Wow! This is energizing! That little stip of sky at the top totally does it for me. It's a subterranean cityscape / jungle gym made out of stained glass by a precocious set of first graders. Or something.
On the signature... I've been hardcore anti-sig. for as long as I can remember. Gotta admit though... it adds something to this painting. Would I like it more or less without? Not sure. Possibly less. Hmm...
about the signitures i was agaist them when i first began, when i realized everyone else hated them too, they began to make sense. I like it here. its purposeful and works but isn't Sean Landers..
The small band of sky at the top of the painting is what is known to the square of a small band of abstract artists the clue and the tell-tail, that this painting it is not playing the thing but entering another real: A sky at the top calls the catacombs below; buildings, cars, parks, signs and even a signature that stands in for time and another group, or even may well tell of the play in the avenues of the heady day. UPFRONT!
The signature reminds me of that dutch guy PM, and the guy who paints white things.
Sister be gets it: his is energizing! That little strip of sky at the top totally does it for me. It's a subterranean cityscape / jungle gym made out of stained glass by a precocious set of first graders. Or something.
just in case anyone's gonna return to this old post, let me respond to kalm j. The language of my previous post fits my message. If you have problems with the language, you have problems with the message-- which is that this work, in my opinion, reflects a sensibility that is far from being maturely attuned to the foremost issues of the times--for me a prerequisite for art of the highest quality; not in the sense of being dogmatically or overtly political but of being politically aware. This painting is derivative in the worst sense, taking old forms and using them to no vital purpose. My suspicion that this artist is playing at art too much with an eye toward ego/status gratification and too little out of a desire to communicate some spiritually edifying quality through the medium was strong enough to suggest to me the florid term "poo-poo" and to accuse Mr. Martin of some shallowness.
Looking again, I do appreciate the painting's simple glow of color, the suggestion of sky that was mentioned, and a certain spacious purity or innocence. But for me it is an innocence lacking maturity, and likely resisting maturity and/or feigning the innocence.
I don't claim necessarily to be right, or that my response was as thoroughly insighful as it might have been, but show some versatility in evaluating language styles kj. And if you need a translation just ask.
You're notion of "chops" has a whiff of superficiality to my nostrils, in all due respect.
Thanks for the follow up to that. Random cybersurfers/artists appreciate it. After seeing one of those shows I have to admit that your first post made sense even more in some ways using poo-poo-- medium is the message.
But it was good to see that you could also verbalize it pretty damn well in orthodox fashion.
22 comments:
Chris Martin @
Mitchel-Innes & Nash
Abstract (a group show)
534 W 26th Street
Image is fromJames Wagner.com
Ha! I love the signature! So wrong it's just gotta be right.
Painter of light.
the walls come tumbling down
el guero no cerrar para arriba. eso es una buena cosa
This is a very strong show.
Wow! This is energizing! That little stip of sky at the top totally does it for me. It's a subterranean cityscape / jungle gym made out of stained glass by a precocious set of first graders. Or something.
On the signature... I've been hardcore anti-sig. for as long as I can remember. Gotta admit though... it adds something to this painting. Would I like it more or less without? Not sure. Possibly less. Hmm...
El Kentucky derby es decadente y depravado
I really liked his invite to his show last year, with all his friends and paintings hanging out on the east river.
http://www.artnet.com/magazineus/features/saltz/saltz10-10-05_detail.asp?picnum=6
im really into the out door pieces as a reaction to the graff. in the area. pleasure to walk past.
Sui generis.
id like to see it in a good gallery
or maybe outside.
about the signitures
i was agaist them when i first began,
when i realized everyone else hated them too, they began to make sense. I like it here. its purposeful and works but isn't Sean Landers..
The small band of sky at the top of the painting is what is known to the square of a small band of abstract artists the clue and the tell-tail, that this painting it is not playing the thing but entering another real: A sky at the top calls the catacombs below; buildings, cars, parks, signs and even a signature that stands in for time and another group, or even may well tell of the play in the avenues of the heady day. UPFRONT!
The signature reminds me of that dutch guy PM, and the guy who paints white things.
Sister be gets it: his is energizing! That little strip of sky at the top totally does it for me. It's a subterranean cityscape / jungle gym made out of stained glass by a precocious set of first graders. Or something.
looks like a w-burg building on a sunny day with a throw-up on the side, everything is a part of a wider concept.
i saw 2006 CM at a bar the other day having a drink with Buddha...i believe they were drinking a dark lager...
This is poo-poo, it says nothing to me but "I am a mindless art-fag. Do you think I'm sexy?"
Sincerest apple orgies to artist and fans.
just in case anyone's gonna return to this old post, let me respond to kalm j.
The language of my previous post fits my message. If you have problems with the language, you have problems with the message-- which is that this work, in my opinion, reflects a sensibility that is far from being maturely attuned to the foremost issues of the times--for me a prerequisite for art of the highest quality; not in the sense of being dogmatically or overtly political but of being politically aware. This painting is derivative in the worst sense, taking old forms and using them to no vital purpose. My suspicion that this artist is playing at art too much with an eye toward ego/status gratification and too little out of a desire to communicate some spiritually edifying quality through the medium was strong enough to suggest to me the florid term "poo-poo" and to accuse Mr. Martin of some shallowness.
Looking again, I do appreciate the painting's simple glow of color, the suggestion of sky that was mentioned, and a certain spacious purity or innocence. But for me it is an innocence lacking maturity, and likely resisting maturity and/or feigning the innocence.
I don't claim necessarily to be right, or that my response was as thoroughly insighful as it might have been, but show some versatility in evaluating language styles kj. And if you need a translation just ask.
You're notion of "chops" has a whiff of superficiality to my nostrils, in all due respect.
Anyhoo
Post scriptus - I think it was clear enough: It's poopoo because its heavy on image and light on substance (Ima "art-fag" do ya think I'm sexy?)
Thanks for the follow up to that. Random cybersurfers/artists appreciate it. After seeing one of those shows I have to admit that your first post made sense even more in some ways using poo-poo-- medium is the message.
But it was good to see that you could also verbalize it pretty damn well in orthodox fashion.
Post a Comment