1/10/2007

Scott Reeder

28 comments:

Painter said...

Scott Reeder @
Daniel Reich Gallery
537 A West 23rd St
NYC

bluebalz said...

this show was so bad it was good,actually sweet paintings, but am not sure if they are sincere or a comment on sincerity/outsiderishness by a consummate insider

Anonymous said...

back back forth and forth...

Anonymous said...

is that just a painting of a judd w a hanky tossed on it, or cum rag, like...done...?

Cross said...

The gallery website uses five paragraphs to describe the work of this artist. That is a lot. I don't get the feeling that this is an 'insider' artist commenting on sincerity, but rather an artist that is sincere. But...

The bluntness of his message in the paintings shown on the web comes across as flat as his surfaces. I will say that these paintings don't seem to photograph well, and I would like to see the show in person to see what I might be missing.

Anonymous said...

is that just a painting of a judd w a hanky tossed on it, or cum rag, like...done...?

Anonymous said...

This is show is simple and sophisticated at the same time. The title of the piece often finishes the painting in Reeders work, I believe this one is called "Bookshelf Guillotine". Reeders color pallette is often hard to define and his brush stroke is really beautiful. This shows a bit more.
http://jameswagner.com/mt_archives/005978.html

SisterBee said...

Hmm... Great use of brown. Warm, mustardy. Not muddy.

poppy said...

this is sort of johnsy and gustony. Like it better than the little splats on paper on the gallery site.

Anonymous said...

We used to call that babyshit yellow.

Anonymous said...

these are all idea-objects, softened/obscured in the physical act of painting thoughts, clarified by titles, and lacking enough figure/ground activation to suggest they might be more successful if they were constructed 3D objects. beyond brushwork, painting should be more than just a figure on a vacant ground - it should be more like a figure in a ground, painting the space around the figure, painting the space as the figure. maybe this is a bad example, but guston knew how to do it in a way these don't.

zipthwung said...

My profs used to noncomittally call this kind of stuff (the TRADITIONAL GENRE of JOKE PAINTING) one liners. They used to say that while chomping on their cigars and scowling mightily, the furrow in their brow a canyon, as if their heads might roll down into it, crushing the hypothalamus, whatever that is.

But not really. In reality they wondered why they had to socialize (pre-art fair) as part of the job as artist. Couldnt they be allowed just read books? SHouldnt they be alowed to be reclusive in the manner of the genius artists past? THey wondered what the point of making good work was when the Julian Schnabels of the world could roll right over them and attract pale shadow Schnable replicants to the art world (their art world) like flies to charged baloons. They worried about their careers and how they were going to retire. They worried about their health. They tried hard to make a go of it and in the end some of them that owned their lofts sold them and left.

Better to douse the brief candle with a dose of black humor. This work is not black enough, nor contextualized within and underdog type setting. That makes it a snide loogie on the furrowed brow of the outsider. Fuck you you fucktards.

I made a painting. like american dick, but mine was symbolic and it wasnt a dick, it was a container, a way of not being a drop in a pond, a center, a chrysalis, a modernist self-sufficent non-reflexive way of being in the world. A one liner, to be sure.

zipthwung said...

These paintings are like enlarged versions of the doodles a smart-alecky student might make to amuse himself during art history class. KEN JOHNSON

Party like its 1999

poppy said...

theyre not trying to obviously, hence the johns reference, the individual pop idea in a way..i don't think these would be as successful with the space painted around them, just the opposite.,,,but some people like to see space, probably in all work because its your agenda, i don't think its the agenda for these or should it be..

zipthwung said...

An internet phenomenon

Anonymous said...

Saw these on James Wagner's web last year and thought, right, they don't come over particularly well on the internet.

Actually I would say: paintings that are adaptive which tend to keep to a particular chroma best described as 'low intensity'.
Absurd (just a smidgen in my opinion) with a heart to the playful, s(l)ight--blurry:
dog-eared laps at the daily, and painting culture.

Anonymous said...

A container? Now THAT'S funny.

since kelli's not around
i can say
from the female point of view

zipthwung said...

Great shot kid

Shirts or skins?

Anonymous said...

impossible to dispense with agendas? uncertain, but these paintings do have painted space, just not what seems to be a very strongly activated figure/ground relationship. or i should say this particular example is better in that regard than some of the others shown on the gallery's site. still, the space IS painted around the figures, but not well activated. think of ellsworth kelly, for example. what if the guillotine bookshelf's edges went up to the edges of the canvas? or what if the bookshelf was dwarfed by the space around it? whether it's part of someone's agenda or not, i think it's valid to critique and question a painting in terms of its structural content as part of (not separate from or irrelevant to) its content as a whole. let us all express our agendas openly and freely.

zipthwung said...

trademark

good jeans?

Cooky Blaha said...

that shit was on channel 53 months ago zip, get with it.

real jeans
http://www.gooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooogle.com/channel53/?p=88

nice painting

Anonymous said...

i saw the recent john's show & a ton of his work - i never got "not trying"

poppy said...

dispensing agendas is hard for some, and it is valid to critique whatever way you want... but i certainly don't see these paintings turning into any ellsworth kelly esp as a means of making them 'better paintings'.. and i don't think cause they don't ring like an ellsworth that the ground is vacant... i need to know the intensity of vacant...

curious for nwm,..what is the 'not trying' refering to.

Anonymous said...

i only use ellsworth kelly as an example to show that space can be flat yet also activated. in no way do i attempt to morph these into ellsworth kellys. jesus, trying to make a point is so difficult when people are more ready to argue than to attempt to read and understand first what was written. vacancy is about degree or percentage of figure to ground, i don't know what else i can say - if you don't understand what i mean after referencing both guston and kelly as examples (i'm giving you opposites here) what more do you want? and yes, if i can suggest something to make these into 'better paintings' on a forum where we discuss the issues of painting in reference to specific artists' work, then i will continue to suggest ways to make some of those works 'better paintings'. it's only natural.

Anonymous said...

you know what poppy that was knee jerk and presumptuous of me - y don't u let me know what u ment.

i was making a off the cuff back/forth, 2d/3d, figure/ground, judd w/a cum rag/painting association.

poppy said...

i'm sorry that my comments seem like ready made arguements, they are not, I too am trying to understand what is meant by what is said.. opinion appreciated..

Nwm.. I'd like to let you know what i meant but i'm not entirely sure what you are referring to. I don't get not trying
with johns work by no means. Is that what we are talking about? Johns definately tried and had big time anxiety when starting new paintings and work... I also really love his work..

zipthwung said...

Im tuned in cooky. Im working on channeling.

Anonymous said...

i was thinking about some of his work as "trying to hard" as in relation to expectations - and relationship to the viewer - sometimes things fail when they are not natural and "try to hard" as well.