1/02/2007

Joshua Weintraub

71 comments:

Painter said...

Joshua Weintraub @
Cynthia Broan gallery
546 W 29th St.
NYC 10001

Painter said...

Happy New Year!
I hope everybody had a nice holiday.

closeuup said...

It justs sex and violence melody and silence

Cross said...

Happy New Year! Here's to a great "Double-O Seven"!

Mark said...

A year full of peace and painting!

zipthwung said...

george re your link to aart bullocks
in the previous thread - I agree with in principal but its a weak commentary.

For one its use of "art bullocks" - most people I know say something more fecund.

The umbrella term "marxist" seems weird too - is it Marxist to want a 401k for everyone? I guess so.

In the cyber realm I think its hard to keep intellectual property free and yet make it communal property. Thats why I think coding information is justified - its decodeable if you are an engaged participant.

What does this painting encode that I don't "know". Does it make an argument? Inherently so, I suppose.

Does it communicate directly through 200 proof medium? Not anymore than writing, Id argue.

Dennis Matthews said...

wished there was a bigger view of it, can't see what's going on in it.

SisterBee said...

Gives me vertigo (in a nice way). Brings to mind a lusher version of the Black Canyon in Colorado. Very appealing.

Anonymous said...

yes there's some 3d perspective here. I see a city scape. A pinky purply city scape from a 50th floor apt. balcony.

Anonymous said...

looking down

Anonymous said...

with a glass of sherry and no direction home.

exu said...

this is called "Suicide Bombers Kill 12 on a Bus",by the way

exu said...

"London Bus",sorry

Anonymous said...

maybe the titles could be posted for us southerners - or is this really an insider's forum as someone somewhere accused

That's interesting. I see the road I think bending behind some buildings across from the viewer's apt. balcony and I see a palette of blacks grays and shades of my little pony. Or is this like abstract expressionism or something. Gosh, I hope I'm not reading too much into it:o

Thanks for the title. It seems to have born enough significance to the artist to make it necessary to the viewer. If I wuz an artist I'd want my title included.

As a reaction to a terrorist bombing, this painting seems to retreat into a confused, giddy state of - shock? A Londonite's world is rocked? the landscape in the moment of horror a prism of unreality before my eyes? All colors lost but the gaudiest running down the architecture like stain glass barbie paint?

Anonymous said...

where did we leave off with "paintings from photos"? even a legitimizing throw to Artnet and Steve Mumford eh - burning the shit indeed.

closeuup said...

I see the inside of a bus. Thats been blown up. In a 99 cent store color palette.

Blow ups, smash ups, explosions, crashes. How long can this go on, aethetically speaking? How long before everyone is tired of the tear down? Personally, I have a high tolerance for chaos.

I watched Hitchcock's Foreign Correspondent the other afternoon. Great plane crash in that one. Almost as good as the one in Scorcese's movie about Howard Hughes. The Scorcese crash had earsplitting sound design to go with the visuals. I'm ready for my Blowuup, Mr. Demille.

Anonymous said...

what about how long can this go on historically speaking? and what about till the oil runs out as an answer or discussion starter? There are more important things than the latest aesthetic trend. I think I'm with you however mr closeup in you're knock of the painting, not because its sooo last week (maybe that's not what you meant exactly), but because it seems like a limp response to the subject. I agree with your feeling that our aesthetic life should not be a monotonous mantra of downers-- and also feel that when a downer is in order it should be more vital than this. Maybe its the overall limpness of attempts to confront the horrific that is all too prevalent in our time that makes the corresponding art seem monotonous--or that the art too often succumbs to, rather than stands up to the horror?

poppy said...

i cant really see a bus but i doesn't matter i guess, i can't really see whats going on in the painting. I don't know who mentioned it but i would agree I'm a little bored with the explosion blow up stuff.....then again, does it matter since i didn't read an explosion into this stuff to start with.. i Know, i wish i could see it a little better... looks like strings n things happening there..

Anonymous said...

can we safely say it fails to live up to its title?

Anonymous said...

closeup is not a "mr"

it may help with this piece in context of the other work in the show and the titles

"Joshua Weintraub's paintings are based on photographs from the media. They are an attempt to emotionally engage with a series of current events which have been shuffling by in rapid succession. One event replaced another so quickly it was difficult to absorb one before it was replaced by the next. The attempt to engage only withered as the artist became acutely aware of how removed he is from these historic events. The attempt is tertiary: they are paintings of photos of events. These events are mediated to the point of irrelevance. "

Anonymous said...

opps my bad here is the link

cha said...

Without the title, you can focus on the actual painting.....knowing the title removes you from the initial visual response

closeuup said...

I wasnt knocking the painting. I rather like it. I never get tired of the tear down, the negative, the blow up, what have you. It's been going on for quite some time, I was pointing out.

The juxtapoze of the candy colors and the "horror" are interesting in this painting, arent they?

Anonymous said...

ms closeup, my apologies I have embarassed myself thank you no where man

to my mind that write up confirms my feeling about this work--weintraub is shrinking from the horror and painting his retreat. Maybe there's a place for this, but the commenters here say they're sick of being barraged by explosions and mayhem just like the artist seems to be. Why does he subject us to more of it? Instead of spleening about it in his precious Work, why doesn't he work at confronting the barrage of horrors in the news, and at least make a determined effort to make some sense of them and come back to the easel maybe when he has more to offer than merely his confusion--his attempt to engage "withered"--who's fault might that be? Its not paintings about explosions I don't want to see more of, it's paintings about withering. I called it limp, and there it is in the write-up --"withered". I can understand starting at this confused place, I'm just questioning the amount of effort that went in before the withering.

cha said...

CU."juxtapose"...taking things out of context... a good way to the next level.

Anonymous said...

hey closeup I think the juxtaposition is interesting on a level, but I want it to be less escapist as I mentioned in the above tome.
If I'm writin this much I must like it too to a degree in some subconscious cabinet of myself

cho-I think you need both, the pure visual experience is an important part of taking it in, but the title's there for a reason

I will now shut up.

Anonymous said...

apologies for the cho, cha

Anonymous said...

can I say one more thing please? thank you the conceit of the visual experience having very little recognizeable connection to the title is too cute, it aggravates me--certainly too cute for the subject matter

cha said...

SAgrarian yes the title is an integral part of the exercise [expands the concept] but for me .. it's often a disappointment. A bit like reading a book and forming an idea of the story.. and then seeing the movie made from the book! ...not at all the way I saw it.
I try not to look at the title first but it's very tempting.

George said...

Zip,

Regarding the term ‘Marxist’, I would assume it comes from philosophical thinking which has its early roots in Marx and less explicitly a targeted left-right economic argument.

I haven’t read much of the critical writing that is the source of his complaint. It I have to wrap my thoughts around difficult text I prefer reading about quantum physics. What I found amusing about the article is it appears that academia has anointed the word ‘bollocks’ as an acceptable way of saying ‘bullshit’ in print. I have read Marx and think he was insightful about his historical era. I also think some of the philosophical thinking which was built on his insights makes some sense. What I object to is the current state of critical writing, much of which has turned into nothing more than senseless jargon.

It’s often hard to write well and make sense about the art we see around us. I think artists have a right to expect clear and insightful responses to their work. At least in the print media, we all know what we say in private and that’s fine.

Anonymous said...

jargon note
I'd vote for retiring the jersey of the word "trope"

Christ strike me down if I post again this thread

zipthwung said...

Yeah, I read my Marx for dummies - though it might be cooler to have debated "the manifesto" well into the night over wine in a more ideaistic era.

"What do i mean by this?" is one of Zizek's favorite ticks. And then he goes on with some jibber jabber, that, while poetic or evocative, is not exactly the clearest way to present an idea. It is as if he is inviting his audience to participate in meaningless intellectual exercises of interpretation and decentered creation -centering around the unobtainable object of desire, or the grail, the cup that once obtained, turns itself into a bloody dribble glass?

dialogue. To what end?

Ridicule is of course the subject of this painting.
Its a rebellion against god, truth, and beauty, and I despise its trendy anti-esthetic. But I dont have a nice white walled loft to contextualize this work with - in fact it would look hideous contextualized above and or below my stained shag carpet of decreptitude.

Si le viol, le poison, le poignard, l'incendie,
N'ont pas encore brodé de leurs plaisants dessins
Le canevas banal de nos piteux destins,
C'est que notre âme, hélas! n'est pas assez hardie.

Speaking of randomness and intentionality, not to mention authorship, chaos, and the infinite paranoia of causality:

here

beauty is truth, and truth, beauty.
-John Poindexter

zipthwung said...

I take full credit for the recent emergence of the popularity of the "trope" in common parlance. If only in my own mind. What better word to descripe that which preats itself ad nauseum? A quid pro quo of defenestrated pianos?

closeuup said...

the "not clearest way to present an idea" may still be the best way, depending on the idea. Ellipsis u no.

I saw the Zizek doc this holiday. What a charming speech impediment he has. Kind of like Daffy Duck. Does that make him unclear? I'm pretty sure I understood what he was saying about desire and enjoyment being enforced by capitalism. But I will take my enjoyment nevertheless because it is not unobtainable. Mine is the desire and pleasure of the ugly, stupid, fat, old and drooling. Gross but not proscribed. And it still feels just as good. Take that to the bank.

George said...

I read a bit of Marx again last year (how far away that sounds) it’s on the web. Marx had a good grasp on the changes ushered in by the industrial revolution. We are in the middle of another technical revolution that needs to be addressed in a different way than what developed from Marx’s original line of thinking. What we need now is a Groucho, Harpo and Chico philosophy which properly aligns itself with the current class three society we have today.

As for … it might be cooler to have debated "the manifesto" well into the night over wine in a more idealistic era.. I say, if you have enough wine and a free night, who needs an idealistic era?

Speaking of randomness and intentionally, it is randomness which is the seed of creativity, it is the accident which spawns new discoveries in all fields, even the ones most apparently driven by intentionally.

Anonymous said...

do your worst, Christ

I've got a general question though not unrelated to the painting at hand: how many have read much on Peak Oil?

here's a site for the dark side:
http://dieoff.org

and for an interesting, active blog on the subject for those who are keepin the faith against the "doomers":
http://peakoildebunked.blogspot.com


closeup I would be interested in your take--seeing the beauty in this one?
et al.

Anonymous said...

clickable?
http://dieoff.org

http://peakoildebunked.blogspot.com

George said...

I've been reading on this topic. The 'peak oil' idea first surfaced 25 years ago, we're supposed to be out of oil now.

I don't think peak oil isn't the issue. As oil prices rise, supply comes on line because it becomes feasible to produce. Tar sands in Canada hold lots of oil, at the moment it’s just expensive to produce.

The issue to worry about is global warming due to CO2 pollution and the time lag between the point of doing something about it and the results. Global warming, fact or fiction, it’s inherently too risky to ignore.

I suspect that the world will begin to depend heavily on solar energy within 20 years. China is going to be a big player in this area, there already is a Chinese company making solar panels and getting the costs down, Chinese style. Thin film and nanotechnologies will play a big role in making it all possible.

NNCGT said...

This painting is more appealing than anything else I have seen at Cynthia Broan lately -- though I realize that this is damning by faint praise, I do think that this work (at least from jpeg alone so far) holds up within its nook of a neo-ab-ex style. That said, I couldn't agree more with S.Agrarian: the pairing of this title and trivializing treatment of "subject" is even offensive. Less annoying than the Bush's upside-down head at the Whitney last year, and less overtly nauseating than most overtly political paintings, but still inapropriate. Think Kant -- Should all artists be so mentally reckless? Sometimes a painting is just a painting..... Sorry dude.

hlowe said...

Uh... am I the only one who saw the torn up innards of a bus almost immediately? Well, I do ride the bus --which brings me to the second point: My guess is you have to be there to see the injury. This is much too hallucinogenic to be the dull horror that war/destruction brings.
He is being ironic, but why?

and to Zip: "That is all ye need to know on earth, and that is all ye need to know."

Anonymous said...

george, there are problems with all alternative energies and certainly solar, and a lot of evidence against the tar sands being feasible. The basic problem for all the above is that the production, maintainance, or (for tar sands) extraction require a great deal of hydrocarbon energy. It gets circular.

George said...

Southern,

I'm familiar with the topic, not an expert, but I've read enough to have an idea of the technological problems. In my opinion it doesn’t really matter, hydrocarbon fuels are, well fossils and the usage of them will have to be severely reduced. If it is because we run out of oil that's one way solution. If the major coastal cities flood that's another.

I've been following along on the technological developments with solar energy and it is becoming more feasible on a large scale. Feasible means cost effective. It's worth noting that the major oil companies spent millions and millions of dollars building an oil infrastructure. The same thing will/can happen with solar.

At one point I thought that getting nuclear fusion to work might be a solution. The science guys still think it’s a ways off but they do say solar energy will provide a substantial amount of energy in the near future

Conservation is another route which will have to be taken. There was a good article in today’s NY Times on WalMart's efforts to promote energy efficient light bulbs. Worth a read. Like them or not, WalMart is the biggest retailer in the world, when the light bulb manufacturers balked at supplying the bulbs, WalMart did what they do best, "your choice, get with the program or get off and we’ll find someone else"

One of the problems with the energy efficient bulbs is their shape, it seems that a lot of people think regular light bulbs are ‘cute’ go figure.

zipthwung said...

Je boit le gassahol parce que je suis un transhuman. Vivre le pas de vivre! Vivre l' histoire! Bon chance mon freres et mes amis - merde, oubliette, et boue! Regarde! J'aime beaucoup le "donut" qui nous appelle "french cruller" aussi.

C'est l'Ennui! —l'œil chargé d'un pleur involontaire,
Il rêve d'échafauds en fumant son houka.
Tu le connais, lecteur, ce monstre délicat,
—Hypocrite lecteur,—mon semblable,—mon frère!

Anonymous said...

I think its a bit beyond lightbulbs g, and I think zip might have something to say about it if you can ply the bottle from his fingers, but don't bother him too much, he looks happy. Maybe I need a little "fumant" on "son houka" except I might be singular when I need to be a plural or something.

Anonymous said...

who's the hypocrite lecteur

George said...

LOL, my French is as good as Google.

Salute

Cooky Blaha said...

painter -some debate worthy shows around: sigmar polke, laura owens, abstract at MitchellInnes & Nash

zipthwung said...

Deepack Chopra says if we stop talking we die. Im down for some virgins and a cup of honey sweeetened hash but I read camus and he says “I know God is necessary and must exist. I also know that he does not and cannot exist”, so I know logicly AND estheticly its just absurd to expect the afterlife to be catered.

And now a word from walter benjamin:
But let me preface this by saying that I made a drawing about war and nobody said "hey, have you read walter benjamin" because he said some interesting stuff right around the time there was a war on. or "huh, you might like the futurists" because they thought war was beautifull. You know, in the same way that everone just assumes that youve read Benjamin's Arcade project, who hasn't, and understand that a bunch of people finally got around to reading it too, which is why they use big french words like "flanneur" allofasudden.

Or maybe one person did, and they are extremely charismatic and what the fuck, why not.

I assume THEY knew I didnt want to be influenced, that my protean genius must be left to germinate in blut und soil - das is gut das ist der ting. and that when I was older, these texts would be revealed to me as the ntrl rdr f thngs, bcs sch s th wy f th nvrs. The way is long and winding, and suffering needlessly in the pursuit of coherence and meaning is good branding. Thats why i try not to remember my sources.

Another reason is I dont remember reading art in the age of past the part where it says something about "aura" and "mechanical jpgs".

"All efforts to render politics aesthetic culminate in one thing: war. War and war only can set a goal for mass movements on the largest scale while respecting the traditional property system. This is the political formula for the situation. The technological formula may be stated as follows: Only war makes it possible to mobilize all of today's technical resources while maintaining the property system. It goes without saying that the Fascist apotheosis of war does not employ such arguments. Still, Marinetti says in his manifesto on the Ethiopian colonial war: "For twenty- seven years we Futurists have rebelled against the branding of war as antiaesthetic.... Accordingly we state: ... War is beautiful because it establishes man's dominion over the subjugated machinery by means of gas masks, terrifying megaphones, flame throwers, and small tanks. War is beautiful because it initiates the dreamt-of metalization of the human body. War is beautiful because it enriches a flowering meadow with the fiery orchids of machine guns. War is beautiful because it combines the gunfire, the cannonades, the cease-fire, the scents, and the stench of putrefaction into a symphony. War is beautiful because it creates new architecture, like that of the big tanks, the geometrical formation flights, the smoke spirals from burning villages, and many others.... Poets and artists of Futurism! ... remember these principles of an aesthetics of war so that your struggle for a new literature and a new graphic art . . . may be illumined by them!"

And finally - no war for oil paint.
Thank you.

zipthwung said...

here might relate to the previous painting. Im not sure, though because its abstract.

knah said...

i wonder how essential it is to paint scenes of terror, not to mention the iraq war (ala steve mumford). seems what these moments demand,and have aready in ample supply, are photographs, video, blog reporting, tv reporting. why do we need this painting? is a question i am sure weintraub must have asked himself. maybe painting offers another level of reportage, so i could be missing the point. but it just seems like some events shouldnt be used as an excuse to hang abstraction over (or art period), unless your in them (eg: the Theresienstadt children), and the art is essential to remembering, for yourself as much as who's on the outside.

knah said...

just read no-where-man's helpful explanation of wientraub's process. i'm a little cynical however about using painting to grapple personally with events that have been overly mediated and so out of touch. at least mumford goes to the place and is taking pictures, as it were, of moments maybe many cameras are missing. i really dont buy the idea of emotionally engaging the reality of a little holocaust through abstract painting.

SisterBee said...

Knah - I agree with the over-mediated thing.

I liked this better when it reminded me of the Black Canyon. It still does, only now I'm also looking for the suicide bus. The title shrinks this painting. It felt much bigger and full of possibility before I knew what it was.

What makes a good title anyway?

P.S.
The Black Canyon of the Gunnison has an underground reputation as being the suicide capital of the National Park System.

http://www.nps.gov/blca/

Anonymous said...

knah, that was the press relase (which often do more damage then good but in this instance helped me)

perhaps these works are a means for the Artist to internalize and understand the cold media images & the abstraction is a result of this process.

they read as more conceptual then a 'what you see is what you get' painters painting

closeuup said...

NWM's got it, I think.

I'm not big on painting about war. Painting about being an tax paying American whose country is central to the responsiblity for war is more interesting. Still say this is the best art about war of late.
Harrell Fletcher

closeuup said...

Harrell's piece is truely beautiful. Simple, conceptual. Not really about war, it's about empathy, which most of his work is about.

Reminds me also, that we used to have journalism. Did u see Tom brokaw speaking at Ford's funeral?! That's not right. Everyone has to play both ends against the middle now--like Bob Woodward. Like Nancy P. Like u and me.

closeuup said...

Daniel mendel Black said the following about his own paintings, but it might pertain to this by Weintraub too. (This is why its beautiful):
I am interested in representing the collapsing and derelict sense of form that is particularly characteristic of the dilapidation of fixed structures and its correlation in the larger cultural debate — underscored by our ongoing national political crisis of conscience — around the fundamental dysfunction and fragility of the belief systems we most freely subscribe to.

zipthwung said...

I live by the words on the page

WI-FI rocks.

zipthwung said...

Mediation is essential to creation
You made god like a play station
X-box will beat the Sony
Microsoft made it easier to program its games
Why plug in if you have to pay for frames?
First one is free, but the razor has six blades and one in the chamber.
process leads to essence like panning for gold?
Just let it rot and then eat the mold.
You want it, I got it
So your girlfriend rolls a Honda, playin' workout tapes by Fonda
But Fonda ain't got a motor in the back of her Honda

First pour chilled 1/2 pint of Guinness into beer mug, let it settle, then take a shot filled with 1/2 oz. of Irish whiskey on the bottom, topped with a 1/2 oz. of Irish cream on top. Finally drop shot in mug, and chug.

Decay Image said...

The philosophical question this painting addresses is this: In what way is equating a chaotic dekooningesque expressionistic painting style with the chaotic destruction resulting from a suicide bomb a useful artistic metaphor?

On the one hand the artistic style of the painting misrepresents the artistic philosophy of an unconscious chaotic painting style because each part of the painting is really representing, in an ordered manner, a photograph of a chaotic disordered system produced by a bomb. And it also misrepresents the horror of the destruction that the actual photograph was meant to represent.

So what do we in fact get? On the one hand we are seeing an attempt to link the deconstructing aspects of painting the with disorder produced by a suicide bomb. Painter as Shiva-like destroyer, though not really painter as suicide bomber (unless of course this show proves to be career suicide).

As has been noted earlier, the metaphor of the deconstructing aspects of painting, of modernism as destroyer of culture has been explored many times, and in many ways. One of the best was Graham Greene's story "The Destructors" from 1954. A post WWII setting, it is about a gang of boys who systematically weaken the structure of a 200 year old Christopher Wren house, damaged from the bombing, but in otherwise good condition, so that when a lorry that was surreptitiously roped to a supporting strut gets started the next day, the whole house comes crashing down. It ends like this:

"He gave a sobbing cry. 'My house, he said.'Where's my house?'
'Search me,' the driver said. His eye lit on the remains of a bath and what had once been a dresser and he began to laugh. There wasn't anything left anywhere.
'How dare you laugh,' Mr Thomas said. 'It was my house.'
'I'm sorry,' the driver said, making heroic efforts , but when he remembered the sudden check of his lorry, the crash of bricks falling, he became convulsed again. One moment the house had stood there with such dignity between the bomb-sites like a man in a top hat, and then, bang crash, there wasn't anything left—not anything. He said,'I'm sorry. I can't help it, Mr Thomas. There's nothing personal, but you got to admit it's funny."

zipthwung said...

Im not sure that I care about the formal process of this - "do something different for each area" vs the last thread - TW - some kind of symetry paired I am guessing, with the depth vs no depth thing - as decay says, "what you see is what you get" a la Cremeburg.

TW seems biblical, maybe its the cloisonee or the broken halo. This painting works more as pop - trash disposable culture - it could be the dust bin after new years.

I think it has something to do with people who like clean desks vs messy campers.

George said...

It always seemed to me that AE was a natural response to the horrors of WWII. At the time, images from the battlefront were highly edited for propaganda reasons, never the less the intensity of the images and peoples personal loss from the affects of WWII made it difficult to integrate the images directly into the painting context. As a result, AE sublimated the pain and chaos as image and the anxiety was expressed directly in the action of painting itself. In today’s world, these types of images of tragedy and loss are ubiquitous, they have become so homogenized into the fabric of society that we stand the risk of becoming desensitized to their horror. The difficulty I find with Weintraub’s paintings is that they relate to these images by further desensitizing them. They can only capture the tragedy by reference but fail to succeed in manifesting anything other than our indifference to what is actually occurring. As a strategy for painting Weintraub’s paintings exist in a blurred zone and might be more effective taking a clearer position towards his subject matter. They could be either more about abstraction derived from the perception of chaos, or more about the indifference to the chaos or more of a political commentary. As they stand they present a degree of confusion of intent, which may be his intent, but for me they suffer from a disconnect of palatability.

Out of curiosity I recently looked at a number of artworks made during the war years (roughly 1940-50) Taking a generalized overall view, I was struck by how the color pallets of various painters (British artists, Picasso, Pollock etc) grayed down during the war years. It was as if a cloud of gloom had settled down as a layer of fine dust. I suspect that this is because more artists and the population in general were directly affected by the tragedies of WWII. It is less evident in works from the Vietnam era and today. I think this may be a function of both the lesser affect of the tragedies on the western world and a general desensitization to this kind of imagery. Unless one has personal contact with the loss of war, it’s business as usual. Where’s my Ipod.

knah said...

these last threads make me think more recently about warhol's camaflouge paintings. how they point to the use of pattern and design as formal strategies within art/fashion, as well as on the battlefield. they seem obvious commentaries on war but also locate references to consumer/image culture that complicate the realities of war. warhol often begged questions about the ethics of aesthetic means in his representation of horror (cf: the electric chair series, and reproductions of civil right protests). i am not sure yet whether wientraub fits in here, but it seems relevant somehow to note another context where decorative work serves a defamiliarizing effect on cultural indifference/amnesia.

zipthwung said...

THe art world is of course a mirror consciousness to pure capitolism. A shadow cabinet of Dr Caligari - larger on the inside than the outside, full of the surpluss created by the illusion of depth. The value-added - the tax on perception. The splinter in the minds I.

In that sense desire mediated by the camera obscura of the art world is
an illusion that spreads its cone of enlightenment into the corners of the invisible one room university.

What do we spend when we consume art? What does the artist eat? What will we do in eternity?
Is time meaning? Or is it inherently chewed?
Are we richer for having seen this work? Or is it sulphurous gass designed to blind and cripple us in our entrenchments?

What anal sadistic spectres must we confront on the path towards the lucred limelight? What flyspecked bedpan galleries must we enter into? What blackened soul blighted dens of slovenly iniquitous pulchritude must we sanitize with our bling and brimstoned ass-trumpets?

What humpbacked blue moons will rise inviting us, spoon and all, to beat the sacred black angus to death with our tarnished medallions from langourous opium skirmishes? What hash will be fried with eggs in iron skilleted jaws of domestic bliss? What Stained Glass and Strained Egos will we attend all tomorrows parties with? What metaphysical assassins will corroborate our every suspicion and send us home wrapped around a steak, entwined with destiny?

“The Fuhrer alone is the present and future German reality and its law. Learn to know ever more deeply: from now on every single thing demands decision, and every action responsibility.”

-Martin Heidegger

Anonymous said...

Confrontation means to recognize, so there is a bind there which I'm not sure is located in the decorative idea, thought the above image of Joshua's does have lots of dismembered parts, colors, shapes, and splays to take our attention away, thus bringing it back--but to what?.
It's interesting much of the early comments [which I have just got to] kind of focus on the possibility of seeing through the 'decorative' to some content, as a strategy, ...I'm not sure.
TW's shapes and color have a slow move that is very worked out. It's not a battle in the way we are accustomed to judging battles. As he says on that article, once he felt comfortable with the idea that the world didn't just push pull, and, of course, painting didn't need to stick to that either; that content, and especially form, is a very weak yet convincing camouflage, then a painting's content doesn't need to even consider object and subject-- the thing and the none-thing--because the whole thing is just a construction.
Some painting bear the tags of this is a thing, and this is a not altogether-thing, and this, the rest, is something else: which you can make music with or noise. Or you can directly deal with the music, and it's construction: Painting is music as music is a camouflage, a beautiful construction.

JW looks like he has a handle on the world, and if he keeps going he may just stumble upon some of the holes that indeed camouflage it.
... still at the mountains

zipthwung said...

I spoke to him then about the war. I said the same things people always say when they speak against the war. I said that the war was wrong. I said that large countries should not bum down small countries. I said that the government had made a series of errors. I said that these errors once small and forgivable were now immense and unforgivable. I said that the government was attempting to conceal its original errors under layers of new errors. I said that the government was sick with error, giddy with it. I said that ten thousand of our soldiers had already been killed in pursuit of the government's errors. I said that tens of thousands of the enemy's soldiers and civilians had been killed because of various errors, ours and, theirs. I said that we are responsible for errors made in our name. I said that the government should not be allowed to make additional errors.

"Yes, yes," the chief engineer said, "there is doubtless much truth in what you say, but we can't possibly lose the war, can we? And stopping is losing, isn't it? The war regarded as a process, stopping regarded as an abort? We don't know how to lose a war. That skill is not among our skills. Our array smashes their array, that is what we know. That is the process. That is what is.

Anonymous said...

could it be that a great deal of "Fine Artists" fail to see the role there work plays in fashion/media superculture and visa versa?

are we not all at the mercy of the machine?

zipthwung said...

Marx believed in emergent or collective behavior, an idea that is of interest to economists, marketers and chaos theorists, among others.

Is the structure of human society biologicly hierarchical? Of course it is. We call the system God's will and pretend it has supernatural grounding.

God is dead, long live god.

Thats why Im an advocate for mandatory gene therapy.

A spider conducts operations that resemble those of a weaver, and a bee puts to shame many an architect in the construction of her cells. But what distinguishes the worst architect from the best of bees is this, that the architect raises his structure in imagination before he erects it in reality.

-Marx

"The best men must have intercourse with the best women as frequently as possible, and the opposite is true of the very inferior."
-Plato

Anonymous said...

hey this is weintraub.
the paintings are of images taken from the media. the titles are the headlines. the attempt was to engage with these historic events but the result was further isolation. they are tertiary: paintings of images of events. the emptiness is a result of doing as little as possible.

Adi said...

Get the lates information of Electronics Gadgets Tech gadgets Cool Gadgets New Gadgets Best Gadgets Latest Gadgets Cool New Gadgets

Nadya Migalko said...

It's crap. I've seen one in person and it looks unfinished. There's no balance, nothing.

Adi said...

Oes Tsetnoc one of the ways in which we can learn seo besides Mengembalikan Jati Diri Bangsa. By participating in the Oes Tsetnoc or Mengembalikan Jati Diri Bangsa we can improve our seo skills. To find more information about Oest Tsetnoc please visit my Oes Tsetnoc pages. And to find more information about Mengembalikan Jati Diri Bangsa please visit my Mengembalikan Jati Diri Bangsa pages. Thank you So much.
Oes Tsetnoc | Semangat Mengembalikan Jati Diri Bangsa