Maureen Gallace


Painter said...

Maureen Gallace @
303 Gallery
525 West 22nd Street
New York, NY 10011

PS said...


cadmiumredlite said...

these are nice but at $40,000 a pop? i dont think so.

carla said...

Does a highly developed personal vision trump the need for overtly bristling, sizzling innovation? Is following an independent path intrinsically more innovative, even if it has few bends or side-trips or surprises (or rewards)?

If she does this for the next 30 years, I will be happy.

Life rolls on.

Mark said...

She makes beautiful paintings. I agree about the price, a Lois Dodd can be less. But with the market is on a bizarre trip, who knows anymore, good for her.

heidilolatheayatollah said...

I could see these paintings displayed in a corny realist gallery also, yet they are at 303 presented as conceptual painting, that's good for her, I'm not discrediting the artsist-but I really don't understand how some works get relegated to that other category and somehow this floats to 303, Klagsburn, Paley Interim, etc.

Because this could be in those corny places, but it's not therefore it is given heavier consideration. Weird, the art world is so effing weird.

Anonymous said...

According to Artner from the Chicago Tribune, they are about the emotional impact of form in painting (as opposed to photography). They are landscapes and still lives made to decorate the wall of a more artistically conservative New England home. As for 'conceptual rigor', I'm hesitant to agree without some comment from the artist..no interviews on the gallery site. A concept is impossible to know unless it's stated. They might make 50 bucks on eBay if she's lucky.

Thousand Points of Light said...

She's high on my top ten list of collector exploits of all time. It really doesn't get better than this.

Anonymous said...

They are fabulous in their simplicity of color, form, & perspective IN PERSON. Try to copy and you'll fail every time. Timeless, elegant, complicated, tight but they breathe.... worth every penny.

chicomacho said...

maybe i couldn't copy it, but Fairfield Porter could and do it Better!

zipthwung said...

wow. I was bowled over by this show. Weebles wobble but they dont fall down.

Joseph Beuys was asked if he was like the sculptor Phillip "painting is just an attitude" Morris, and he said well there are similarities but who can tell what the other dude has in the rabbit hole. Or maybe it was clown torture. Isn't it allways? We are all just five card studs. WODEN you want to know. All I know is 303 serves a good frosty one, with attitude.

I was gassing on about fractal this and fractal that - I even noticed fiona rae had a fractal as a sign in a painting.

Very similar artists in a zen way, though who can tell. Ohelen too. what ya call urban sophistocates?

Fractals have this deal where theres a self similarity. Simultaneously. Simultanaeity.

Say you are Lost on a Highway. You break down and call AAA - but they take forever because every mile they travel on winding road is an earth day because the highway keeps scaling up and up and up like some kind of overheated market hell tour de france fractal.

Thats called coded repetition. Bell labs and the interweb love that shit. Error checking. Communication theory. In art its called being part of the conversation. 10-4?

Thats why Im reading like five books at the same time for about five minutes at a time (Cuz its lonely on the long distance pot - Im eating a lot of eggs)

Which is to reefer parenthetically to self referential reflexivity and then move on to the idea of work as a bourgeoise value, meaning necessary, but only to eke out a living and self respect in this barren rockworld of the real.

This work isnt working, but we are all in dire straits.

Why take pot shots at a wooden duck?

Well look at Mandelbort again. He vanity pressed his own book. rubbed a lot of people in a lot of fields the wrong way. He was just an intellectual tourist and didnt have "ownership" of the "ideas". People laughed at him and called him crazy.

Whistler too. People said "I work an honest day and I want an honest deal" and "Built ford tough"

Not my idea of a good time, but its real. More real than these paintings.

Which makes these paintings a good illusion.

"Get it? Got it? Good".

303 has a dream, and awesome dream, and here I am lionizing the ritchies, and for what? A postage stamp? We're on a snowy road to nowhere.

tomas said...

I think the questions people are asking about how the context you see things in affects how you see them are good questions.

Are the corny realist paintings shown in corny realist galleries not good because of the context?

How do Gallace’s paintings look outside the context of a hip place?

If you saw De Keyser (and I think Tuttle too) in a coop gallery or an amateur place would they look good?

The way I remember it happening for Gallace is that her first paintings looked amateurish and na├»ve and that made them acceptable in a context were abstraction and conceptualism were dominant. I’m guessing they were amateurish at the time because that was the best she could do, but I think it gave them some thrift store irony that made them acceptable.

Eventually the hip places vanish.

zipthwung said...

skill nudge feature


Decay Image said...

Listen, anyone who has ever seen one of these paintings could spot one in a minute, that's part of their success: their recognizability.

They are also simple, concise, confident, and have a perfect painted energy. They also refer to Modernism in the way that Morandi, Katz and Thuymans do while at the same time being about quotidian life that everyone can appreciate: they are not elitist in what they depict. The objects and landscapes could exist anywhere, so they are not about class, except in their recognizability by the cultural elite (and their price).

I used to like them. Now they bore me. Yes, Carla a "highly developed personal vision does trump the need for bristling sizzling innovation." In the marketplace. And "following an independent path intrinsically more innovative, even if it has few bends or side-trips or surprises (or rewards)?" CAN, be more innovative. But this work is no longer innovative. I'm sorry, but there has been little development, except that the depictions are less generic and more specific. Which I actually think is a mistake. If she is still doing these in exactly this way 30 years from now, maybe you and her collectors, will be happy, but I probably won't be looking at them.

Thousand Points of Light said...


Agree with you to a certain point.

"The objects and landscapes could exist anywhere, so they are not about class, except in their recognizability by the cultural elite (and their price)."

These paintings are for the second homes in Cape Cod and Hamptons of NYC collectors. The subject matter is what was there before the land was converted from pasture and farmland into private estates.

In that sense they operate unintentionally ironic.

The landscape that she depicts really doesn't exist any longer, at least in her idyllic, uninterrupted manner.

these are vanity paintings, full of nostalgia and false pretense for a vision that's long gone.

I know it crops up all the time in reference to her work so I'm not coming down on you personally, but I HATE that comparison to Morandi. Such an insult to his work.

zipthwung said...

war of the worlds bro!

closeuup said...

SB: I think that area between the sound made and the musical instrument played, where as I said I think gods dance, demons, angels, ghosts, things of the spirit, or what we ordinarily call things of the imagination in this presumptuous time, is the richest land for the arts. I think it's home base for the arts really. I mean, people have so much trouble deciding between the terms actuality and imagination, and I think this in-between area is just where the artist manages to make actuality, through his or her imagination, reality for everyone else. I love that story of the painter Whistler, who some young lady commented to him, 'Isn't the sunset beautiful?' And he immediately replied, 'Yes - nature is catching up.' What he really meant of course was that she wasn't aware that it was centuries of people painting sunsets that made her or any human being aware of it, maybe, at all.

Decay Image said...

tpol, I think you are being overly harsh, even though I understand your pov. Especially in the early work where the generic aspects of the forms (barns, houses, dunes) made them more about painting and form sort of as an extension of the issues of de Kuyser, but with very carefully added explorations of representational issues, issues that could inevitably lead to interpretations such as the ones you suggest. But that is the price of representational art: it can lead to uses that are not implicit in its subject matter.

That doesn't mean that this work doesn't exist in the second homes of the collectors you mentioned, I just don't believe it is intended for them. They just don't seem to have the cynicism that would require. Unlike Fiona Rae, which I believe are cynical.

And finally, I wasn't comparing them to Morandi, just pointing out her conceptual influences. I do think that as she gets more specific, using particular people, particular houses, they lose any conceptual rigor, and in fact become merely old-school stylistic figuration.

Decay Image said...

Closeuup, I've been meaning to ask you, what's up with that extra u?

Are you saying that gallace makes us aware of "the nostalgia and false pretence" through the "inbetween area." Interesting thought, although I definitely believe people appreciated sunsets before painters painted them. Back then (hundreds of years ago) I don't believe painters were trying to discover unappreciated subjects of beauty, but really just trying to make a living. They had royalty and religious figures to satisfy, they weren't really trying to raise their consciousness.

closeuup said...

Closeuup--it's kind of a Spinal Tap thing. A missspelling on purpose. There now all the fun is gone.

My quote/comment from Stan Brakhage was about Whistler--who is famous for pissing people off--because he showed them something in a new way?

How can you say that Fiona is cynical--as if in the curent cultural minestrone anyone could not be a little cynical. I appreciate that in her work.

Gallace is only as good as her strokes. And Im not crazy about snow

no-where-man said...

i dig the one with a rainbow, hopperish nice game play with stormy midtones gradient in all, the intimate scaled squarish pieces hit the anti-hipster-salon in a way De Keyser missed.
i guess kilimnik was at the 303 opening ... it was post philips champagne auction opening staring one of her more less interesting works.

closeuup said...

Uup, these are good. I have seen them before & I thot maybe downhill--but no. These are very good. Like late Whistler. The cigar box top ones are hard to find on google.

another-painter said...

Why the concern over a $40,000 price tag? People spend more on cars that are worthless after 10 years... the painting will still be there.

I'm with zipthwung- 303 has 20/20 vision. A lot of people were giving Tim Gardner's last show a really hard time, but it was brilliant. Anyone growing up in the late 70's and early 80's can identify with all of those bad family portraits. To render them in pastels along with a graduation shot or two . . .

Looking at Gallace is like listening to Luther Perkins back up Johnny Cash: straighforward, simple, effective.

carla said...

I think these are naive paintings in concept, with no cynical gaming intended, at least none by the artist. How, where, and why they are presented, and to whom they are sold, may be another story.

poppy said...

i love this
this is effin fantastic
i wish they were selling for 40 billion dollars and giving everyone the spins till they choked. Its seems like it would be easier to to sell and promote a a fiona type painting than this stuff so damn good for her...

no-where-man said...

"gameing" or "play" need not be cynical.

Thousand Points of Light said...

Another-painter and DI:

Tim Gardner I completely buy. Brilliant. I haven't seen that work in a year or so, and it still lurks around in my thoughts as a sort of pathetic after-image. So drool.

DI: You can't show Gardner and Gallace in the same gallery and say one is cynical and strategized, and the other is not. That would be two galleries, not one.

Anyone who is not cynical and not making work that addresses it is on a different planet than I am.

I think there is a reason you can't figure out why/what/where about Gallace beyond some whispy notions of landscape, light, ect. because everyone in the game knows its about money, not the paintings which are pathetic @ in the 21st century.

Cooky Blaha said...

these are legitimized by their suburban context and the allusions to memory in the context of childhood suburbia. Thats their key to slacker acceptance. Something about her play with light and space in relation to remembered photographs seem to set them apart from realist sunday painter stuff. Shes also real geniune and cool in person, if that helps. I think the one of the kid playing a guitar is pretty succesful...I dont know about this one standing on its own though. By the way Eric Fischl invented suburbia. discuss

Thousand Points of Light said...


Everytime I look at these, I can't even believe how pathetic this all is! I'm sure she is indeed a 'real geniune and cool person' with a knack for making pretty simple paintings that have made their way up the chain and now are open for discussion not about them as paintings, but about what they represent in the art world as is right now.

Eric Fischl's first paintings get creepier and more 80's with time. Real deal, and one of the few touchstones of that time that grow in influence.

mr peeps said...

i think all that is interesting about the ironic context surrounding paintings via a gallery setting. and what interests me even more is the fact that that ironic context goes WITH the paintings into the collector's house as an invisible ray of "superiority" for them to feel they have via the power of insider info. information is power. so whatever the high price may be, the real buzz of this commodity is the irony, the invisibility of its "difference." So the fact that it looks totally mundane is EXACTLY what the collector is paying for. in this sense I find them cynical. maybe not from inside the making of the painting, which might be fun and pleasurable.

Decay Image said...

Whoa. You have learned nothing. Cynicism is totally unproductive, a dead end. Skeptical, Sardonic, all good possibilities but cynicism will get you nowhere. I guess I must be on a different planet. $40, $40,000, $40,000,000. It doesn't matter. That's what you think is important for an artist? Trying to game this system is so shortsighted. Why bother making art? When I die, the work I make will be a representation of the life I lived. It's not like you get other chances. Maybe it will turn out that I was inconsequential. OK, I can live with that. Most artists are. But I will have I tried with my full existence to make something that will communicate what it felt like to me to be alive and be an artist and looked and thought about art my entire adult life. Anybody in the game that thinks it's about the money is destined to be forgotten. I don't know any really great artists that think that.

Look, the money stuff is fascinating, creepy, instrumental in the way things get done and who is paying attention. But the tail does not wag the dog. Artists do not start on this path for the money. Money may influence decisions, but it is not the raison d'etre. HOW BORING. Why are you even bothering to communicate with artists? Is this really the truth that you are so desperate to pass on?

Thousand Points of Light said...


I said:

"Anyone who is not cynical and not making work that addresses it"...

meaning I'm very cynical as well as hopeful as well as happy and sad and pessimistic and optimisitc, and very much living in the right now, fall, 2006.

I don't know how you have experience in the arts, esp. in this city, and not come out very cynical, very guarded, very calculated.

that does not translate into being overwhelmed by concerns of money, status, ect at all.

I'm with you: your work is important and comes first. But when your work leaves the studio, its a very, very different ballgame. I find that transition to be very calculated and cynical, because the folks on the other end sure are.

I'm not passing on any truths, just my opinions like everyone else here.

I do believe that work that taps a cultural milieu, gets it right on the mark as well as transcends it is both timely and timeless. And right now is a very cynical time. That I will claim as a truth.

no-where-man said...

i don't feel cynical - guarded but not cynical...

Decay Image said...

Maybe I have been misinterpreting people. I don't think these are great paintings. But how they, or any paintings function as paintings is the only way we can realistically discuss them as painters. The marketplace is way too volatile and fickle. I am sure there are sociological perspectives that will prove to be enlightening about the way a capitalist system uses culture to enforce its hegemony, and how in the early 21st century certain paintings functioned in that system. But that knowledge is not really helpful to me, because it is only how the system is functioning at that particular moment, not how it may be working a year from now. That is why Damien Hirst's last show was so reviled. It was totally cynical.

I have been functioning in this art world for almost 35 years. Well, maybe I am a bit guarded. But if I was calculated and cynical I would long ago have stopped functioning or making art. Of course maybe I am just a big failure. That's possible. But I refuse to believe it. I function because I am stubborn and finding out that perhaps I just may be indominable.

Am I cynical about the way art is used by this culture? Absolutely. But I have no control over that because I am not a dealer. I am an artist, and while I find the action of the artworld fascinating, it doesn't enter into my decision-making about what I make.

You spoke of Eric Fischl earlier, whom I know. And I agree with you about his early work. But about 10 years ago he did this awful show of celebrity portraits that he is only now recovering from artistically. I think he forgot for a while why he was painting. Maybe that didn't affect his standing in the artworld, but it affected his standing among other artists.

mr peeps said...

hey decay image i dont know if you thnk I"M being cynical?? not at all. (but you might not have meant me?) I am talking about collectors not painters. I see that art is two things, one the object, two the context.

Thousand Points of Light said...


If you haven't read it yet, its quick and very to the point, and I think plenty good for the points that it makes regarding "capitalist system uses culture to enforce its hegemony, and how in the early 21st century certain paintings functioned in that system". And I think you'll like it, I did:

Art Incorportated
- Julian Stallabrass
Oxford University Press, 2004

I do think we are in for a turn in the artworld. Wall Street will get the bonus this year, but I think by the close of 2010 this moment is going to seem just like 80's bombast. There will be a time when right now is the anomaly.

That's interesting about Fischl. Takes for sharing it.

Decay Image said...

no peeps, wasn't referring to you. I seem to drop in and out of the conversation, and not realize someone else has posted in the time it takes to formulate a comment. thanks tp for the Stallabrass tip. My hegemony comment was standard Frankfurt school ideology. Again, helpful in trying to understand the system, but not necessarily in making paintings.

tomas said...

Decay- I think we must be near the same age. I feel about a lot of this similarly to how you do. As do most of my artist friends, who are near my age and still at it.

At the same time, more often than not, artists seem strongly affected by all the peripheral stuff, as much as anyone else is. Particularly when they are younger. In who they know about, who they are willing to take seriously or hate. You spend time reading this site and you can see how much stuff besides the actual paintings, affects how the paintings are read.

The money stuff really doesn’t fascinate me anymore.

zipthwung said...

yeah wheres the f'n deer?

The 7-11 reference?

Fuck heineken, pabst blue ribbon.

closeuup said...

im cynical about life, not art.

Anonymous said...

I like it in the same way I like Luc Tuymans. It feels like there's something going on under the white. It also reminds me of Cy Twombly. The variety in the white area is enough of a reason to like it. Also, it seems to cut through bullshit to a kind of naive but age-aware memory of something simple and chalky. The white pot looks like it's made out of cold milk. It's hard to admit liking it, because it's so close to being completely generic, but for some mysterious reason, it's just not. I could give a rat's ass about the price. Art should be valued.

chrisjag said...

Luc Tuymans wins this match

closeuup said...

bill owens
robert bechtle
richard hamilton?

JpegCritic said...

i've always liked to think of Gallace
as a painter more akin to Albert York
than any other reference. A painter so far deep into
solipsism that not even that talk
of art, the market, conceptual relevance,
etc,.,. can reduce the feeling of Grace
eminating from these works (i'm borrowing
from Protestantism's definition of Grace).
It''s the kind of solipsism that has, so
far, spared painting from the wrath of art.
A kind of grace. This feeling I get from
certain works, gallace, york, etc, It has less to
do with art and more to do with
a thing on ebay, yes, and with a sort of discussion
one might privately have with a thing, once
one acquires it and hangs it in their room --

exempt from judgement.

Tuymans doesn't offer that kind of exchange.
His discussion is public. Art's discussion is
public. I think painting has an extraorinary
propensity to reveal a kind of discussion that is
inherently private, and exempt from art...
I think Gallace is one out of a handful in the
public sphere that can recognize this and exploit
this while remaining within the realm of art.

Cooky Blaha said...

CHERYL KAPLAN: Sleepwalker, painted in 1979, was incredibly shocking at the time. It launched suburbia as a genre.

diddy:"we invented the remix"

Anonymous said...

We live in a time of epoch breaking vigilance: There are those who, with full-force-pledge, are bent on deconstructing everything and everything-- that has ever been. And, closer to home, who, with a certain decorum and serendipity, play, wait and play, behind the scenes. This is the 'art of war', part self-serving part utopian--each the embodiment of conflict and a stratagem to retain position where weaknesses imagined are turned into a strength--the inward and the outward at loggerhead.

I like these images, they don't present a problem, they manage it, in a way, 'as if', there was no problem at all--I agree with most of the comments and their inherent conflicts.


hlowe said...

notes on these paintings:
truer than a lot of stuff I've seen, Morisot meets Lundeberg, good sense of color harmony, veering on the formulaic, anonymity of objects like Cezanne,
very pleasing to look at, thus the popular appeal, watercolors seem a lot weaker.

closeuup said...

diddy meet king tubby. as if

but cookie. it doesnt matter does it? who's the first?

carla said...

jpegcritic, That was an excellent summation. I have been struggling to clarify this relationship between the personal and the public in regards to art and to painting. This will be saved to file. Thanks.

NNCGT said...

looks like Morandi and Fairfield Porter had a love child. I could live without this painting.

JpegCritic said...

carla, glad to be of use.

Mookerjee said...

Gallace is a beautiful woman anda true intellectual.....that doesn't make the paintings look any less like those of an earnest and wealthy Cape Cod widow with and"important" Chinese snuff bottle collection... and earth shoes. I don't like to look at them. But then I also don't get the solemn reverence around the mention of Morandi either.

heidilolatheayatollah said...

Seeing these in person I got so much from them in a way I could not just looking at the images, they are the most buttery paintings ever, the colors made me feel very-food comparison-full. All buttery inside, like a high quality croissant drenched in butter and made me want to paint using a more glossy medium on board. Just for the fun of it.

zipthwung said...

buttery? You must be used to rice cakes. The easter egg colors made me wish peter beatrix potter would take a hoe to my frontal lobe.

average joe said...

She said something like- " we are all smart, why not just make what matters to you" I took that to mean stop worrying and just say what you want which was sometimes difficult at Cooper. Some of the advice which sticks with me. Corny only if you're corny.

heidilolatheayatollah said...

Peter Rabbit would never do that to you Zip, but he may leave a few pellets behind.