isn't more just a result of the intent of the painter.I wouldn't characterize this painting of Bates as illustrational but I wonder if her color might make the painting seem like it leans that way a bit
Illustration = rendering.The space in this work is really warped. I'm sure that's a byproduct of the collage-like construction of imagery. The only thing that seems Japanese print-like to me is the graphic signifier for the vegetation and terrain. Plus the severe blue fade for sky. There is wonderful atmosphere in this work but it seems like a trick- creamy yellow horizon with figure ground elements done in near-silhouette. It seems all about detail. Which one can't get from a Jpeg.Must see in person.
people are mixing their terms : 'detail' should be used rather than 'illustrative'; as illustrative and illustration have several meanings ...perhaps use the following terms: 'detail, drawn, line-oriented, narrative, etc, etc' and get more specific in the description for clarity's sake. botticelli is a painter who works with line. he was a wonderful draftsman in the pre-20th century definition. he was commissioned in a similar way that illustrators are today(and similar to the pre-sale of artworks by some fine artists and illustrators); but let us not be ahistorical as to time and place-terminology such as 'painting, illustration, drawing, works on paper' have a different significance depending on the century/decade...etc
zip made the comment "… that as long as it is well painted. This is the essence of academicism." I agree, in the sense that academies, past and present, emphasize ‘technique’ (craft) as if it was a solution to making a great painting, it’s not. What makes a painting great is something beyond technique which I don’t think can be taught.It seems when we use the word ‘illustration’ in a pejorative way we are sensing something about the painting which is not convincing. Sci Fi paintings can suffer from this. I’m wondering if what happens is that as a viewer we get locked into the painting as an image, ,it becomes a picture of itself rather than itself. I don’t think just outlining some stylistic characteristics leads to a definition, taste changes both in painting and illustration and the crossover point would be continually shifting. A painting could use an ‘illustrational’ look to convey a psychological or conceptual point.
off topic...Mirror test implies elephants self-aware
it definitely goes beyond techniqueideally a person 'can/will get farther' if they attain that skill/craft and let go of it (in a commanding/knowing/intuitive way) i do believe knowledge of craft can be essential in 2006 as seen in many contemporary masters(who had the creativity necessary --from anti-art to warhol...)...people are stuck in the 'techniques' of the 80s such as tracing (often badly), projecting etc... and thus so much work out there looks the same.....creativity can only be taught so far... which is essential
I hand draw my underdrawing but it sucks because if everybody uses a projector how can people tell the difference? This artist really deserves some credit. The rocks and trees are clearly forms she struggled out and invented. It reminds me a little of Jay Davis but more of Piero DiCosimo and maybe Fra Fillipo Lippi's rocks. We're kind of joking about invented landscapes as this passing trend but it's a tradition. Maybe a better one than tracing paper.
I think the evidence of the struggle to make the image, whether it is in drawing it or getting the paint right, contains information that adds to the paintings prescence. I find the earlier DeKoonings more interesting for this reason. In a way, this touches on the illustration issue, something drawn contains something about the artist drawing it, it's like encoding a sequence of decisions subliminally into the painting.
kelli,that depends on the visual outcome the artist wishes...drawing and painting are very different... i have seen people who draw or trace well but can't handle a brush with the same confidence...even if someone can trace and is fast, it hardly reflects the final outcome/impact...
Re: preliminary drawing/under drawingI don't think it matters how you get an image up, as long as it does the job, and does it well.Re: innovativenessPersonally I look for an eye that has the flexibility to reinvent the way we see. This way it's a sure thing that the artist is seeing very differently--and with that, I want to get in and see what they are seeing too!Re: imageIt's gooey but not gluey! It's tired! The world is full of these images, easily summoned by the imagination. I don't think it useful to look this way, unless, of course, it earns you a living, and you can live with it.
Didja know-Jenny Saville traced, due to scale. But she did things like work with b+w photos so she would be inventing the color and form.Probably is better if there was less tracing, more form invention. I like the crispness when I see traced forms but that could be the fashion of the day. Probably more paintings would like like Soutine than Katz if tracing was done away with.....? Again-I like Bates work, just some food for thought.
Oh and I love Saville's work too, just added the tracing bit as information.
Brent-who have you seen that reinvents that you would cite as a prime example? I always like names....
Speaking of the tracing line here...Picasso, (sorry to name drop) was constantly tracing and then editing to create (reinvent) the same image with slight additions or subtractions/corrections. The projector problem that people were speaking of is due to Parallax. that is what makes the images look wierd. Nothing wrong with tracing. what about degas? I like this line thread too, the line color problem and its emphasis that shifts from generation to generation. Thanks for the comments on illustration, I think it helped me understand how people classify such things when not using the term as a detractor.
this all about the line thing, i don't know if i buy it. seems like a kinda throw back mentality to not take an active intrest in the working of the market. that is of course if u need to put a roof over your head and food on the table. because it is not just "random" not "random" at all.i remember in my final year of school drinking pretty heavy with a proff who let out "we don't approch the market in school because it is that grim"
Bitter no.Cynical,somewhat.Older,most likely
Brent Hallard said (with no examples):"Re: imageIt's gooey but not gluey! It's tired! The world is full of these images, easily summoned by the imagination. I don't think it useful to look this way, unless, of course, it earns you a living, and you can live with it."
Imagination Example:so i was floating downstream on a raft made out of:ham hocksdonutsships in bottlesOn a river of:Urinedutch chocolatevanitasbloodbeing attacked by:pygmies wearing vintage brandsman-bear-pigleprechaunsEd Meesesweilding:Rainbowscrossbowswrist rocketsReeces PiecesTowards:The edge of th known worldA blank obsidian wallThe edge of the canvas+++++++++++++++++++++++++Watch it brent or Ill do a piece on parallelograms.
Someone should make an art ranting blog.
If an artistic expression is conceived outside the process of making it, then the resulting piece is an illustration of the idea. It's a different type of energy from the image-making or the ideation that happens in-process.Illustrative tendencies may occur in greater or lesser degrees, depending on the methods we set up to allow or block them. Our motivation for making art may determine the degree of illustrative influence. If one is heavily into "being an artist making art", h/she winds up illustrating that particular idea, regardless of the form their work takes. (This example sounds accusative, but is more of a recurring self-realisation).
Ha, Team Truth I just wrote you a long-winded reply, and the magical thing is it just went up in a puff of smoke, disappeared.I'm not going to start again, sorry. Gist, I don't do names. Ask cooky! And as anyone who knows me--I'm a bit of a mono-filament, focus on what's there, I'll live with it. I said something relative to this work, the rest I left open, as it's not a wresting match.I will give a link to an earlier work, which I think is much better, signals are out--there is antenna. You can argue the illustrative! Also zip, I had a funny paragraph designed just for you, that too gone All left to say is 'rhombus to you too!';)http://jameswagner.com/mt_archives/BatesLarissa.JPG
brent I'm coming by Tokyo soon. any good shows up?
... coming by, cooky, look me up?, we'll take in some shows, all-nite 'sing'?. I was talking to TAB honcho about your, generally, some people's comments that Tokyo is a dead zone for art, and he said the same thing as I said to you, it's not heated up Berlin, not nyny, but certainly is tokyo, a flavor, a smell that's invigorating all the same, even if we are living under auspice of a Mori world at the moment. We'll see!
Just to add....Brad Holland has reversed the process (or had for a long while) - he makes images that the illustration market demands (for one reason or another) and then the articles or stories are found or created to fit around the images. I agree that the illustration debate is long dead. And what a tedious middle ground when one knows 'too well' what one is doing. Great idea.
Post a Comment