The desperation of the trailer trash life from the female POV. Seems to work.
Sex and chaos - high emotion - figures buried in splashy abstraction. Sherrie Franssen over on my blog is doing something similar. Based on Cecily? But Cess was witty, these are scary and sad.
Most likely young because this type of paint handling is very popular now ( Brown etc.). I tend to agree with Kristeva that Woman as a category limits the autonomy of individual women and nobody gets to define the boundaries or the POV.
She was gettin' bombed, And I was gettin' blown away, And she took it in her hand, And this is what she had to say: A pearl necklace. She wanna pearl necklace. She wanna pearl necklace.
I like a painting with a sense of humor, especially when it has pathos. I dunno, its like Jenny Saville meets francis Bacon.
"It's a kind of inward aggression. It seems like self-contempt, but it's really an inverted contempt for everything. That's what I was trying to describe in her. I would say it had to do with her childhood, not because she was sexually abused, but because the world that she was presented with was so inadequate in terms of giving her a full-spirited sense of herself. That inadequacy can make you implode with a lot of disgust. It can become the gestalt of who you are. So the masochism is like "I'm going to make myself into a debased object because that is what I think of you. This is what I think of your love. I don't want your love. Your love is shit. Your love is nothing."
Circus backdrop figuration meets a highly stylized/highly considered abstraction. The smartness of the grey explosion...and all the little choices that went into it's final determined state... combined with the figures dull making yet clever placement and subject...seems curious in a very good sense.
ok kel--so what do you think about her paintings with the man's hand around the womands throat? Unlike zip, my main thought about these paintings wasnt the jiz.
Closeup I kind of like it with her work when the painterly brushtrokes are like dark foliage and that combines with dark subject matter. It reminds me of Pre-Raphaelte painting. The other image you posted more than this one. The whole idea of bits of figuration floating in a painterly field is sort of predictable but almost by accident these are better than they should be.
I think it all comes down to belief. I mean, do you believe in this? That stretches across all art. I think there are also people who are attracted to two-dimensional things. Some people simply understand things better when they are presented in certain dimensions. It?s about suspension of disbelief. Can you really accept it and believe in it wholeheartedly? Sometimes it?s just a scribble on a piece of paper and sometimes it?s something you think about for five years.
The Scarab is actually an ancient symbol of resurection. But anyway at least this stuff can get a rise out of me and torturing the helpless really works for me. If people base their whole ideology on the Bottom they can expect me to treat them accordingly. But formalism leaves me totally limp. Anyway willing to experiment with formalism so here goes. Interesting neutral pallette and I like the way the brushtrokes break up. No, still limp.And it doesn't apply to work that isn't based on that ideology. Painter Zip was jumping on your furniture while you were out.
These paintings arent good "by accident". The issue is that the art and cultural theory in the last 30 years hasnt much changed what it's like to walk down the street.
And people who make kick ass paintings usually take into account what its like to walk down the street.
If you say there is no irony in this work then you are discounting the author's ability to achieve a level of "distance" or abstract thought.
I think thats the crux of most art marketing right? How smart is the art on your wall? What group do yo belong to? Are the politics right? Does it fit with your style? Will it accrue value? Does it resonate with the group you aspire to be with, to SELL to? Does the work sell itself? FUCK NO!
"No authentic human life is possible without irony"-Kierkegaard
A lot of paintings are good by accident. Sometimes the end result or an individual's vision is more interesting than the concept or the genre. I can think of a lot of artists like Corot who were good within predictable genres. Sometimes people do good work within a concept right before it dies. Thomas Tallis was the last significant medieval polyphonic composer before the Reformation washed that music away and he really was one of the best.
Kalm James let's just agree to disagree.I don't disrespect your opinion but even within Modernism there were people like Malreaux who strongly disagreed. I don't think a painting is first of all an arrangment of forms and colors. Depending on the work or the historical period that is often the last thing it is.
I meant "you" as in a general you. I could have said I, but my ego is a monster and I try not to refer to it. Gives it power. But Im glad you asked, gimme your thoughts, I'll feed on them.
oh and Im still smarting from fifth grade when the poseur artist I shall call Nofreckles received recognition for a shitty crayon landscape. I mean two hills and a sun c'mon any fuckwit can do that. No SKILLS.
I kind of wonder if we did this artist a disservive. Closeup and I were discussing issues tangentially related to the work but I don't know if a formal discussion is more appropriate to the intent. I like the image Closeup posted more. I'm dropping out- maybe others could offer more insight.
this work,and much else,now,is overly fussy,refined and self conscious-the "loose"paint here is too pretty-no one can seem to relax-and this also seems to be a new cliche-figurative mixed w/"abstact"-we want it all?indecisive?
the creamy gloppiness,the pretty face-and gloss?there's enough seductivity in the commercial world around us-an airless,unhealthy,sugariness-I personally want something tougher,and way less portentous-maybe thats just age or something-am tired of decadence
Intriguingly complex: inevitable, dramatic, engaging, repellant, seductive, superficial... I revel in the colors, yet keep regretting the associations they create (viewing the whole 2005 series at the artist’s website), then thinking these are creepily appropriate: Leroy Nieman, imaginary 60’s movie posters, surreal paperback romance covers (Jealousy! Betrayal! Domination! Obsession! The Inexpressible!)... And wishing the figure drawing was more consistently good, then thinking that the occasional clumsinesses are also quite fitting; lends a little thrill of cheapness to an otherwise totally “pro” performance. The paint splashing is very elegant and assured, first-class Madison-Ave. special effects. And the majestic hugeness adds yet another tasty pretension. I spent a nice long time with them... Didn’t take any screen grabs, but did bookmark; will want to see what’s next.
42 comments:
The desperation of the trailer trash life from the female POV. Seems to work.
Sex and chaos - high emotion - figures buried in splashy abstraction. Sherrie Franssen over on my blog is doing something similar. Based on Cecily? But Cess was witty, these are scary and sad.
Painter, you back home?
how wrong can u be (about me)?
i think this artist is younger than u?
Most likely young because this type of paint handling is very popular now ( Brown etc.). I tend to agree with Kristeva that Woman as a category limits the autonomy of individual women and nobody gets to define the boundaries or the POV.
i dont think this artist is advancing cultural theory for you. she seems to be coming out of her personal experience.
Is that still allowed?
Hopefully it is.
Welcome back, painter.
We had fun hosting, blogsters. Thanks for being up for it.
She was gettin' bombed,
And I was gettin' blown away,
And she took it in her hand,
And this is what she had to say:
A pearl necklace.
She wanna pearl necklace.
She wanna pearl necklace.
I like a painting with a sense of humor, especially when it has pathos. I dunno, its like Jenny Saville meets francis Bacon.
Too much Mary Gaitskill for my taste.
"It's a kind of inward aggression. It seems like self-contempt, but it's really an inverted contempt for everything. That's what I was trying to describe in her. I would say it had to do with her childhood, not because she was sexually abused, but because the world that she was presented with was so inadequate in terms of giving her a full-spirited sense of herself. That inadequacy can make you implode with a lot of disgust. It can become the gestalt of who you are. So the masochism is like "I'm going to make myself into a debased object because that is what I think of you. This is what I think of your love. I don't want your love. Your love is shit. Your love is nothing."
I'll take Flann O'brien over Flannery O'brien.
Anyone see "The Decent"?
What do you call this necklace?
Thanks for the welcome backs. It is good to be back.
Circus backdrop figuration meets a highly stylized/highly considered abstraction. The smartness of the grey explosion...and all the little choices that went into it's final determined state... combined with the figures dull making yet clever placement and subject...seems curious in a very good sense.
Luuuv these.
Welcome back painter.
who's dictating silli kelli? i m an absolutely powerless person with nothing but an opinion.. whats the deal?
ok kel--so what do you think about her paintings with the man's hand around the womands throat? Unlike zip, my main thought about these paintings wasnt the jiz.
THe paintings have serious formal art stuff -so for me it becomes high burlesque.
Like watching a Roger Corman movie with an angry butch dyke.
I meant burlesque - not high burlesque.
I was watching parts of Milkmoney (1994) with Ed harris and Melanie Griffith. Thats a weird movie.
I also saw "Who wants to be a superhero" - thats how they should do "who wants to be an art star"
And no, there is no such thing as an authenbtic voice anymore.
Closeup I kind of like it with her work when the painterly brushtrokes are like dark foliage and that combines with dark subject matter. It reminds me of Pre-Raphaelte painting. The other image you posted more than this one. The whole idea of bits of figuration floating in a painterly field is sort of predictable but almost by accident these are better than they should be.
for me,the eyes looking out directly,take her work to the realm of kitsch
Will Cotton sans Maxfield Parish plus victoriana. Rosenquist.
vivre le commune! Vivre l'histoire!
AF:
I think it all comes down to belief. I mean, do you believe in this? That stretches across all art. I think there are also people who are attracted to two-dimensional things. Some people simply understand things better when they are presented in certain dimensions. It?s about suspension of disbelief. Can you really accept it and believe in it wholeheartedly? Sometimes it?s just a scribble on a piece of paper and sometimes it?s something you think about for five years.
so I was watching Max--the movie about Hitler as an artist and his jewish art dealer. Wow that was good, and funny. And sad.
Kitsch, yea right. The art dealer was yammering about kitsch until the moment they beat him dead.
there's that hand again
The Scarab is actually an ancient symbol of resurection.
But anyway at least this stuff can get a rise out of me and torturing the helpless really works for me. If people base their whole ideology on the Bottom they can expect me to treat them accordingly. But formalism leaves me totally limp.
Anyway willing to experiment with formalism so here goes. Interesting neutral pallette and I like the way the brushtrokes break up.
No, still limp.And it doesn't apply to work that isn't based on that ideology.
Painter Zip was jumping on your furniture while you were out.
i wonder what effect the Saatchi USA shows and auction dump will have on chelsea this season.
i don't know if i see the youth quake going away, younger kids are sexyer to molest.
These paintings arent good "by accident". The issue is that the art and cultural theory in the last 30 years hasnt much changed what it's like to walk down the street.
And people who make kick ass paintings usually take into account what its like to walk down the street.
dharmabum -
If you say there is no irony in this work then you are discounting the author's ability to achieve a level of "distance" or abstract thought.
I think thats the crux of most art marketing right? How smart is the art on your wall? What group do yo belong to? Are the politics right? Does it fit with your style? Will it accrue value? Does it resonate with the group you aspire to be with, to SELL to? Does the work sell itself? FUCK NO!
"No authentic human life is possible without irony"-Kierkegaard
“Man is what he eats”
-Ludwig Feuerbach
A lot of paintings are good by accident. Sometimes the end result or an individual's vision is more interesting than the concept or the genre.
I can think of a lot of artists like Corot who were good within predictable genres. Sometimes people do good work within a concept right before it dies. Thomas Tallis was the last significant medieval polyphonic composer before the Reformation washed that music away and he really was one of the best.
Kalm James let's just agree to disagree.I don't disrespect your opinion but even within Modernism there were people like Malreaux who strongly disagreed. I don't think a painting is first of all an arrangment of forms and colors. Depending on the work or the historical period that is often the last thing it is.
I meant "you" as in a general you. I could have said I, but my ego is a monster and I try not to refer to it. Gives it power. But Im glad you asked, gimme your thoughts, I'll feed on them.
Next up the Babylonian concept of Oneness.
oh and Im still smarting from fifth grade when the poseur artist I shall call Nofreckles received recognition for a shitty crayon landscape. I mean two hills and a sun c'mon any fuckwit can do that. No SKILLS.
I kind of wonder if we did this artist a disservive. Closeup and I were discussing issues tangentially related to the work but I don't know if a formal discussion is more appropriate to the intent. I like the image Closeup posted more. I'm dropping out- maybe others could offer more insight.
I odnt think a figure awash in a wilderness of pain t is sustainable as a career.
Unless that paint is exquisite.
Is it?
this work,and much else,now,is overly fussy,refined and self conscious-the "loose"paint here is too pretty-no one can seem to relax-and this also seems to be a new cliche-figurative mixed w/"abstact"-we want it all?indecisive?
the creamy gloppiness,the pretty face-and gloss?there's enough seductivity in the commercial world around us-an airless,unhealthy,sugariness-I personally want something tougher,and way less portentous-maybe thats just age or something-am tired of decadence
ugly.
Intriguingly complex: inevitable, dramatic, engaging, repellant, seductive, superficial... I revel in the colors, yet keep regretting the associations they create (viewing the whole 2005 series at the artist’s website), then thinking these are creepily appropriate: Leroy Nieman, imaginary 60’s movie posters, surreal paperback romance covers (Jealousy! Betrayal! Domination! Obsession! The Inexpressible!)... And wishing the figure drawing was more consistently good, then thinking that the occasional clumsinesses are also quite fitting; lends a little thrill of cheapness to an otherwise totally “pro” performance. The paint splashing is very elegant and assured, first-class Madison-Ave. special effects. And the majestic hugeness adds yet another tasty pretension. I spent a nice long time with them... Didn’t take any screen grabs, but did bookmark; will want to see what’s next.
Post a Comment