10/23/2006

Peter Saul

38 comments:

Painter said...

Peter Saul @
David Nolan Gallery
560 Broadway
NYC 10012
and
Leo Koenig Gallery
545 West 23rd Street
NYC

batswap said...

Peter is such a great painter at times, The painting the Neptunes is a must see. As for this work, he told me he really was mistaken for a woman numerous times, that is why he made it. I hope there is more at Leos than just the works on the site. He should not be so worried about his "Legacy" though, he has already been a HUGE influence on this generation and the more he worries, the less rigorous the work.
A real Kook though. in a good way.

kelli said...

A sweet gentle man and an amazing show. He didn't just collage together pop images he created his own vernacular. He's influenced several generations of artists but in his own way is so original the students never surpassed the teacher.

poppy said...

i find it very interesting how soooo
many people jumped all over elizabeth murray and this guy is a saint so far..
i know the last 2 comments are probably not the complete consensus here but i'm curious now for more reactions..

closeuup said...

go poppy!

exu said...

Feel a little embarassed looking at it..because its silly,and not in a funny way.

cadmiumredlite said...

i agree with above, E Murray comes out the same chicago hairy who roots, and he is hailed as a saint for almost very similiar points of view, some of the same so called "dated"shapes, biomorphism etc. his work, and i like his work a lot, has a lot of the same eighties look that e murray has, i believe we are experiencing sexism here, and towards her, while he is being given a second and serious look. very curious indeed. he is even older than murray, so are the same people who hate on murray, going to be championing peter saul, or is it being loyal to the leo koening stable, i noticed that some of the artists from that gallery all seem to dig on each other a bit too much, just saying...

kelli said...

I like to hang out with people I respect. If anyone cares to look at the Murray thread I was pretty clear on the point that history has judged her more harshly than Frank Stella, her illness has been cruelly used against her, and we need to look at her contribution ( the influence on Ofili and others is obvious). Neither ( Stella/ Murray) happens to be an influence for me personally. Just not my deal. Vija Celmins is though.

exu said...

Yeah.I meant to say his stuff was really good in the past-

heidilolatheayatollah said...

Something must be wrong with me, this repulses me but so many people like it. If i saw this in a newspaper in the comics section I wouldn't give it much thought, that Mr. Wiggles is much funnier.

exu said...

it had a much more offensive punch in the pop era-

tomas said...

They are really different from each other. Saul is at least a generation earlier than Murray and probably was an influence on her. I think he's also unambivalent about being a figurative painter.

Cross said...

I can't look at Saul's paintings very long. Murray's work on the other hand I can really stay involved in. To say her current work looks nostalgic is not to say it is not well worth the trouble of looking. Saul's type of skillfully painted cartoons are way too obvious, over the top, and agressive in the worst way... toward the viewer.

Maybe the hint of sexism mentioned here is not coming from the posters, but from this painting itself. It has more than a little of that.

kelli said...

Ok Poppy brought up a fair point so I'm dropping out of this thread even though Saul/ Jim Nutt have been a big deal for me for a long time. Hi Poppy :)
But I will say I got to meet an artist I really admire this weekend ( who happens to be older and female) and we disagreed on this painting. She basically said what Cross is saying (re: sexism). A gay male friend thought it was mocking identity and body image issues. Maybe the mocking comic approach is put to better use in the show's Abu Ghraib painting.

kalm james said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
kalm james said...

Peter Saul is great! Kudos to Leo for having the courage and foresight to help in the reestablishment of Saul’s recognition among a new generation of artists.

The contrasts between he and Murray are interesting; he depicts exploding and grotesque forms in a very illustrative way, modeling with tiny “pointillist” strokes, (His earlier work was much more expressionistic and “painterly” in an Ab-Ex way.) while Murray sculpts and cuts aggressive forms with piles of pure pigment and bold graphic design. If you’re into “political content” (which I’m not) then Saul wins hands down. Some of his Viet Nam based pieces are classics of anti-war art and are still influencing artists.

I like both Saul and Murray, strikes me as dumb to think I have to choose between good artists, after all this isn’t Coke or Pepsi, or Colgate or Crest, or Ford or Chevy. Also I don’t think anybody has to justify their personal tastes or opinions (unless this blog becomes a resource for the thought police) Sometimes it takes as much courage to say yes as no.

batswap said...

Elizabeth Murray and Peter Saul are such a world away from one another I am suprised they have even been compared. Murray the bridge between 70's conceptualism and 80s painting, there is no one else that did it like that, Saul from the 60's. Besides Peter has been showing at David Nolan aka Nolan Eckman Gallery for years, Leo just has a higher profile. As for sexism. That is just silly. no one is claiming that Murray is not a great painter because shes a woman, or that Peter is better because hes a man. While there are similarities here, I think at times form is mistaken for content in a way it is not intended. That said, as a "painting" this would not be the most successful one I have seen.

no-where-man said...

I can see similarities in palate, and wierd tougue in cheek shapey cartoon hyper illustrated bits and parts tense air, with the dildo dr & orificey wierd envioronment. and her wonky things grabing at things.


However over all the P.S show had a great deal in common with the politically savvy graff. being thrown up all over the open Air Gallery S. w-burg is today.. thinkin of the corn in a car piece on the side of Front Room Gallery off hand.

TOMPAC said...

right on Kalm James!

closeuup said...

yes KJ is so courageous, by his own design...Now no more discussion of sexism--or be branded as the thought police! Coke or Pepsi indeed.

zipthwung said...

dreams

Anyone see any good movies lately? Im looking forward to the Grudge.

zipthwung said...

I dont know how many people were influenced or whatever by whatever but I read a fair amount of comic books in my youth (many of them Conan, Krull, ) and you know, if you make work theres an audience and if theres an audience theres a market and if theres a market theres a venue.

Do rich people like comix?

Seems like cartoon network is going to be more avant guard - and in some way IS more avant guard than a lot of retrograde art - neo..eo..o..*

The high low thing is pretty stupid, high being rich nowadays I guess. But rich isnt better anymore, because reality TV exploded that myth.

But desire is felt as a lack - the best metaphors for desire being holes?
(See Lakoff and Johnson for example).

This may seem patriarchal, but its more a matter of perspective, being you got it or you dont, use it or lose it, shake it till you make it.

But thats the market. Desire isnt just the market, its the root of all markets.

Which brings me to upsiode down trees, burning bushes, tumbleweeds and other empty signifiers.

Because if you arent a symbolist then what are you?

Thats right, a tease.

Shame on you Peter Saul, you are asking for it.

no-where-man said...

i would not mean to suggest that sexism does not exist or play a role in the marketing of Art... i think does a good job of understanding it

zipthwung said...

alexi vayner

Failure is not an option!

Serve Us In Trance

kokeeshi said...

Movies...Baxter is a good one (dvd). The Prestige is one I can't wait to digest. Saul? Still trying to make head or tails.

Cooky Blaha said...

His very early work did pack a needed punch, and his earliest stuff (from like 50s?, I saw his slideshow) even prefigured Basquiat in a cool way.. But in this kind of stuff he just seems to complacent and settled into his technique. Seems like very little risk or occasion for chance is involved;kinda seems like he knows exactly what the painting will look like at the end from the point of inception.

Cooky Blaha said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
no-where-man said...

i was told if if your high it looks for a min. likea guy about to get fisted talking about a brick wall.

subscriber said...

They make you laugh out loud at his grotesqueries while admiring his virtuosity. These paintings are a gift.

kalm james said...

My reference to the “thought police” had more to do with folks justifying their past remarks, as if to apologize for having an opinion, than anything regarding “sexism”.

It is interesting that we just spent a couple of days dissecting the works of Lisa Yuskavage, which could fit within the realm of “feminist critique,” and whatever transgressions or tweaking of the “powers that be” embodies in the works were looked upon as interesting and intellectually provocative in a good way. Yet with this piece by Saul, which I personally find rather self-exposing and intriguing in a gender bending way, is looked upon as “sexist” and “insensitive” to people with gender issues? Is it the depiction which features Saul’s figure with a vagina, feminine breasts, and a thermometer (phallic symbol) in his/her mouth the most offensive part? Or is it the text in the bubble overhead that offends? Admittedly Saul comes out of the comic tradition of the early “Mad Magazine” (which was much more salacious in the 50s) Al Kapp, and some of the weird cartoon mags and bubble-gum cards that existed before underground comics took off. In any case, broad-brushing him as a bad “sexist” (intentionally degrading females and the gender “challenged”) as opposed to a funny “sexist” (mocking the self righteous and politically correct ideologs) might present a double standard of criticism. Are we still that “sensitive” that we choose to interpret subject matter in ways that will offend us the most? Are these PC epithets still looked upon as Kryptonite, the last defense against grumpy old white guys? Okay, I’ve seen better Saul paintings (for a number of technical reasons) but slamming him for interpreted thought offenses, or limiting the realm of critique due to the demographic identity of the artist…. if the jackboot fits….

zipthwung said...

Is the doctor a woman wearing a plaid flannel shirt and eye shadow?

I'll go with a yes.

closeuup said...

it's ok

for crazy dreams i prefer jim shaw

zipthwung said...

I reject you. I reject you. Aye. I reject you.

Feelin' uninspired
Think I'll start a fire
Everybody run
Bobby's got a gun
Think you're kinda neat
Then she tells me I'm a creep
Friends don't mean a thing
Guess I'll leave it up to me

painterdog said...

I like Robert Williams, this is kind of interesting.
These guys are better.
Robert Crumb, Tony Millionare, Todd Schorr, Mark Ryden,Camliie Rose Garcia.

joypie said...

my little beadies lap Sauls spleen up, delish...the pull of that speeeel bunting the flood-light of description... all tipped up, spreading. Would a cunt between a 'his' legs be so bad!! this sorta painting is all woman!

brent hallard said...

K mentions Mad mag--never knew it directly but--but no--no one is going to convince me that that was funny. They smooched weed, anything was funny!
This does, though, have the same timbre as the glossy, the generation I caught glimpse of, the whole 'wa-wa', which now reads toxic dust--at least the MAD definition of it!

painterdog said...

Its more zap comic than Mad magazine.

Ziomal said...

Very nice! I like it. law enforcement codes