How does everyone feel abot work that acknowledges it's critics in this way? I like Landers and he's made an intersting career out of it. This painting is funny cause this rough basquait type of handling still appeals to my senses but the writing made it go from something I aesthetically enjoyed to Supercrapola!
I like the above image, and the words... well aren't they just a structural element, that as a bonus can read the old-fashioned way, to see if it at all means anything, and if not then... return to the painting. Interesting, though that some comments say the word stops them in their tracks. Maybe a painting with a bit 'don't let the words get you down, or be on top of it', or something like that, would be good. Anyway got to dash out. I like the painting.
I agree with Concrete in principle, about text being another formal element, but then there’s the question of which font or face and a whole history of calligraphy exercising the options. Given the gestural quality to the imagery in the Linquist, you can either match it with a spontaneous maybe graffiti-like notation or contrast it with a more practised or print-like type, for starters, but this seems pretty tame stuff. The Landers does away with other imagery but doesn’t seem to have too many ideas about other variation within the text, but this may be a technical thing. I suppose it’s good that painters keep going back to these issues though, because unless you look you won’t find, right?
There's a word for it And words don't mean a thing There's name for it And names make all the difference in the world Some things can never be spoken Some things cannot be pronounced That word does not exist in any language It will never be uttered by a human mouth
Let X make a statement Let breath pass through those cracked lips That man was my hero And now that word has been taken from us Some things can never be spoken Some things cannot be pronounced That word does not exist in any language It will never be uttered by a human mouth
Gilmour is better, I agree. Prieto? It’s a pretty crowded field, frankly. Even Schnabel and Basquiat can extract something from the look of words, whether those little jabbing strokes J-M preferred (and surely originate with a felt-tip marker) or Schnab’s wobbly folk-signage (if nothing else, at least he gives the broken plates a rest when he does the text stuff). True, there are some things unsayable, better left unsaid, but even where we have the words and commit them to writing, there are always additional nuances in script, type or font, tiny links to broader matters of design. Graphic designers live by this philosophy. Neville Brody has a lot to answer for. There’s this British guy that does text paintings like Landers as well but I’ve forgotten his name. Collings loves him.
who's the british guy that does the text better, is it the guy that says tony blair is a zombie of death? Anyways graham gilmore has been doing the text stuff and only the text stuff for along time and I would agree that he does it better in those regards. But Landers has made a career out of apoligizing for being so worried about what the critics think of him and takes many approaches to this, the text based being but one. He's great,..I love plank boy,... but this contains text only to apologize for what it is, do you know what i mean? Any of the many text based artists did it way better, Rivers?, cause the stuff wasn't apologetic in any way..Johns, stencils, basquait, freehand,...whatever...it was for the work...
There is a nice play, very considered yet immediate, and a clean with the why? and the 'how' of how the snippets of the things end up on a canvas. I looked at that flickr account and could see it there! Odd domestic considerations, and a painting sense not scared or nervous of the brush, its history or load, text and context everywhere. ...reminds me of a friend's place, actually, when I sometimes ask... 'Is this here to be washed or something?'.
I've seen this done as art and as a fuckup. Its alllright.
as paintings I don't know how they are marketed - may be they are obsessive, or investigating sensitivity to depth cues.
My vote is they are inveigling against puritanical ideals of "surface", "finish" and "uniformity" although certainly one gets an "allover" feeling from the work.
inveigle v. "These are not the droids you are looking for"
Re:washing up. My future husband came over to visit me at the apartment I shared with my brother. First time he went into the kitchen, he said: dont you guys know this is how the plague got started?
the key IS to sand-paper right thru them. then you have to enlarge the hole and fill it with an oblong glass mirror inset.
one should be able to easily market them to w-mart or sahhchiichii although w-mart may want to discount them after 90 days and satchee will ask: "what's a discount?"
in the morning when you look in the mirror you will see "soupafantastic" comin' back at you, and, this will surely make you a better person. ----------------------------------
Please pay the receptionist on the way out or leave a copy of The Last Wave.
"WHO are you?. Who ARE you? Who are YOU?" the old man asked.
Lindqvist... that's Swedish right? Or maybe Danish? Mmmm... Danish... A little dirty for the nordic sensibility, yet typically graphic, high-contrast. I guess if you write 'supergorgeous' on your painting, some are going to believe it right? It's very art history book looking - Johns letters, Schnabels splashes, Agnes Martin's grids and there you have it. Art history stew. Mmmm.
These institutions have not always served the art, said Christoph Grunenberg, curator of the Whitney’s “Summer of Love” exhibition for the Tate Liverpool gallery, where it began in 2005. Instead, he said, they’ve enabled “a rather superficial consumption of a retro aesthetic, which doesn’t take into consideration the motives behind it, the desire for liberation.
“The utopian impulse of the period is missing,” he said.
There's the impulse, and the time concept. I was at a conference, LOST UTOPIAS, and I think this painter was there too! It was funny, you know, looking at these collars with little bent down triangles at the front, odd talk, real odd. Interesting enough much of the talk was on... What the artists thought... and the things I remember certainly were not the things that I had read in a book. I mean what I read in a book, was not what the people were saying. I went to the loo. As I was nearing completion two folk walked in. I asked. "Are you at the conference?" They asked what conference was that, and I replied the conference with the little triangles and topic of Lost Utopians, and they said they hadn't heard of that. So I asked what conference were they attending, and their reply was they weren’t at any conference, they were attending the facilities, as they heard there was some good talk going on. Well talk about talking to yourself, they must have heard, so I stayed and chatted. We had a wonderful time, and in time more came to the facilities, from different conferences, meetings, message boards, and so on. It was one of the most incredible get-togethers I had had for such a long time. And the loo was, like, right there! Right there!
Time didn't move, so really none of us really needed to go, so the facilities didn't serve as 'facilities', in the normal sense, though we did agree, all of us there, that each meeting, when two cabs turn right at the same intersection, with the same payload, in a different part of the galaxy, we'd meet at the 'facilities', wherever they may be.
Since commentary digresses here, I was wondering if anyone had opinions on the current AiA piece on art schools? Hickey seemed most to the point (Elkins least) – but his suggestions that teaching was just as hard on artists as learning, and that it was best to look for an admired artist in choosing a school rang false to me. Admittedly, all I got to teach was life drawing (that’s where the vacancies were) and that’s very traditional and structured, pretty much drills for skills, but I never found it all that obstructive as far as doing my own work. Let’s face it, doing any job gets in the way of painting, if you’re firstly a painter. Teaching may be hard because of the interpersonal skills (painters notoriously – but understandably – not great people persons) but I wonder if Hickey’s ever tried some of the more strenuous or non-related options? Teaching is at least talking about your supposed expertise. As for looking for a suitable mentor, in choosing an art school, even if this is practical (i.e. some still alive, willing and in roughly the same part of the world) my experience has been that they are never much like their work (why should they be?) and by the time you discover this gap a lot has been put in train. Any opinions?
Funny how Art in America is represented by one magazine. Is the article online? I try not to touch AIA because it burns my skin.
I'd say Bjarne Melgaard, John Bauer and Annabel Linquist (for example) all have something in common:
art school.
That makes their work "student work" for as long as they are working in this manner.
If not, then they are ironicly commenting on art school art. Which is lame.
Art about art or art "rules" is cynical in 2007 - it amounts to a readymade sales pitch with moral overtones Oh but they rail against the rules!!! No fucking rules! thay say. And that is the essence of art school. the philosophers stone, handed down from generation to generation, a zen koan of absolute purity, crystaline and just plain awesome.
Readymade in an newstand magazine sense, not a duchampian one.
Take for example the gallery trope of curating photographing, painting or scanning small or large libraries on shelves, canvas or board.
I rather enjoy scanning other people's bookshelves, but art about it is about as lame as a photodocumentary of the bistros of the Chelsea Market. Do it. Do it now. Buon Italia has great sopresata.
I've found that all good things-- including teachers-- are stumbled upon. Do your research, point yourself in a direction and slouch toward enlightenment.
You have to teach yourself, anyway. Listen for the bell.
oh and also - many professors and critics are clinically depressed (read the study its in newt years Psychogeography Today) and to look to them (your heroes?) for advice as a young artist can be bittersweet - like beating your dad at the Oedipal arm wrestling championships and then teaching them the finest points of Sudoku (it goes DEEP) while blitzed on the funny stuff. Thats probably the real lesson, aside from learning how to draw hands ears and crotches (do it now).
My best teacher ever was that sexy poet. Couldnt take my eyes off him for 3 months. He wore leather pants and a blue work shirt, rode his motorcycle over to teach class, smelled intoxicatingly sweaty. Knew how to hold yr attention. He started talking before he came into the room--didnt stop for a solid hour. Everything in the world came out of his mouth. Things he introduced us to then I've been following up on the rest of my life. still.
now I want to go read "art in america art schools symposium"
heres what I think it says:
1) Art: its big bad and bullish, go get you some.
2) It aint easy there are no guarantees (that) you'll get a concept car and a waterfront home in three countries.
3) Its nice to dream, and Art in America only costs a double iced Starbucks latte+tip or whatever.
4) I just quit coffee and now Im back on it. Don't do it.
5) oh yeah, art schools - choose wisely but if you want the afore mentioned maseratti your only real chance is UCLA, Yale or Skowhegan or all three. (go with all three, BFA (skowhegan)MFA and tell them zipthwung sent you).
6) Come from somewhere and wear it on your belt buckle, sleeve, or better yet, carved into your forehead.
7) Motorcycle accidents have claimed the lives of many poets. Read Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance for a how to.
I dunno, thats how I would have written it. But AiA is a Brandt publication so I'm sure its all about choosing wisely, caveat emptor and gee, look at the price of a warhol.
Isn't Art School the New Utopia? No, oops, maybe I missed something, had too much fun there I guess...
Seriously, I know Art in Amer. advertises for art schools in the back of the magazine-- but now in the featured articles... I love what Hickey had to say but I also value what I learned or unlearned in all those life drawing classes even more. Too many "critics" are teaching which is fun in school because you get all the lingo lavished on your work, but is detrimental afterwards (like this person's work- definitely formulaic, student looking work to my eyes.)
A Pre-Studio program would be radical but you'd have to recruit them before kindergarten.
The AiA piece was just about America. Elkins raises the comparison with the British system, but if anything he’s saying its worse, so I don’t think there’s a pro-British sub-text to it. But does anyone here do any art teaching? Done any? Do they find it a hindrance to painting?
42 comments:
Annabel Linquist @
Mehr (Midtown)
436 W 18th Street
New York, NY 10011
tom is not my friend
that was a superfantastic link... i gotta go to superfantastic work now, simple as that! mental note, Failure is an option.
How does everyone feel abot work that acknowledges it's critics in this way? I like Landers and he's made an intersting career out of it. This painting is funny cause this rough basquait type of handling still appeals to my senses but the writing made it go from something I aesthetically enjoyed to Supercrapola!
Work for the critics feels too much like homework. Intellectual puzzles. Calculating rather than vulnerable or mysterious.
Text in most paintings just stalls the reading for me right there at the literal.
Maybe Painter can throw me a curveball?
Work addressed to an "audience" or other artists doesn't seem that staid to me even if it is pedantic-- Andrea Bowers, for example.
This is her work on Flickr:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/fluxcompression/
(Sorry, don't know how to do links.)
I like the above image, and the words... well aren't they just a structural element, that as a bonus can read the old-fashioned way, to see if it at all means anything, and if not then... return to the painting.
Interesting, though that some comments say the word stops them in their tracks. Maybe a painting with a bit 'don't let the words get you down, or be on top of it', or something like that, would be good.
Anyway got to dash out. I like the painting.
I agree with Concrete in principle, about text being another formal element, but then there’s the question of which font or face and a whole history of calligraphy exercising the options. Given the gestural quality to the imagery in the Linquist, you can either match it with a spontaneous maybe graffiti-like notation or contrast it with a more practised or print-like type, for starters, but this seems pretty tame stuff. The Landers does away with other imagery but doesn’t seem to have too many ideas about other variation within the text, but this may be a technical thing.
I suppose it’s good that painters keep going back to these issues though, because unless you look you won’t find, right?
much better than both of them
to quote no wear man quoting the heads:
There's a word for it
And words don't mean a thing
There's name for it
And names make all the difference in the world
Some things can never be spoken
Some things cannot be pronounced
That word does not exist in any language
It will never be uttered by a human mouth
Let X make a statement
Let breath pass through those cracked lips
That man was my hero
And now that word has been taken from us
Some things can never be spoken
Some things cannot be pronounced
That word does not exist in any language
It will never be uttered by a human mouth
Super autistic?
Gilmour is better, I agree.
Prieto?
It’s a pretty crowded field, frankly.
Even Schnabel and Basquiat can extract something from the look of words, whether those little jabbing strokes J-M preferred (and surely originate with a felt-tip marker) or Schnab’s wobbly folk-signage
(if nothing else, at least he gives the broken plates a rest when he does the text stuff).
True, there are some things unsayable, better left unsaid, but even where we have the words and commit them to writing, there are always additional nuances in script, type or font, tiny links to broader matters of design.
Graphic designers live by this philosophy.
Neville Brody has a lot to answer for.
There’s this British guy that does text paintings like Landers as well but I’ve forgotten his name. Collings loves him.
who's the british guy that does the text better, is it the guy that says tony blair is a zombie of death? Anyways graham gilmore has been doing the text stuff and only the text stuff for along time and I would agree that he does it better in those regards. But Landers has made a career out of apoligizing for being so worried about what the critics think of him and takes many approaches to this, the text based being but one. He's great,..I love plank boy,... but this contains text only to apologize for what it is, do you know what i mean? Any of the many text based artists did it way better, Rivers?, cause the stuff wasn't apologetic in any way..Johns, stencils, basquait, freehand,...whatever...it was for the work...
When you move from originality to "cuteness" it's time to try something new.
There is a nice play, very considered yet immediate, and a clean with the why? and the 'how' of how the snippets of the things end up on a canvas. I looked at that
flickr account and could see it there!
Odd domestic considerations, and a painting sense not scared or nervous of the brush, its history or load, text and context everywhere.
...reminds me of a friend's place, actually, when I sometimes ask... 'Is this here to be washed or something?'.
Heres one to try:
1) Create layered surface
2) Apply palm or rotary sander to surface.
I've seen this done as art and as a fuckup. Its alllright.
as paintings I don't know how they are marketed - may be they are obsessive, or investigating sensitivity to depth cues.
My vote is they are inveigling against puritanical ideals of "surface", "finish" and "uniformity" although certainly one gets an "allover" feeling from the work.
inveigle v. "These are not the droids you are looking for"
Maybe Luke WAS autistic.
Re:washing up. My future husband came over to visit me at the apartment I shared with my brother. First time he went into the kitchen, he said: dont you guys know this is how the plague got started?
zip:
"as paintings I don't know how they are marketed"
lettuce address this pressing CONcern.
the key IS to sand-paper right thru them. then you have to enlarge the hole and fill it with an oblong glass mirror inset.
one should be able to easily market them to w-mart or sahhchiichii although w-mart may want to discount them after 90 days and satchee will ask: "what's a discount?"
in the morning when you look in the mirror you will see "soupafantastic" comin' back at you, and, this will surely make you a better person.
----------------------------------
Please pay the receptionist on the way out or leave a copy of The Last Wave.
"WHO are you?. Who ARE you? Who are YOU?" the old man asked.
Lindqvist... that's Swedish right? Or maybe Danish? Mmmm... Danish...
A little dirty for the nordic sensibility, yet typically graphic, high-contrast. I guess if you write 'supergorgeous' on your painting, some are going to believe it right? It's very art history book looking - Johns letters, Schnabels splashes, Agnes Martin's grids and there you have it. Art history stew. Mmmm.
superfantastic
These institutions have not always served the art, said Christoph Grunenberg, curator of the Whitney’s “Summer of Love” exhibition for the Tate Liverpool gallery, where it began in 2005. Instead, he said, they’ve enabled “a rather superficial consumption of a retro aesthetic, which doesn’t take into consideration the motives behind it, the desire for liberation.
“The utopian impulse of the period is missing,” he said.
nyttimesssss;
There's the impulse, and the time concept. I was at a conference, LOST UTOPIAS, and I think this painter was there too! It was funny, you know, looking at these collars with little bent down triangles at the front, odd talk, real odd. Interesting enough much of the talk was on...
What the artists thought... and the things I remember certainly were not the things that I had read in a book. I mean what I read in a book, was not what the people were saying.
I went to the loo.
As I was nearing completion two folk walked in. I asked. "Are you at the conference?" They asked what conference was that, and I replied the conference with the little triangles and topic of Lost Utopians, and they said they hadn't heard of that. So I asked what conference were they attending, and their reply was they weren’t at any conference, they were attending the facilities, as they heard there was some good talk going on.
Well talk about talking to yourself, they must have heard, so I stayed and chatted.
We had a wonderful time, and in time more came to the facilities, from different conferences, meetings, message boards, and so on. It was one of the most incredible get-togethers I had had for such a long time. And the loo was, like, right there! Right there!
Time didn't move, so really none of us really needed to go, so the facilities didn't serve as 'facilities', in the normal sense, though we did agree, all of us there, that each meeting, when two cabs turn right at the same intersection, with the same payload, in a different part of the galaxy, we'd meet at the 'facilities', wherever they may be.
Since commentary digresses here, I was wondering if anyone had opinions on the current AiA piece on art schools? Hickey seemed most to the point (Elkins least) – but his suggestions that teaching was just as hard on artists as learning, and that it was best to look for an admired artist in choosing a school rang false to me.
Admittedly, all I got to teach was life drawing (that’s where the vacancies were) and that’s very traditional and structured, pretty much drills for skills, but I never found it all that obstructive as far as doing my own work.
Let’s face it, doing any job gets in the way of painting, if you’re firstly a painter. Teaching may be hard because of the interpersonal skills (painters notoriously – but understandably – not great people persons) but I wonder if Hickey’s ever tried some of the more strenuous or non-related options?
Teaching is at least talking about your supposed expertise.
As for looking for a suitable mentor, in choosing an art school, even if this is practical (i.e. some still alive, willing and in roughly the same part of the world) my experience has been that they are never much like their work (why should they be?) and by the time you discover this gap a lot has been put in train.
Any opinions?
Funny how Art in America is represented by one magazine. Is the article online? I try not to touch AIA because it burns my skin.
I'd say Bjarne Melgaard, John Bauer and Annabel Linquist (for example) all have something in common:
art school.
That makes their work "student work" for as long as they are working in this manner.
If not, then they are ironicly commenting on art school art. Which is lame.
Art about art or art "rules" is cynical in 2007 - it amounts to a readymade sales pitch with moral overtones Oh but they rail against the rules!!! No fucking rules! thay say. And that is the essence of art school. the philosophers stone, handed down from generation to generation, a zen koan of absolute purity, crystaline and just plain awesome.
Readymade in an newstand magazine sense, not a duchampian one.
Take for example the gallery trope of curating photographing, painting or scanning small or large libraries on shelves, canvas or board.
I rather enjoy scanning other people's bookshelves, but art about it is about as lame as a photodocumentary of the bistros of the Chelsea Market. Do it. Do it now. Buon Italia has great sopresata.
I've found that all good things-- including teachers-- are stumbled upon. Do your research, point yourself in a direction and slouch toward enlightenment.
You have to teach yourself, anyway. Listen for the bell.
oh and also - many professors and critics are clinically depressed (read the study its in newt years Psychogeography Today) and to look to them (your heroes?) for advice as a young artist can be bittersweet - like beating your dad at the Oedipal arm wrestling championships and then teaching them the finest points of Sudoku (it goes DEEP) while blitzed on the funny stuff. Thats probably the real lesson, aside from learning how to draw hands ears and crotches (do it now).
My best teacher ever was that sexy poet. Couldnt take my eyes off him for 3 months. He wore leather pants and a blue work shirt, rode his motorcycle over to teach class, smelled intoxicatingly sweaty. Knew how to hold yr attention. He started talking before he came into the room--didnt stop for a solid hour. Everything in the world came out of his mouth. Things he introduced us to then I've been following up on the rest of my life. still.
now I want to go read "art in america art schools symposium"
heres what I think it says:
1) Art: its big bad and bullish, go get you some.
2) It aint easy there are no guarantees (that) you'll get a concept car and a waterfront home in three countries.
3) Its nice to dream, and Art in America only costs a double iced Starbucks latte+tip or whatever.
4) I just quit coffee and now Im back on it. Don't do it.
5) oh yeah, art schools - choose wisely but if you want the afore mentioned maseratti your only real chance is UCLA, Yale or Skowhegan or all three. (go with all three, BFA (skowhegan)MFA and tell them zipthwung sent you).
6) Come from somewhere and wear it on your belt buckle, sleeve, or better yet, carved into your forehead.
7) Motorcycle accidents have claimed the lives of many poets. Read Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance for a how to.
I dunno, thats how I would have written it. But AiA is a Brandt publication so I'm sure its all about choosing wisely, caveat emptor and gee, look at the price of a warhol.
Isn't Art School the New Utopia? No, oops, maybe I missed something, had too much fun there I guess...
Seriously, I know Art in Amer. advertises for art schools in the back of the magazine-- but now in the featured articles...
I love what Hickey had to say but I also value what I learned or unlearned in all those life drawing classes even more. Too many "critics" are teaching which is fun in school because you get all the lingo lavished on your work, but is detrimental afterwards (like this person's work- definitely formulaic, student looking work to my eyes.)
A Pre-Studio program would be radical but you'd have to recruit them before kindergarten.
I think the article says: don't trust anyone under thirty (even yourself.)
& the subtext is: "why aren't we turning out as many Art Stars per capita as the Brits?"
The AiA piece was just about America. Elkins raises the comparison with the British system, but if anything he’s saying its worse, so I don’t think there’s a pro-British sub-text to it.
But does anyone here do any art teaching? Done any? Do they find it a hindrance to painting?
New painting soon, I hope?
Is that bad manners to ask?
We're more contained over here.
Post a Comment