5/31/2007

Nicholas Krushenick

62 comments:

Painter said...

Nicholas Krushenick @
Marianne Boesky Gallery
509 West 24th Street
New York, NY

Quisquilloso said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Cooky Blaha said...

i think you'd be let down

surfkook said...

This is a very good historical survey show from the 60's until the late 90's of a fairly unknown artist who has had obviously wide reaching impact.

I don't know the date of this painting, but it's not new.

And the surfaces are almost perfect and flat

zipthwung said...

They are called artifacts, in technical terms. This image would compress better as a gif because of the solid colors.

Im curious if the jpeg was cropped widthwise or if its some sort of formal deal. If its a formal deal I'm bored.

Blam! Pow!

What if its a forgery?

zipthwung said...

looks like its collage day in chelsea

Quisquilloso said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
zipthwung said...

pop art is for old people who care about history

Concrete Phone said...

The one that got away. Good timing Boesky.
I was thinking of these quietly while Aaron was going off on the last thread, thinking...
Krushenick, that guy had it!

closeuup said...

Historical--good sense of humor--superflat--unique. What they lack is resonance. Theyre cold.

Those Roselyn Drexlers--from the same time period-- were way more compelling. Wish there were more artists influenced by Roselyn.

Concrete Phone said...

Pop and abstraction, grandpa-john gave a great lecture on it, easy to understand if you know your music.
Everything has its own frequency and these things resonate hot, closeuup, no kid!

Martin said...

woah, is this the first deceased artist on paintersnyc? a precedent.

i have only seen a few krushenick paintings, but they don't feel cold to me at all... i think they're exciting.

even though these are old, and have influenced so much later and more familiar stuff, i still look at these with the sense that something fresh is happening, ground is being broken.

closeuup said...

math is murder, blossom. you just proved it. but thats OK I still like you.

poppy said...

WOW, that last thread was crazy. I couldn't finish it - essays.

Thanks for the heads up on Bacon tpol.

after readin all the comments below, I'm waiting for the 2008 artists dictionary/handbook before I have anymore opinions.

As for pop art, what is pop art now? We seem to always equate and define it as it use to be..

Martin said...

closeup - i don't get that at all. what are you talking about?

closeuup said...

I was answering CP. Im the first to revere vibration, but the resonance this is missing is all that's not numbers. I guess its exciting in a forceful/intellectual way. But I want more life fuckers.

And I was wondering what poppy wondered too. The legacy of this kind of blam-pow pop? Seems silly, now...

Concrete Phone said...

Ok, I was a bit confused too but thanks for still liking me closeuup, despite whatever mistake I made. And Martin I watched the utube too, JK seemed like he enjoyed the show. What's his real name, is it bad for asking?
I'm a space freak. And how space gets used and its variety never ceases to amaze me. Krushenick had an in. You can both see and sense the vibration. What is interesting is that the tuning fork of pop resonates and turns on the tuning fork of abstraction and continues to resonate even when you lift the box of pop up. Anyway that was what grandpa was on about in his lecture.
But, of course, we are a tuning fork too. Actually we are a bunch of tuning forks. I was going to post a link to the vids
the elegant universe
, but thought that might be pushing my own critera a bit too much. Whoops.

flesheater99 said...

Just a moment for

Jorg Immendorf
total badass
1945-2007
RIP

Ursula's Dad said...

Blue and Orange (compliments) are making radition (light). They are surrounded by Yellow that is the by-product of the radiation. This reaction is in front of the Red heat(ambient).

Predictable color theory from a scientific point of view. Cute as a painting...

milf-magic said...

Yes Pop-straction... or is it Ab-pop? Yes, I've decided on it. I want a Krushenick duvet cover for my bachelor pad. And maybe I'll pick up one of those glowing Wierd-Science lightning orbs and put it by my Ric Ocasek poster.

Back in my day, we had to walk 10 miles uphill in 3 feet of snow just to see some 'Pop' art. And then if you wanted to see some 'Abstraction', you had to go clear over to the next town! Now you crazy kids with your Mary Jane cigarettes and your P-diddy have it all mixed up together. It ain't right, I tell ya.

closeuup said...

Visual tricks right out of the Bauhaus. Learned about those in graphic design 1 from that book by Gyorgy Kepes--Language of Vision. Im looking for something else right now...

We have a big tuning fork sculpture in the middle of town here. Now that thing has resonanace. Like it.

closeuup said...

Nice shirt
The ever-steady relationship between fashion and art just got a little tighter. Fred Perry continues its Blank Canvas collaborations with artist David Saunders. Saunders, who started his illustrious career under the infamous Tracey Emin, has made a name for himself not only with his stunning visual creations, but also with his own fashion line, David David, making him a perfect candidate for the Fred Perry collaboration. The Blank Canvas project aims to bring unknown — or underappreciated — artists into the fashion limelight by embedding their particular aesthetics onto Perry's classic clothing. Previous artists have included Alastair McKimm, Judy Blame, and Peter Jensen, whose work with Perry won Wallpaper's 2006 Best Collaboration Award. For this go-round, graphic artist Saunders offers three geometrically minded designs. The five-toned medallion shirt makes anyone look like a winner, while the eight-toned hexagon seems perfectly suited for a night of summer merriment. etc.etc.

Aaron said...

In former incarnation these works were simply objet d'art to be bought by the truckload from long island warehouses like so many leather bound tchotchkies.

Profoundly conservative, and probably reactionary to boot. Oh but so cooly disinterested - until you catch a whiff of ambition, then you WISH the artist was dead or at least in a permanent coma.

Is Boesky upping the value on these by dint of real estate? Or are they historicly significant and influential, coal fires buried beneath the whims of time and tide, to be unearthed by latter day promethian pro-sumers and their thirst for the newly vintaged?

When your picture tube starts to go, colors flickering around the edge; Is that a desired effect, or is it an unwelcome reminder that everything dies, even god.

Where're your friends?
Where're your friends?
Where are your friends, man?
What? What? Where're my friends?

All my friends are dead.
All my friends are dead.
They got kicked in the head,
All my friends are dead.

All my friends are dead.
All my friends are dead.
They got smacked in the head,
All my friends are dead.

I always knew that they would
end up like today.
They bought the bullet and they
played with hand grenades.

Hey! x3

All my dreams were lies.
All my dreams were lies.
Nightmares in Disguise
All my dreams were lies.

All my friends are dead.
All my friends are dead.
They got dragged outta bed,
Now they're buried and they're dead.

I always knew that they would
end up like today.
They bought the bullet and they
played with hand grenades.

Hey! x3

Fuckin' Eh!

I always knew that they would
end up like today.
They bought the bullet and they
played with hand grenades.

Now they're buried and they're dead! x3

Dead!

Martin said...

wow, i'm surprised that nobody seems to like krushenick.

is it because the ideas are not new now?
i admit i partly like it for the 60's/70's vibe... orange. but, really, if you want to talk about tchotchkes, so much of the recent stuff posted here.. yikes.

i had to scroll back to josh smith and philip pearlstein before i could find something that made me wonder what is going on.

what do you think of allan d'arcangelo, someone from the same time whom i always associate with krushenick, partly because it seems like whenever i see kru. there is a d'arcangelo in the same collection.

concrete - i'll e-mail you later, i think it is an open secret.

Concrete Phone said...

thanks Martin, would appreciate it...

feel such a ningnong not knowing...

b

Nomi said...

Martin, I like Krushenick. Does not feel dated to me.

And Concrete Phone, I don't mind you pushing your criteria. I think I might have a crush on GrandpaJohn.

surfkook said...

I like Krushenick. On the same page as Lichtenstein. Halley and Lasker come from his territory.

I'm sure his market is undervalued. He has a 35 year practice and I've never heard of him before this show

zipthwung said...

You people must like Harvey Quaytman too. Me, I'm into the Iron Cross and the swastika.

Martin said...

zip, we KNOW. you are a mystery, except for your nazi fetish.

George said...

Harvey Quaytman and Nicholas Krushenick? There isn’t any relationship other than they might be obscure painters to someone under 40.

Krushenick was a player in the POP/Minimalist era.

I saw this show, it stuck with me. My take on Kushenick is that most of the time the paintings seem slightly ‘off’, it’s not about the style but something deeper than that that just doesn’t seem to work. Never the less, his paintings have an energetic quality which I like.


For what it’s worth, the killer exhibition in Chelsea at the moment is Jim Dine’s Pinocchio’s at Pace

Quisquilloso said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
zipthwung said...

"Harvey Quaytman and Nicholas Krushenick? There isn’t any relationship other than they might be obscure painters to someone under 40."

Au contraire, George.

If you know about Harvey Quaytman's former drab existence down on the Bowery, you'd know that his abstract work has a real world analogue or at least inspiration in
airplanes.

Now, when I see a painting like this, with its "explosive" jagged line, it reminded me that much "abstraction" is actually a depiction of reality.

The other abstract camp being that the object is actually what it is - a "painting" and nothing else, self contained and requiring no interpretation.

Most people I know would agree that EVERY artwork has some degree of abstraction, and that NOTHING is pure - that EVERYTHING is contingent.

But really I was just sort of free associating along the lines of people who make abstract work with formal relations to borders and edges and wondering how that can sustain interest for more than a nanosecond.

Like colorfields or staring at the sun, or a diamond encrusted skull.

harvey's work seems closer to sand painting than emulation of industrial process.

Let the bonfire begin.

Old Guy said...

I hated this show from the moment I read the press release and I didn’t even go to it.
I think there is a reason NK went unheralded all these years and that is because the stuff is completely anonymous, so bland only a one trick pony like Peter Halley could be impressed by its feeble variation and so late in jumping on even the slowest moving bandwagons he might as well have resided just about as far from NY as you can get.
As for his supposed ‘influence’ on later movements, what did he possibly supply that hadn’t already been supplied by better known Pop Artists or geometric abstractionists? He was at best an intermediate, and not an especially interesting one.
His lack of success can be explained in much the same way that Guston’s shift to cartoons antagonized both Ab-Ex and Pop advocates. To allow intermediates at a certain point opens the way to a who-swallows-who competition. Is Pop then a branch of Minimalism, or vice versa? No style wants to be subordinated. The middle is excluded and so Krushenick’s ‘contribution’ falls on barren ground.
Why he should be revived now (and he’s not the only one recently being pushed for promotion into the Pop Canon) probably says as much about the secondaries market as it does the revision of the styles themselves. That might be welcome, but it’s hard to see what Krushenick will do for it..
Still, other painters are responding positively to his stuff, if only for nostalgia value, so I may be missing something.

cha said...

Flesheater99...thanks for Immendorf info.....sad news.

cha said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
George said...

"... and so late in jumping on even the slowest moving bandwagons..."

This wasn’t quite the case, NK was exhibiting this type of work in 1963, right at the start of the POP movement.

"Anonymous"? Well ‘cool’ maybe, but it’s certainly a recognizable style which is more than we can say about 90% of the paintings being produced today.

I do think, NK’s work is flawed, it seems like it wants to be more than what it is which may be a resuly of NK allowing himself to get locked into a POP-Geometric style he couldn’t expand (say, in the way Lichtenstein did)

Martin said...

old guy - you make it sound like the goal is to be jumping on bandwagons.

i read somewhere that a possible reason for his "lack of success" is that he too much embraced the print market, alienating his fine art peers of the time.

flesheater - oh, i had totally glazed over your immendorf post... that

poppy said...

jumping on bandwagons is alot of peoples goals..I don't think its wrong to assume this guy could have been a wagon hopper..but i really don't know..

zipthwung said...

Whats the difference between playing the game and jumping on a bandwagon?

Isn't that the same as being an outsider artist vs an insider?

Or is every bold move a bolt from the blue?

And in conclusion, what is the next bandwagon, because I've got some hay.

Nomi said...

I don't think Old Guy meant to be endorsing jumping on bandwagons, more that if you're going to, don't be too late (which apparently, Krushenick really wasn't). I don't think I agree with that, but what's more interesting to me is the question of the place of unheralded minor (minor minor?) artist.

Obviously, compared to a visionary like Guston, someone like Krushenick is of much less importance. And I agree in the end that his contemporaries in the pop world, the ones that were heralded, were, for the most part, making more interesting art.

But I think often the work of lesser know figures have something to offer that you can't find it the others. I'd have to look a lot more carefully to be specific about what that might be with Krushenick, but in a general sense it's a certain quietness (relatively), a kind of work-a-day-ness that some are obviously finding boring and one note, but others find a happy addition.

Personally, when I said I "like" him, it was on the level of "makes me smile." Not a ringing endorsement, but . . . well, more than I can say for a lot of other things I look at.

Nomi said...

"And in conclusion, what is the next bandwagon, because I've got some hay."

Funny.^^^

Martin said...

sorry old guy, i didn't mean to sound too confrontational...

closeuup said...

Maybe he was "minor" because he didnt fit into some critics thesis. Maybe it was too quirky, "off" (in retrospect that's what looks interesting about him...the quirk)

poppy said...

the difference in the game is
some people are starting pitchers and others are benchwarmers...every so often someone invents a new game, dats nice yah..

poppy said...

I almost forgot,
'get your hot salty nuts here,..
only 4 dollars a bag!'

zipthwung said...

I can warm ten benches with one nut.

Nomi said...

That's hot. ^^^

poppy said...

My benches eat nuts, all shapes, sizes and temperatures....

Concrete Phone said...

>>PAUL CUMMINGS: We’ve pretty well come to the end of the tape.

NICHOLAS KRUSHENICK: How long is this tape supposed to last – I mean is it supposed to be forever?

PAUL CUMMINGS: Everything is forever.

NICHOLAS KRUSHENICK: I mean this tape is going to be used for further generations or that kind of idea?

PAUL CUMMINGS: Oh, yes. It’s going to be archives.

NICHOLAS KRUSHENICK: Well, if you’re living and it’s a hundred years from now put the wars to an end whatever you do.

PAUL CUMMINGS: If we survive that long.

END OF INTERVIEW<<

George said...

Anyone go to the Anna Kustera opening?

Interesting stuff going on there.

arebours said...

nice to see the comfy coziness gettin on here...don't think this is what "painter' expected-not these linty,flinty peeps-was supposdta be the cool ones?funny,dat

Old Guy said...

The example Painter provides is Electric Soup 1969 (Liquitex/canvas 90X75”) which is pretty late in the day for a Pop move and as for geo abstraction nudging depth and/or pattern/print there is a steady stream of that in European abstraction throughout the 50s (Jo Delahaut, Jean Dewasne, Otto Rischl, pre-Op Vasarely – see M. Seuphor). but small scale and the effect there precious or arty.
As Closeuup pointed out graphics and design courses live on that stuff.
But at 90X75” I have to admit Krushenick was at least committed, or rich. Something that big and in those colours has got to have an impact, even if it only says pushy.
Then looking at it in those terms I started to wonder how come he never got round to text back in the 60s (text an obvious move from graphics) but then come 1984 and Ancient Image (acrylic/canvas 60X50”) he does get around to it, with just a bit of New Image looseness thrown in, like he gets around to John’s checkerplate hatching in Untitled 1998.
What I don’t find in the work is a really compelling thread (and OK there’s not a lot of that around) and like the ‘systems’ nod K gives some 70s works, I get the feeling he just goes from one thing to another, a little too much, following, if not actually riding on bandwagons.
I’d be interested to see what he was doing in 1963, my feeling is it would be more abstract than pop.
Lastly, I do find something a little self-serving about Halley hailing Krushenick as a precursor, as if ‘I’m important and then so is he, or vice versa’.

nat said...

Kerpows are super-- hows that for intelligent insight?!!!<--({[joke punctuation)}]

I like them for all the same reasons they've been criticized above-- recognizable, supposedly pop, but with a certain wtfness.

George said...

Here's a link to a 1968 interview with NK.

http://www.aaa.si.edu/collections/oralhistories/transcripts/krushe68.htm

milf-magic said...

I feel like this painting is bullying the Randy Wray. And it's also the big brother of the Pezzimenti and it's screaming at it, "don't be such a pussy, Peter! You're such a baby. Why don't you cry, baby? Go cry to mommy."
But someday the Krushenick is going to wake up and realize that it's the manager of a Burger King in Secaucus and think, "dude, wtf happened? I used to be cool."
That being said, I liked the show. It's like looking at an ink blot test. You don't have to look at it very long, then you forget it and move on to the next, but it's quite enjoyable.
And to put it into perspective, being a "minor" 20th century talent is still a pretty good feat if you ask me. You all have some pretty high standards I must say, which isn't such a bad thing, but let's appreciate the minor accomplishments too. This was a novel and exciting project in the late 60's, no doubt. Sure he's no Andy Warhol, but who is?

zipthwung said...

The polemic is the painting, thats what pop pointed out right?

lets not forget andy warhol was on a bandwagon or two in his day.

Even the other has a mother.

zipthwung said...

PAUL CUMMINGS: It sounds as if the instruction there wasn’t really too exciting.

NICHOLAS KRUSHENICK: It wasn’t. And I had an experience with Byron Browne which sort of set me off completely from even listening to an instructor ever again. I had done a painting that had like a wallpaper pattern in the background and he came up to it and looked at it and said, “You never do that in a painting to give it all the same look in the back.” And I thought I had made some terrible, terrible mistake. And just three days later he gives us a slide lecture and he puts a Matisse painting on the slide projector with this big wallpaper pattern in back and he’s telling us it’s a very great painting. And I thought well, you bastard, for him it’s okay but for me it’s terrible.

poppy said...

i wonder how many of us have had a similar experience to that, i know I have..esp when proffs are stuck in one place and can't remember how they got there in the first place. then you hear all these contradictions and can't make heads nor tails.

'what are you trying to say about cubism, what are you trying to say about cubism?"

'not a damn thing Jack!"

zipthwung said...

I made a coral looking lost wax to aluminium and my prof said don't get stuck in that pattern deal - I think he thought I was going celtic knot or something. But lo, these years later and I see someone doing it with pipe cleaners, and I think to myself, what a wonderfull life.

28 weeks later is a great movie. I could watch it over and over and over again. I hope its art, because then hey, I like art.

Old Guy said...

A Secaucus Burger King? Is that where they have an ALL-YOU-CAN-EAT deal if you’re wearing jackboots and are too fat to get out of your SUV?

Actually I think I might have done some painted finishes in the washrooms there.
It was demanding work - a sponge in each rubber-gloved hand.

My colleagues and I passed the time in merry banter on whether Deleuze and Guattari would ever match the market share of Kruder and Dorfmeister.

Morgan said...

Hello! I work at an auction gallery and we are selling five pieces by Krushenick on Sunday, November 8th. It seemed like some of you liked his work, so here is a link to the pieces if you are still interested!

http://www.liveauctioneers.com/search?q=krushenick&fq=&sort=relevance&dtype=gallery&type=live&rows=20&addfq=auction_house%3A%28%22Clars+Auction+Gallery%22%29

Morgan said...

Hello! I work at an auction gallery and we are selling five pieces by Krushenick on Sunday, November 8th. It seemed like some of you liked his work, so here is a link to the pieces if you are still interested!

http://www.liveauctioneers.com/search?q=krushenick&fq=&sort=relevance&dtype=gallery&type=live&rows=20&addfq=auction_house%3A%28%22Clars+Auction+Gallery%22%29