Installation views of (top to bottom, left to right) Greater, Jump, Exhibit 11, White Room, and Bulge; each is MSPaintbrush, photocopies, linen tape [along seams on the reverse], 88 X 78 inches. From my solo exhibit at Derek Eller Gallery, New York, NY, 1998. (photos by Bill Orcutt)
back to main site
Whoa, hold on! Just want to comment before more posts and days go by and these move off the front page. BTW, what do *you* call these, anyway: paintings; drawings; collages?
Curious why you're posting these now. You've said for the time being you're focusing on animations and music- I know the paper stuff is time-consuming, difficult to make, require physical space, etc. Thinking about, or currently working on paper?
These look terrific, strong, very impressive. You know I like your stuff on paper a lot- this is different than what I saw in your studio- these are more allover, patterened. And they seem very relevant to the animated GIFs, especially scale-wise, now that some have been projected quite large. Pick a current abstract painter doing pattern-related stuff -- James Siena, Tomma Abts, blah, blah blah- these big paper things are stiff competition as complex images, just as labor intensive if not more than any painting, and not just more paintings- they're something else. These and your other stuff need to see the light of day- thanks for posting them.
yeah, these are nice. The scale really is pretty cool.
Thanks. Chris, many "heavy hitters" in the New York art scene saw this show. Certainly many people I wanted to have see it. Most seemed to like it. Westfall, Ostrow, Kaneda, Smith, Saltz, Sillman, Griffin, Yablonsky, Kino, Freire, Schumann, Gonzales. Just rattling off names. Of those only Freire actively, vocally hated it. Ken Johnson gave it a nice writeup in the Times. It led to a number of shows in museums and galleries for me in the late 90s. Including group shows with Karin Davie, Fred Tomaselli, James Siena, Peter Halley... I sold a few smaller ones.
But it didn't have any serious traction because (i) it's really new media work disguised as painting; (ii) there was (and is) no discourse for such extreme hybrid work, (iii) it's almost an insult to painting and the values painters and painting lovers (ie collectors) hold dear.
Because of the tape on the back the pieces look very substantial, like they're glued onto canvas. But it's just Xerox paper. Two pushpins will hold up an entire piece. Some people were viscerally disgusted when I lifted a corner and showed how actually lightweight it was. Like I tricked them. One young fogey artist told me I had a "responsibility to the collector" that these pieces were not living up to.
No idea why I'm posting them now--maybe because I have another solo up 8 years later with a completely different body of work (but the same old computer program.) I was sincere when I said I'm concentrating on the music and video now and am excited by it.
At first I only wrote, " And they seem very relevant to the animated GIFs..," but came back later and added "...especially scale-wise, now that some have been projected quite large." I thought you might be look at some of this work in light of your recent show and seeing stuff huge.
Actually, these three things seem like the perfect ingredients to attain traction: (i) it's really new media work disguised as painting; (ii) there was (and is) no discourse for such extreme hybrid work, (iii) it's almost an insult to painting and the values painters and painting lovers (ie collectors) hold dear.
Regarding (ii), recommend "Painting the Digital River : How an Artist Learned to Love the Computer" by James Faure Walker. This is not a book about using Painter- it's not a technical or a how to book. I'm just barely into it, but there is a frankness and openness about both sides of the analoque/digital painting question that is refreshing. He has lots of questions and is sympathetic to many angles while all the while being more concerned with Art than with whether painting lives or dies or even what exactly painting is.
On another note, I have gone twice to see The GIF Show in SF. Both times the place wasn't open.
Yes, I just found out the curator has had problems with the gallery--some computers don't work, a projector is broken, and they cut back their hours. I'm told it's the Bay Area's premiere new media venue and everyone just accepts that it's also a wine bar, and "loosey goosey." Sorry to everyone who got my announcement and was similarly disappointed.
"responsibility to the collector" - ow!
those are pretty
|
Installation views of (top to bottom, left to right) Greater, Jump, Exhibit 11, White Room, and Bulge; each is MSPaintbrush, photocopies, linen tape [along seams on the reverse], 88 X 78 inches. From my solo exhibit at Derek Eller Gallery, New York, NY, 1998. (photos by Bill Orcutt)
back to main site
- tom moody 5-26-2006 6:36 pm
Whoa, hold on! Just want to comment before more posts and days go by and these move off the front page. BTW, what do *you* call these, anyway: paintings; drawings; collages?
Curious why you're posting these now. You've said for the time being you're focusing on animations and music- I know the paper stuff is time-consuming, difficult to make, require physical space, etc. Thinking about, or currently working on paper?
These look terrific, strong, very impressive. You know I like your stuff on paper a lot- this is different than what I saw in your studio- these are more allover, patterened. And they seem very relevant to the animated GIFs, especially scale-wise, now that some have been projected quite large. Pick a current abstract painter doing pattern-related stuff -- James Siena, Tomma Abts, blah, blah blah- these big paper things are stiff competition as complex images, just as labor intensive if not more than any painting, and not just more paintings- they're something else. These and your other stuff need to see the light of day- thanks for posting them.
- chrissashley 5-29-2006 10:48 pm
yeah, these are nice. The scale really is pretty cool.
- paul (guest) 5-29-2006 10:51 pm
Thanks. Chris, many "heavy hitters" in the New York art scene saw this show. Certainly many people I wanted to have see it. Most seemed to like it. Westfall, Ostrow, Kaneda, Smith, Saltz, Sillman, Griffin, Yablonsky, Kino, Freire, Schumann, Gonzales. Just rattling off names. Of those only Freire actively, vocally hated it. Ken Johnson gave it a nice writeup in the Times. It led to a number of shows in museums and galleries for me in the late 90s. Including group shows with Karin Davie, Fred Tomaselli, James Siena, Peter Halley... I sold a few smaller ones.
But it didn't have any serious traction because (i) it's really new media work disguised as painting; (ii) there was (and is) no discourse for such extreme hybrid work, (iii) it's almost an insult to painting and the values painters and painting lovers (ie collectors) hold dear.
Because of the tape on the back the pieces look very substantial, like they're glued onto canvas. But it's just Xerox paper. Two pushpins will hold up an entire piece. Some people were viscerally disgusted when I lifted a corner and showed how actually lightweight it was. Like I tricked them. One young fogey artist told me I had a "responsibility to the collector" that these pieces were not living up to.
No idea why I'm posting them now--maybe because I have another solo up 8 years later with a completely different body of work (but the same old computer program.) I was sincere when I said I'm concentrating on the music and video now and am excited by it.
- tom moody 5-30-2006 11:22 am
At first I only wrote, " And they seem very relevant to the animated GIFs..," but came back later and added "...especially scale-wise, now that some have been projected quite large." I thought you might be look at some of this work in light of your recent show and seeing stuff huge.
Actually, these three things seem like the perfect ingredients to attain traction: (i) it's really new media work disguised as painting; (ii) there was (and is) no discourse for such extreme hybrid work, (iii) it's almost an insult to painting and the values painters and painting lovers (ie collectors) hold dear.
Regarding (ii), recommend "Painting the Digital River : How an Artist Learned to Love the Computer" by James Faure Walker. This is not a book about using Painter- it's not a technical or a how to book. I'm just barely into it, but there is a frankness and openness about both sides of the analoque/digital painting question that is refreshing. He has lots of questions and is sympathetic to many angles while all the while being more concerned with Art than with whether painting lives or dies or even what exactly painting is.
On another note, I have gone twice to see The GIF Show in SF. Both times the place wasn't open.
- chrisashley (guest) 5-31-2006 12:19 am
Yes, I just found out the curator has had problems with the gallery--some computers don't work, a projector is broken, and they cut back their hours. I'm told it's the Bay Area's premiere new media venue and everyone just accepts that it's also a wine bar, and "loosey goosey." Sorry to everyone who got my announcement and was similarly disappointed.
- tom moody 5-31-2006 6:52 am
"responsibility to the collector" - ow!
- sally mckay 6-01-2006 5:24 pm
those are pretty
- Thor Johnson (guest) 6-01-2006 10:00 pm