JC: "The subject of a painting is always the author, the artist. You can only make an illusion that it's about something other than that. I think that's what the function of representation is: to give a painting the illusion of a subject." I disagree with this premise--can't relate to it.
That gold chain up against that skin is glorious. I could look at that tricky little bit of painting all day. I am also into the cluster of detail where the two faces come together... highest point of tension, and the darkest place on the canvas. There's a crevass there, where one might fall in.
In seems to me, in Currin's work, that it is entirely beside the point to talk about the anatomical impossibilities of arms when all his figures are so carefully DEFORMED anyway.
It is a beautiful show. The porn pictures are sweet and funny. The one of the women trying to put the penis in the other women cracked me up. Her expression is so concentrated. It is hilarious. I think he is an incredible artist.
I just can't stand what seems to me a cynical aspect in his work.
It's so wierd and mixing up this faux ol' master thing, I mean I like a lot of traditional painting, which is another subject, but Currin's work seems so fake to me.
I guess that's the point, painting himself into a postmodern corner.
However I did like the trukey painting that was good, it was Norman Rockwell on acid.
I have seen a fair amount of Ingres, but his work does not approach that level of painting.
He's good and all, the last work I saw in person was afew years ago. I have not seen this show, so maybe I need to reserve judgement until I do.
I have never bought into the 'expressionist' aspect of his work or the explinations he has put forth about it.
They seem like something he thought up after the fact, could be wrong, anyway the distortion thing seems to come out of the mannerist than expressionism to me, and in that context the paintings work for me. There is also the Norman Rockwell twist.
I agree with 100% on the cynicism seen in his work. That's the difference in looking at Ingre, which was mentioned before, and Currin. What Currin offers is not social critique but satire lite: familiar images of upper-middle-class life overlaid with a veneer of art-historical seriousness Simultaneously snide and ingratiating, the paintings sneer at the social milieu of the art-viewing public while appealing to individual viewers' vanity and erudition—which may account for the work's broad popularity.
so if these paintings are about the painter--then thats probably why they dont appeal to me. This is not my world. Im not that snobby and I dont feel so uptight about my sexuality. Again--these are preppie puritan americana. No coincidence they come out in the Bush years??
"Since we've momentarily pushed beyond the quasi mystical one-liners, "
ah only for a moment!
nytimesreview - Theres this newpaper dude that I read about that used to write for the common man. I think Kimmelman is writing for "dear reader" moreso than usual?
which is what currin does only with paint.
What a dillrod. hole. Ad hominum voibiscum!
these are not weird. Nor uncanny.
Currin was never and is not postmodern in any sense that I understand it -unless by postmodern you mean
"influenced by the past yet thinking of yourself as separate from it."
i.e. deluded.
If dude is dealing with issues of crapsmanship then that makes him as conservative as anyone coming out of NY academy of art college institute university. If hes doing it ironicly, because hes top fucking dog, then that makes him pretentious- i.e. art is the lie that sells the lie that jack built on a foundation of desire.
Showing porn is the oldest trick in the book. Its POWER austentatiously showing off POWER.
or powerlessness.
Like waving your sex parts around. Or yelling. Or having a show about food so morons have someplace fun to go to after the binge.
Its like chewing off your own leg to save your soul. (I wear a hairshirt and a spiked chain)
Really powerfull people are invisible. I read that somewhere. Is it true? probably not, what with the new transparency. But its a nice idea, as an idea.
The truth is really powerfull people cant even lift themselves out of their easy chairs to exercise their power. Its one of those cosmic theological conundrums.
John currin, is very visible as part of gagosians ongoing smut project, second only to Deitch. They should play softball together.
Next week, buildersburg! AH what joy it must be to have lifted the dress and found the emerald forest! The big rock candy mountain! Will I ever find mine?
lets have a war so you can all go and die. Pop motherfucking bubble, pop!
"Hot" as in Koons photographic avec Political Porn Star pieces come out of a tradition of Porn technique and medium however interesting the scale is and fact that they are in a gallery does not touch on the grotesque perversion of the medium of traditional oil painting, misproportioned figures and unlikely subjects, - not to mention which gallery the show is at i mean Madison Avenue.. oh my those people get unfloofed about everything. I just unearthed a copy of Jer's 'An Ideal Syllabus' for those who have not flipped thru it is lists of the favored books of Artists Critics and Curators, - Currins are Kenneth Clark - the nude, Herman Melville - Moby Dick and Wyndham Lewis - Tarr
The prank represents an escape from the modern trinity of failure, servitude and prostitution. Because giving a skinned sheep’s head to Betty Ford, as ur-prankster Boyd Rice once did, doesn’t make the wheels of authority turn so much as it shuts off the machine entirely, if only for a little while...
no, sorry just the opposite: thesis in maslow's pedestrian view of Art pyramid oil painting is at the top of the hierarchy and skilled figurative painting at the top of that that where photography is still held lower in regards. So the "pornographic image" in a photography reads very different then in of Oil paintings exhausted place.
that was the gist of what i was getting at at d.i., however i am a she and the "perversion" was a bit of ajab - not irony but not to be read all to literal.
Tracy Nakayama is a horse of a different color in that she does not include herself in the work and her sourse material is illistrastion.
hey no problem it happens all the time... what is intersting about this new show is the light it sheds the earlier work remember when all the hub bub was are latent man on man action, well now these let it all hang out.. seems to me the upper crust never really gets sexy. so uptight.
i love that painting and enjoyed the retro... i just thought pasta makers would bring more total recall...
i am going to post a link to making a link because those charaters involved would create more clutter to try to comment out and explain in this thread it is really basic html code.
the code is in the left that you will copy and paste into an area like this - then on the right is how it will look after you hit post.
in this example replace: "http://www.microsoft.com/" with the ur of where you want to link to and "This text" with the words you want to show up in bleu that will link there.
That statement I posted at the top by Currin was made in defense of painting figures/representations of reality. It's all about you. What? So....I can't exist in abstract thought?---and you say you are a painter? Haven't you ever ventured out of the skin?
I was at the opening at Gagosian, and the paintings are fantastic. I've met John on more than one occasion, and he seems like a very cool guy. The purpose of art is to provoke thought, either you love it or hate it, as long as it moves you, and makes you think, that I believe is the point. He has done very well for himself in the last ten years. And the guy can really fucking paint.
zip and nowhere are the only two that are making sense to me mr.peeps, kinda like Mr. Currin is playing tennis, but serving from inside the count, but not underarm, and on the other side of the court there is craft so tied up in itself, so helplessly tied (glued) to the court that it misses the return, which in tennis terms would be an ace. I knew I liked you guys for some reason.
It's a good time for Currin-- like he's perfectly born to this time--the high end carrier of the interpretation. Takes all sorts.
I feel that Currin's work pops open the psyche in fascinating ways. His figures subtle and often imposed distortions lend to the idea of the human form today as comical, as over used, and as disturbing. Yes, it is true. Many artists before his time have mastered methods of painting much like his own but in different and startling ways. Why does this hurt your groin so much? Why do you weep and wish for something more real? What do you ask of this man? More truth? More violence? Why not act less like the person you are? Why pretend like you are not enormously successful? Ignore the fact that you are one of the most influential painters of this era! Please Mr. Currin, stop with the penises! It's so yesterday, it’s so done, fuck man, I don't even look at mine anymore. I feel weak from acknowledging its underlining sense of POWER! My Sister is in grad school and she can paint a better arm than you can, sucker! You're just lazy and couldn't figure out how to represent space properly! My paintings don't need arms, They’re just paint! They’re the truth! Why do you get to sell your work for so many pennies when I can't even push a drawing out of my mother's attic? It's not fair! I've seen someone paint flesh before! They used prettier brushes! You pretend like you're an accomplished painter, when in reality, you're not. You just think you are. And all the gallery owners who tell us to buy your work? Suckers! The people buying your art? Complete Suckers! They've sooo fallen into the line of comformist George Bush propogandic shit muzzlement. Oh my god! This must mean you are also a politically fucked individual! Which obviously makes sense because you paint like you know how to. Like, you talk about masturbating on the canvas thinking that it’s all an illusion of yourself. What shit! I'm not an illusion of my paintings! No sir! Because they look like completely rushed and over intellectualized "stick a finger up my teacher's ass" pieces of shit. And... uh oh.
Waaah. Your gonna be in history books and nobodies gawnna remember meee...
Distortion is fine front This artist, recusant, who sometimes posts here, is more the real thing, (my personal view), and shows that you can do almost anything with the figure. http://www.leokoenig.com/static/dyn-images/4/4566.jpeg painting can go anyways--we just need to adjust our browsers.
o see paintings of what these social x-rays and their partners really do-the handcuffs,the substances ingested-these folks look like they could use some more substances
"I feel that Currin's work pops open the psyche in fascinating ways." Well, Front Line Pony, he certainly worked you up! Hey, I don't mind if he fills the art esoterica book stores and he's a good pusher of paint but as far as his funny stuff-- I swear to God, I have seen much more clever ideas on covers of magazines or in editorial mags. Lots of (other) really bad artists make dough. Does that upset me? Great artists always rise to the surface---has nothing to do with money.
i got a question about currin if anyone is still posting...maybe it has been discussed already but i haven't read much yet.. Someone mentioned the impossible drawing and i was wondering if he did this on purpose? I started reading into things like the bowl of lemons in some of his work as he was aware his paintings are lemons..any truth to this..? anyways whatever obviously the guy can draw and knows when something is wonky or fucked up so nevermind..but i do like thinking that he thinks his paintings are pieces of crap i think its funny
I think the point of this blog, especially in relationship to stARTISTS like Currin, is to openly discuss, as artists, why certain ideas/images and the people that create them, are widely promoted and seen as important. We all have a responsibility, as people who have so much as devoted our lives to something so irreconcilable to the idea of a successful life in America, to uncover truths about the market, seeing as it has an unfair amount of influence over which of us get to realize our vision and which do not. Currin has set a goal for himself and he has achieved it. I do not begrudge him that. But why do we continue to think that it is sheer talent that equates with financial success? When I think about Currin, I think of a man who set out to do something and did it. I think the same of Warhol, or Van Gogh. But my opinion of the work itself, is just that Currin is a caricaturist who can paint very, very well. That's it. There are a lot of very valuable points that have been made here. I agree with the suggestion that this is not a milieu that is familiar to most people, and that these wasp-y tableaus are simply irrelevant. This is very bourgeois stuff, for very wealthy people, shown in a blue chip gallery. We don't have to feel like we are being influenced by this work. I have no connection to these ideas. Everything about this is so outside the realm of my life that I agree with Zip- I don't have an opinion really, or not a strong one. I don't care. This is the exception, not the rule. But I say, good for Currin. In a New Yorker article a few years back showed a photo of him holding up his baby boy, who is naked. The boy has some huge cohones, if you know what I mean. It made me realize what is important to Currin. We all need our stars, and this man may very well be self-aware enough to know what role he truly plays, in what world. He is a purveyor of desire.
first time i really recall the work was the Whitney Bi where he shared the room with Lisa Yuskavage, at this point the characters could have walked out of the same awkwardly preportioned unapologetically baroque crafted and wierdly glowing world. now with saltz calling for a "return to her dirty-secret part" - What of where the paths there work took them on? How does the Currin show hold up to her Zwirner?
lisa is telling guys like jer a little bit more than what they'd like to know about what its STILL like to be a woman in a mans world. Dont resist so hard jer. and dont tell ANY artist what to do. that is the ultimate presumption--and i just hate it when critics do that.
Very well put DI. The terms "representational" and "abstract" seem so irrelevant to me anymore, and Currin is very strongly defending the relevancy of his work, although something makes me think you put it more lucidly in your above statement. I have not seen the show (it's been a fucked up week and one that i want to forget) but I know from this jpeg here there are delightful "areas" in the work such as you describe. It's just the "whole" of it that deadens the images and feels somewhat insulting. They kind of sting, and not in a good way. But that is the most I can say about the "whole". But where those faces meet, even if the one on the left is obviously wrong physiognomically, is the true virtue of this particular work.. I will take that and leave everything else.
"his skill is in making you aware of how you are constantly seeing a painting, an imagined object, and not just a naked woman"
Genius worship is the inevitable sign of an uncreative age. -Clive Bell
I re-read Berger's "ways of seeing" every Christmas. Its at my parents house, on the shelf next to the Howard P Lovecraft and the RObert E Howard. Ironic, because theres no sex in Lovecraft, nor overt gender politics. Nor is there any of that problematizing in my parents house, unless I "bring it" in the form of a rented racy movie from the local video store. Thats "the way I roll", you know?
No, the only mystery is on PBS, culminating in a climactic denouement, as per le genre. And who am I to alter the narrative arc? To paint the town red? TO label existence a living hell in which we all wait resignedly for death, even John Currin who waits with a more comfortably benign veneer?
Im jealous of Currin's conservatively unconservative conservativism. His detachament. His jamais jamais jam. Conecticut biscuits. A starbucks crumpet. There are cooler cookies out there though;
The bannock, for example.
As an aside: WHy not make fun of black people instead?
Because there arent any.
But back to fractals:
A rose is the visible result of an infinitude of complicated goings on in the bosom of the earth and in the air above, and similarly a work of art is the product of strange activities in the human mind.
-Clive Bell
Its like ol clive invented bansai or fractals or something.
I think currin's work , like many a gagosian painter, are like an antifractals.
Thats streamlining. Thats efficicency. Thats mass production. Thats modernism.
Im with the folks who say hes on the road to nowhere, which is what connecticut is, to me.
I enjoy the opportunity of this site very much. Though I don't mean to sound rude at all but a lot of these comments on this blog comes off as pretty jaded, bitter, and catty. It is good to have a place for discourse, but shooting down dismissively pretty much every single painter here speaks volumes. I don't call that discourse. I call it jealousy. I can't recall ever seeing single artist discussed here who comes off clean. It would be great to see commentary here that brings new insight to an artist's work, even if it isn't a full endorsement of that artist's work.
Does anyone think Currin isnt telling the truth? I do, and theat why his stuff bugs me. Its like thinking "supersize me" is a fucking dietary revelation (gorge on fast food and you will get fat and stuff). I ate a couple of donuts a day for a while and gained weight. Then I STOPPED EATING DONUTS for a while and i lot weight. Simple as that.
"Let us assume that an actor is supposed to be startled by a knock at the door. If his reaction is not satisfactory, the director can resort to an expedient: when the actor happens to be at the studio again he has a shot fired behind him without his being forewarned of it. The frightened reaction can be shot now and be cut into the screen version. Nothing more strikingly shows that art has left the realm of the "beautiful semblance" which, so far, had been taken to be the only sphere where art could thrive."
Walter Benjamin has some pornographic stuff on how cameras ands surgeons penetrate where painters and magicians "opperate" or something. Seems like bullshit to me. But Im just skimming.
eddie, I am jaded and bitter, but catty is a gendered term - I prefer bellicose, which reminds me of cigar chomping bulldogs, for some reason.
You know, last of the mohicans. Scalps. Peer pressure. War as sport as war. That sort of thing. Othersise its just nerding it up in nerdland. Fuck that.
i find it a longshot to ask everyone here to agree on an artists greatness. if there weren't alot of disagreements among artists everything would be the same. that is the fun of this. Its unfortunate that these little disagreements are so negatively affecting some people. but that is one opinion and perhaps this interpretation of cicumstance will determine the kind of art you make so more power to the people posting
I'd empty my lasso but Mary's Robbing Peter to pay Paul Boulders for shoulders Fee fi fo fum, Its like a jungle out there Plumb thumbs and arabic guns running pie to infinity and beyond. Ha ha huh ha. Its cosmic. We got fun and games because Even serial killers leave clues First ones free- Next ones in the back. Jack: Its a class. with a Master of None.
I think a positive wealth image™ is the key to your success. Like a self-image, it can limit or expand your ability to prosper in business and your personal life. A wealth image™ is the wealth esteem™ and prosperity-confidence that determines how far you'll go on the road to financial success. This is why your wealth image™, the sum total of your conscious and subconscious feelings about money and success, has such a powerful and profound affect on your financial life.
Wealth is created first and foremost in our minds; through goals, beliefs, and a strong sense of self. It sounds simple, but many people never learn the basic tools of visualizing success and working towards a goal with the belief they will succeed.
Money, Wealth & Prosperity utilizes Dr. Lloyd Glauberman's revolutionary HPP method to program your unconscious mind to make the positive lifestyle changes necessary for success. This method allows you to bypass self-sabotage, insecurity, and procrastination while providing you with more positive and appropriate attitudes about success.
Amatures do it until they get it right. Professionals do it until they cant get it wrong. Doin it and doin it and doin it swell. Army Navy Holliday in.... Theres gravy, and then theres wavy invisible and indivisability. Weaponized incredulity. If I had a hammer I'd strike surgicly: hey stainless, Get your teflon on.
i said you need a (wo)man who's got FINESSE and his or her whole name across his or her chest he/she may be able to fly all through the night but can (s)he rock a party til the early light they cant satisfy you with their inadequate sexual aparatus but i can bust you out with my super status i go do it, i go do it, i go do it, do it , do it an i'm here an i'm there i'm big bang hank, im everywhere just throw your hands up in the air and party hardy like you just dont care
As my brother always told me, at this point in time, the white male has to prove they are non-heirarchical, "put on the dress" he said. I think JC pretends to put on the dress but I remain unconvinced. Isn't he kind of like the Borat of the artworld? I mean he's mocking the "other" stupid people, but does he include himself in that? I dont see that he does. And he doesnt mock power. Thats whay Michael Moore's Roger and Me is a better movie than Borat. Maybe not as funny, but better.
As my brother always told me, at this point in time, the white male has to prove they are non-heirarchical, "put on the dress" he said. I think JC pretends to put on the dress but I remain unconvinced. Isn't he kind of like the Borat of the artworld? I mean he's mocking the "other" stupid people, but does he include himself in that? I dont see that he does. And he doesnt mock power. Thats whay Michael Moore's Roger and Me is a better movie than Borat. Maybe not as funny, but better.
painterodg said... They seem like something he thought up after the fact, could be wrong, anyway the distortion thing seems to come out of the mannerist than expressionism to me, and in that context the paintings work for me. There is also the Norman Rockwell twist.
I differ. Borat was totally mocking power in the Frat Boy scene, and the singing of the National Anthem.
This painting was produced with sweat and labor, even if the artist isn't of the working class.
Without knowing the politics of the painter, I think it's about hedonism, the golden bangles of a falling empire. The way the front figures hand is stuck in the rear figures sleeve, pocket, or glove of the same color seems to point to whitebread perversity and golden handcuffs.
I can't buy that it's easily dismissed as preppy or conventional. It's perverse, using a conventional idea of perversion. But, it's also mocking its own flesh.
I'm glad everyone has strong opinions here. It's rich.
who me? or the guy who was calling me one because he started reading the post half way into it.
If he had he would have seen as stated above that I totaly get the mannerist connection.
Hey if your not into this guy what's the problem, I have seen enough of his work to form a pretty good opinion of what I like and don't like in Currin's work.
I just find the work kind of boring, like I said there a few I do like, a some that I just can't stand.
I also said I will reserve jundgment until I see the work in question in person.
Lighten up folks, hey maybe post the turkey painting in honor of thanksgiving...
Skipping the lexicon of high modernism John Currin is perhaps the lamp bearer, the all-that-we-wished-for, counter play, apropos, genocide conservative ta-boot, who, with loads of skill, and lacking of idea thereof, offers panache. He's the perfect jack-of-all-trades, and the jill-of-none-the-rest. The flesh exudes life with beta as a platform--a perfect canceling out!
Thats what I mean sis--i think so many great artists have gone beyond this so called perversity. JC is draggin behind.
Frat boys represent petty power-like in animal house. Nobody enjoys seeing frat boys humiliated more than i do. And what about that torture scene in the new James Bond movie. I loved that. But when someone skewers the CEO--then we're really talking pure pleasure.
Repetition is when recycling stops looking recycled and begins to rid the bits that the cycling stood for to end up not standing for too much.
Blame Kelley--his works don't stand for too much either (except a tradition)。 They simply 'are' via a concentrated effort, good worked ideas about how to look within the world, perhaps how to involve with it; finally, how to involve with the work, and stand outside of it. On a technical note Kelly is probably a little more refined and fresh in that his glow glows out as colored light. However, a metal piece exists without the need to stack neon on the back: It's a thing—NOT AN IDEA! The idea is about thingyness and nonethingyness. The idea is to stay very clean, and then there are ideas that come out, naturally--not merely ideas of ideas painted exquisitely ABOUT IDEAS. He’s very flexible because he starts each time from the beginning. Blame Kelley. His prices are good.
Blame Currin--his work stands for a lot. They don't make a clear argument. Nor do they need to. THEY ARE ABOUT IDEAS. They follow a tradition, and stand upon it like some hegemonic cattle rancher bronzed with lasso. THOUGH CURRIN USES PAINT that glorifies the cattle rancher, his wife, and a whole set of equations, luxury, class, without getting too deep into the conundrums: the weekly diet of male testerone squeezed from the glossies, gleaned over with paint that is context abundant content reserved--aperitif. Blame Currin. His prices are excellent.
Hey decay it's just my opinion. I'm not too serious about it and definitely not too serious about John Currin as an artist offering something substantial... History is like the seasons: to move it on, to keep fresh, we turn the leaves less they must fall.
Well I think you can take the bull by the horns or not - if you dont, thats called begging the question. I chose not to do that, cuz I hate begging and I live dilemmas, even if they are BS.
Lets play master and servant. I dunno, im still pretty indifferent to these. I mean porn is ubiquitous.
81 comments:
John Currin @
Gagosian Gallery
980 Madison Avenue
New York, NY 10021
JC: "The subject of a painting is always the author, the artist. You can only make an illusion that it's about something other than that. I think that's what the function of representation is: to give a painting the illusion of a subject."
I disagree with this premise--can't relate to it.
mcluhan invented the medium
hey if you cant see yourself seeing yourself, you are not not a vampire.
what causes turbulence?
oh hey, i dont have an oppinion on currin. Is that bad?
i dont have any opinions anymore. maybe.
I wish a turkey were involved..
ok now he is doing porn pictures.
by the way if anyone is interested the figure on the right(the second image at Gagosian's site) the arm is impossable.
Bad drawing, bad painting.
That gold chain up against that skin is glorious. I could look at that tricky little bit of painting all day.
I am also into the cluster of detail where the two faces come together... highest point of tension, and the darkest place on the canvas. There's a crevass there, where one might fall in.
In seems to me, in Currin's work, that it is entirely beside the point to talk about the anatomical impossibilities of arms when all his figures are so carefully DEFORMED anyway.
It is a beautiful show. The porn pictures are sweet and funny. The one of the women trying to put the penis in the other women cracked me up. Her expression is so concentrated. It is hilarious. I think he is an incredible artist.
Hasn't he painted himself into a postmodern corner, when so many are moving away? I mean my god there's a postmodern James Bond this week.
I just can't stand what seems to me a cynical aspect in his work.
It's so wierd and mixing up this faux ol' master thing, I mean I like a lot of traditional painting, which is another subject, but Currin's work seems so fake to me.
I guess that's the point, painting himself into a postmodern corner.
However I did like the trukey painting that was good, it was Norman Rockwell on acid.
I have seen a fair amount of Ingres, but his work does not approach that level of painting.
He's good and all, the last work I saw in person was afew years ago. I have not seen this show, so maybe I need to reserve judgement until I do.
I have never bought into the 'expressionist' aspect of his work or the explinations he has put forth about it.
They seem like something he thought up after the fact, could be wrong, anyway the distortion thing seems to come out of the mannerist than expressionism to me, and in that context the paintings work for me. There is also the Norman Rockwell twist.
This article from Slate sums up my feelings on the subject.
currin
Thousand Points of Light:
I agree with 100% on the cynicism seen in his work. That's the difference in looking at Ingre, which was mentioned before, and Currin. What Currin offers is not social critique but satire lite: familiar images of upper-middle-class life overlaid with a veneer of art-historical seriousness Simultaneously snide and ingratiating, the paintings sneer at the social milieu of the art-viewing public while appealing to individual viewers' vanity and erudition—which may account for the work's broad popularity.
By Mia Fineman
Painterdog I am curious did you see this show? It is far less cynical than any before. They are very pleasant paintings really.
so if these paintings are about the painter--then thats probably why they dont appeal to me. This is not my world. Im not that snobby and I dont feel so uptight about my sexuality. Again--these are preppie puritan americana. No coincidence they come out in the Bush years??
Sorry,no I have not. Like I said, I guess I need to be more reserved on my judgement.
So this is his post-cynical phase?
He's a republican no? Does anyone know, does it matter?
"Since we've momentarily pushed beyond the quasi mystical one-liners, "
ah only for a moment!
nytimesreview - Theres this newpaper dude that I read about that used to write for the common man. I think Kimmelman is writing for "dear reader" moreso than usual?
which is what currin does only with paint.
What a dillrod. hole.
Ad hominum voibiscum!
these are not weird. Nor uncanny.
Currin was never and is not postmodern in any sense that I understand it -unless by postmodern you mean
"influenced by the past yet thinking of yourself as separate from it."
i.e. deluded.
If dude is dealing with issues of crapsmanship then that makes him as conservative as anyone coming out of NY academy of art college institute university. If hes doing it ironicly, because hes top fucking dog, then that makes him pretentious- i.e. art is the lie that sells the lie that jack built on a foundation of desire.
Showing porn is the oldest trick in the book. Its POWER austentatiously showing off POWER.
or powerlessness.
Like waving your sex parts around. Or yelling. Or having a show about food so morons have someplace fun to go to after the binge.
Its like chewing off your own leg to save your soul.
(I wear a hairshirt and a spiked chain)
Really powerfull people are invisible. I read that somewhere. Is it true? probably not, what with the new transparency. But its a nice idea, as an idea.
The truth is really powerfull people cant even lift themselves out of their easy chairs to exercise their power. Its one of those cosmic theological conundrums.
John currin, is very visible as part of gagosians ongoing smut project, second only to Deitch. They should play softball together.
Next week, buildersburg! AH what joy it must be to have lifted the dress and found the emerald forest! The big rock candy mountain! Will I ever find mine?
lets have a war so you can all go and die. Pop motherfucking bubble, pop!
Fuck you fucking haters. Cynics do it better.
Im into the psychological--thats all I know. Im a bus driver...
Currin's are post modern because he's painting in an old german style. The new James Bond is post modern because Sean Connery was Modern.
"Hot" as in Koons photographic avec Political Porn Star pieces come out of a tradition of Porn technique and medium however interesting the scale is and fact that they are in a gallery does not touch on the grotesque perversion of the medium of traditional oil painting, misproportioned figures and unlikely subjects, - not to mention which gallery the show is at i mean Madison Avenue.. oh my those people get unfloofed about everything. I just unearthed a copy of Jer's 'An Ideal Syllabus' for those who have not flipped thru it is lists of the favored books of Artists Critics and Curators, - Currins are Kenneth Clark - the nude, Herman Melville - Moby Dick and Wyndham Lewis - Tarr
im in the fiona rea reading room, off of the john currin proscenium. You know, in a schnabel.
I'm cool with porn as a commodity. Never gets old right? Oldest profession right?
Funny thing is, you're not a hooker unless you can turn a trick.
Ah the pleasure of paint.
WOw I can feel a breeze. Must be because Im an idiot.
The prank represents an escape from the modern trinity of failure, servitude and prostitution. Because giving a skinned sheep’s head to Betty Ford, as ur-prankster Boyd Rice once did, doesn’t make the wheels of authority turn so much as it shuts off the machine entirely, if only for a little while...
grotesque perversion of the medium of traditional oil painting
What? the medium of oil painting is grotesque?
Please explain your thesis.
no, sorry just the opposite: thesis in maslow's pedestrian view of Art pyramid oil painting is at the top of the hierarchy and skilled figurative painting at the top of that that where photography is still held lower in regards. So the "pornographic image" in a photography reads very different then in of Oil paintings exhausted place.
that was the gist of what i was getting at at d.i., however i am a she and the "perversion" was a bit of ajab - not irony but not to be read all to literal.
Tracy Nakayama is a horse of a different color in that she does not include herself in the work and her sourse material is illistrastion.
hey no problem it happens all the time...
what is intersting about this new show is the light it sheds the
earlier work remember when all the hub bub was are latent man on man action, well now these let it all hang out.. seems to me the upper crust never really gets sexy. so uptight.
homemade pasta indeed.
tres place caesar
white robes, gold jewelry.. some what unnecessary
i love that painting and enjoyed the retro... i just thought pasta makers would bring more total recall...
i am going to post a link to making a link because those charaters involved would create more clutter to try to comment out and explain in this thread it is really basic html code.
how to make and html link
the code is in the left that you will copy and paste into an area like this - then on the right is how it will look after you hit post.
in this example replace: "http://www.microsoft.com/" with the ur of where you want to link to and "This text" with the words you want to show up in bleu that will link there.
sorry scratch that reverse it - don't know my left from my right... oh oh this seems like a good time to bring up:
teach a man to fish ;)
Mr.Decay,
That statement I posted at the top by Currin was made in defense of painting figures/representations of reality.
It's all about you. What? So....I can't exist in abstract thought?---and you say you are a painter? Haven't you ever ventured out of the skin?
I was at the opening at Gagosian, and the paintings are fantastic. I've met John on more than one occasion, and he seems like a very cool guy.
The purpose of art is to provoke thought, either you love it or hate it, as long as it moves you, and makes you think, that I believe is the point.
He has done very well for himself in the last ten years. And the guy can really fucking paint.
zip and nowhere are the only two that are making sense to me mr.peeps, kinda like Mr. Currin is playing tennis, but serving from inside the count, but not underarm, and on the other side of the court there is craft so tied up in itself, so helplessly tied (glued) to the court that it misses the return, which in tennis terms would be an ace.
I knew I liked you guys for some reason.
It's a good time for Currin-- like he's perfectly born to this time--the high end carrier of the interpretation. Takes all sorts.
I feel that Currin's work pops open the psyche in fascinating ways. His figures subtle and often imposed distortions lend to the idea of the human form today as comical, as over used, and as disturbing. Yes, it is true. Many artists before his time have mastered methods of painting much like his own but in different and startling ways. Why does this hurt your groin so much? Why do you weep and wish for something more real? What do you ask of this man? More truth? More violence? Why not act less like the person you are? Why pretend like you are not enormously successful? Ignore the fact that you are one of the most influential painters of this era! Please Mr. Currin, stop with the penises! It's so yesterday, it’s so done, fuck man, I don't even look at mine anymore. I feel weak from acknowledging its underlining sense of POWER! My Sister is in grad school and she can paint a better arm than you can, sucker! You're just lazy and couldn't figure out how to represent space properly! My paintings don't need arms, They’re just paint! They’re the truth! Why do you get to sell your work for so many pennies when I can't even push a drawing out of my mother's attic? It's not fair! I've seen someone paint flesh before! They used prettier brushes! You pretend like you're an accomplished painter, when in reality, you're not. You just think you are. And all the gallery owners who tell us to buy your work? Suckers! The people buying your art? Complete Suckers! They've sooo fallen into the line of comformist George Bush propogandic shit muzzlement. Oh my god! This must mean you are also a politically fucked individual! Which obviously makes sense because you paint like you know how to. Like, you talk about masturbating on the canvas thinking that it’s all an illusion of yourself. What shit! I'm not an illusion of my paintings! No sir! Because they look like completely rushed and over intellectualized "stick a finger up my teacher's ass" pieces of shit. And... uh oh.
Waaah. Your gonna be in history books and nobodies gawnna remember meee...
Distortion is fine front This artist, recusant, who sometimes posts here, is more the real thing, (my personal view), and shows that you can do almost anything with the figure. http://www.leokoenig.com/static/dyn-images/4/4566.jpeg
painting can go anyways--we just need to adjust our browsers.
o see paintings of what these social x-rays and their partners really do-the handcuffs,the substances ingested-these folks look like they could use some more substances
I'd like t
"I feel that Currin's work pops open the psyche in fascinating ways."
Well, Front Line Pony, he certainly worked you up!
Hey,
I don't mind if he fills the art esoterica book stores and he's a good pusher of paint but as far as his funny stuff-- I swear to God, I have seen much more clever ideas on covers of magazines or in editorial mags.
Lots of (other) really bad artists make dough. Does that upset me?
Great artists always rise to the surface---has nothing to do with money.
i got a question about currin if anyone is still posting...maybe it has been discussed already but i haven't read much yet.. Someone mentioned the impossible drawing and i was wondering if he did this on purpose? I started reading into things like the bowl of lemons in some of his work as he was aware his paintings are lemons..any truth to this..?
anyways whatever obviously the guy can draw and knows when something is wonky or fucked up so nevermind..but i do like thinking that he thinks his paintings are pieces of crap i think its funny
the bad drawing is on purpose as far I know.
He does this a lot. the painting with the forshorting with feet that are to small, etc.
I think the point of this blog, especially in relationship to stARTISTS like Currin, is to openly discuss, as artists, why certain ideas/images and the people that create them, are widely promoted and seen as important. We all have a responsibility, as people who have so much as devoted our lives to something so irreconcilable to the idea of a successful life in America, to uncover truths about the market, seeing as it has an unfair amount of influence over which of us get to realize our vision and which do not. Currin has set a goal for himself and he has achieved it. I do not begrudge him that. But why do we continue to think that it is sheer talent that equates with financial success? When I think about Currin, I think of a man who set out to do something and did it. I think the same of Warhol, or Van Gogh. But my opinion of the work itself, is just that Currin is a caricaturist who can paint very, very well. That's it. There are a lot of very valuable points that have been made here. I agree with the suggestion that this is not a milieu that is familiar to most people, and that these wasp-y tableaus are simply irrelevant. This is very bourgeois stuff, for very wealthy people, shown in a blue chip gallery. We don't have to feel like we are being influenced by this work. I have no connection to these ideas. Everything about this is so outside the realm of my life that I agree with Zip- I don't have an opinion really, or not a strong one. I don't care. This is the exception, not the rule. But I say, good for Currin. In a New Yorker article a few years back showed a photo of him holding up his baby boy, who is naked. The boy has some huge cohones, if you know what I mean. It made me realize what is important to Currin. We all need our stars, and this man may very well be self-aware enough to know what role he truly plays, in what world. He is a purveyor of desire.
first time i really recall the work was the Whitney Bi where he shared the room with Lisa Yuskavage, at this point the characters could have walked out of the same awkwardly preportioned unapologetically baroque crafted and wierdly glowing world. now with saltz calling for a "return to her dirty-secret part" - What of where the paths there work took them on? How does the Currin show hold up to her Zwirner?
lisa is telling guys like jer a little bit more than what they'd like to know about what its STILL like to be a woman in a mans world. Dont resist so hard jer. and dont tell ANY artist what to do. that is the ultimate presumption--and i just hate it when critics do that.
and currin still sucks
i guess females as they go forward have maybe larger needs...
Very well put DI.
The terms "representational" and "abstract" seem so irrelevant to me anymore, and Currin is very strongly defending the relevancy of his work, although something makes me think you put it more lucidly in your above statement. I have not seen the show (it's been a fucked up week and one that i want to forget) but I know from this jpeg here there are delightful "areas" in the work such as you describe. It's just the "whole" of it that deadens the images and feels somewhat insulting. They kind of sting, and not in a good way. But that is the most I can say about the "whole". But where those faces meet, even if the one on the left is obviously wrong physiognomically, is the true virtue of this particular work.. I will take that and leave everything else.
"his skill is in making you aware of how you are constantly seeing a painting, an imagined object, and not just a naked woman"
Genius worship is the inevitable sign of an uncreative age.
-Clive Bell
I re-read Berger's "ways of seeing" every Christmas. Its at my parents house, on the shelf next to the Howard P Lovecraft and the RObert E Howard. Ironic, because theres no sex in Lovecraft, nor overt gender politics. Nor is there any of that problematizing in my parents house, unless I "bring it" in the form of a rented racy movie from the local video store. Thats "the way I roll", you know?
No, the only mystery is on PBS, culminating in a climactic denouement, as per le genre. And who am I to alter the narrative arc? To paint the town red? TO label existence a living hell in which we all wait resignedly for death, even John Currin who waits with a more comfortably benign veneer?
Im jealous of Currin's conservatively unconservative conservativism. His detachament. His jamais jamais jam. Conecticut biscuits. A starbucks crumpet. There are cooler cookies out there though;
The bannock, for example.
As an aside: WHy not make fun of black people instead?
Because there arent any.
But back to fractals:
A rose is the visible result of an infinitude of complicated goings on in the bosom of the earth and in the air above, and similarly a work of art is the product of strange activities in the human mind.
-Clive Bell
Its like ol clive invented bansai or fractals or something.
I think currin's work , like many a gagosian painter, are like an antifractals.
Thats streamlining. Thats efficicency. Thats mass production. Thats modernism.
Im with the folks who say hes on the road to nowhere, which is what connecticut is, to me.
The aura only grows.
I enjoy the opportunity of this site very much. Though I don't mean to sound rude at all but a lot of these comments on this blog comes off as pretty jaded, bitter, and catty. It is good to have a place for discourse, but shooting down dismissively pretty much every single painter here speaks volumes. I don't call that discourse. I call it jealousy. I can't recall ever seeing single artist discussed here who comes off clean. It would be great to see commentary here that brings new insight to an artist's work, even if it isn't a full endorsement of that artist's work.
Re: Money Shot:
Does anyone think Currin isnt telling the truth?
I do, and theat why his stuff bugs me. Its like thinking "supersize me" is a fucking dietary revelation (gorge on fast food and you will get fat and stuff). I ate a couple of donuts a day for a while and gained weight. Then I STOPPED EATING DONUTS for a while and i lot weight. Simple as that.
"Let us assume that an actor is supposed to be startled by a knock at the door. If his reaction is not satisfactory, the director can resort to an expedient: when the actor happens to be at the studio again he has a shot fired behind him without his being forewarned of it. The frightened reaction can be shot now and be cut into the screen version. Nothing more strikingly shows that art has left the realm of the "beautiful semblance" which, so far, had been taken to be the only sphere where art could thrive."
Re: lated
Who will teach reading when writing is math?
Walter Benjamin has some pornographic stuff on how cameras ands surgeons penetrate where painters and magicians "opperate" or something. Seems like bullshit to me. But Im just skimming.
her
eddie, I am jaded and bitter, but catty is a gendered term - I prefer bellicose, which reminds me of cigar chomping bulldogs, for some reason.
You know, last of the mohicans. Scalps. Peer pressure. War as sport as war. That sort of thing. Othersise its just nerding it up in nerdland. Fuck that.
no wait i WILL be bitter. But Im not really old yet. Boy will I be bitter.
DK--Im not trying to convince you of anything.
Of course John Currin and Lisa Y are technically very good painters--no dispute there.
LY is telling me something I know to be the truth, from my own experience. If Jer will only dig on paintings that tittilate him, then that's his deal.
JC is telling me something that I dont buy. I refuse to buy. He is not going to rewrite history with himself and his kind on top, AGAIN.
DK--Nobody really cares about how a painting makes you aware of yourself looking. I mean come on, Renoir did that!
i find it a longshot to ask everyone here to agree on an artists greatness.
if there weren't alot of disagreements among artists everything would be the same. that is the fun of this. Its unfortunate that these little disagreements are so negatively affecting some people. but that is one opinion and perhaps this interpretation of cicumstance will determine the kind of art you make so more power to the people posting
I'd empty my lasso but
Mary's Robbing Peter to pay Paul
Boulders for shoulders
Fee fi fo fum,
Its like a jungle out there
Plumb thumbs and arabic guns running pie to infinity and beyond.
Ha ha huh ha.
Its cosmic.
We got fun and games because
Even serial killers leave clues
First ones free-
Next ones in the back.
Jack: Its a class.
with a Master of None.
heterosexual?
I think a positive wealth image™ is the key to your success. Like a self-image, it can limit or expand your ability to prosper in business and your personal life. A wealth image™ is the wealth esteem™ and prosperity-confidence that determines how far you'll go on the road to financial success. This is why your wealth image™, the sum total of your conscious and subconscious feelings about money and success, has such a powerful and profound affect on your financial life.
Wealth is created first and foremost in our minds; through goals, beliefs, and a strong sense of self. It sounds simple, but many people never learn the basic tools of visualizing success and working towards a goal with the belief they will succeed.
Money, Wealth & Prosperity utilizes Dr. Lloyd Glauberman's revolutionary HPP method to program your unconscious mind to make the positive lifestyle changes necessary for success. This method allows you to bypass self-sabotage, insecurity, and procrastination while providing you with more positive and appropriate attitudes about success.
Amatures do it until they get it right. Professionals do it until they cant get it wrong.
Doin it and doin it and doin it swell.
Army Navy Holliday in....
Theres gravy, and then theres wavy invisible and indivisability.
Weaponized incredulity.
If I had a hammer I'd strike surgicly:
hey stainless,
Get your teflon on.
Wait for the bridge....
hit it and quit:
i said you need a (wo)man who's got FINESSE
and his or her whole name across his or her chest
he/she may be able to fly all through the night
but can (s)he rock a party til the early light
they cant satisfy you with their inadequate sexual aparatus
but i can bust you out with my super status
i go do it, i go do it, i go do it, do it , do it
an i'm here an i'm there i'm big bang hank, im everywhere
just throw your hands up in the air
and party hardy like you just dont care
yeah!
decay im.
Okay, okay--that still wasn't my point but you've convinvced me to go take a look at his paintings again.
Hey if you really valued ambiguity--you should love me! I dont make arguments either
As my brother always told me, at this point in time, the white male has to prove they are non-heirarchical, "put on the dress" he said. I think JC pretends to put on the dress but I remain unconvinced. Isn't he kind of like the Borat of the artworld? I mean he's mocking the "other" stupid people, but does he include himself in that? I dont see that he does. And he doesnt mock power. Thats whay Michael Moore's Roger and Me is a better movie than Borat. Maybe not as funny, but better.
As my brother always told me, at this point in time, the white male has to prove they are non-heirarchical, "put on the dress" he said. I think JC pretends to put on the dress but I remain unconvinced. Isn't he kind of like the Borat of the artworld? I mean he's mocking the "other" stupid people, but does he include himself in that? I dont see that he does. And he doesnt mock power. Thats whay Michael Moore's Roger and Me is a better movie than Borat. Maybe not as funny, but better.
painterodg said...
They seem like something he thought up after the fact, could be wrong, anyway the distortion thing seems to come out of the mannerist than expressionism to me, and in that context the paintings work for me. There is also the Norman Rockwell twist.
I differ. Borat was totally mocking power in the Frat Boy scene, and the singing of the National Anthem.
This painting was produced with sweat and labor, even if the artist isn't of the working class.
Without knowing the politics of the painter, I think it's about hedonism, the golden bangles of a falling empire. The way the front figures hand is stuck in the rear figures sleeve, pocket, or glove of the same color seems to point to whitebread perversity and golden handcuffs.
I can't buy that it's easily dismissed as preppy or conventional. It's perverse, using a conventional idea of perversion. But, it's also mocking its own flesh.
I'm glad everyone has strong opinions here. It's rich.
who me? or the guy who was calling me one because he started reading the post half way into it.
If he had he would have seen as stated above that I totaly get the mannerist connection.
Hey if your not into this guy what's the problem, I have seen enough of his work to form a pretty good opinion of what I like and don't like in Currin's work.
I just find the work kind of boring, like I said there a few I do like, a some that I just can't stand.
I also said I will reserve jundgment until I see the work in question in person.
Lighten up folks, hey maybe post the turkey painting in honor of thanksgiving...
Skipping the lexicon of high modernism John Currin is perhaps the lamp bearer, the all-that-we-wished-for, counter play, apropos, genocide conservative ta-boot, who, with loads of skill, and lacking of idea thereof, offers panache.
He's the perfect jack-of-all-trades, and the jill-of-none-the-rest.
The flesh exudes life with beta as a platform--a perfect canceling out!
The turkey painting was posted last year in honor of Thanksgiving.
I am suprised more people didn't want to celebrate how great of a painter Currin is. These comments are frustrating.
"Gift of shit"
Lacan
Christmas each year. gets earlier.
Thanks John.
Thats what I mean sis--i think so many great artists have gone beyond this so called perversity. JC is draggin behind.
Frat boys represent petty power-like in animal house. Nobody enjoys seeing frat boys humiliated more than i do. And what about that torture scene in the new James Bond movie. I loved that. But when someone skewers the CEO--then we're really talking pure pleasure.
and that smiley faced demon that is Colbert--cant forget. He's about as great as Paul Mc Carthy
I have sneered at conventional wisdom all my life. I know where it gets you. Not at the top. Dig it.
Repetition is when recycling stops looking recycled and begins to rid the bits that the cycling stood for to end up not standing for too much.
Blame Kelley--his works don't stand for too much either (except a tradition)。 They simply 'are' via a concentrated effort, good worked ideas about how to look within the world, perhaps how to involve with it; finally, how to involve with the work, and stand outside of it. On a technical note Kelly is probably a little more refined and fresh in that his glow glows out as colored light. However, a metal piece exists without the need to stack neon on the back: It's a thing—NOT AN IDEA! The idea is about thingyness and nonethingyness. The idea is to stay very clean, and then there are ideas that come out, naturally--not merely ideas of ideas painted exquisitely ABOUT IDEAS. He’s very flexible because he starts each time from the beginning.
Blame Kelley. His prices are good.
Blame Currin--his work stands for a lot. They don't make a clear argument. Nor do they need to. THEY ARE ABOUT IDEAS. They follow a tradition, and stand upon it like some hegemonic cattle rancher bronzed with lasso. THOUGH CURRIN USES PAINT that glorifies the cattle rancher, his wife, and a whole set of equations, luxury, class, without getting too deep into the conundrums: the weekly diet of male testerone squeezed from the glossies, gleaned over with paint that is context abundant content reserved--aperitif.
Blame Currin. His prices are excellent.
Hey decay it's just my opinion. I'm not too serious about it and definitely not too serious about John Currin as an artist offering something substantial...
History is like the seasons: to move it on, to keep fresh, we turn the leaves less they must fall.
Well I think you can take the bull by the horns or not - if you dont, thats called begging the question. I chose not to do that, cuz I hate begging and I live dilemmas, even if they are BS.
Lets play master and servant.
I dunno, im still pretty indifferent to these. I mean porn is ubiquitous.
id rather look at porn than this
Post a Comment