Chris Rywalt
Chris Rywalt's GalleryChris Rywalt's Bio
Chris Rywalt's E-mail Address
Chris Rywalt's Handsome, Dashing Figure
Art Critic's Statement
A Note on Working Methods
Artists and Shows Covered
Art Blogs
- The Douglas Kelley Show List
- Chelsea Art Galleries
- Gallery Guide New York/New Jersey
- Thinking About Art
- Militant Art Bitch
- Stuck in L.A.
- Edward_ Winkleman
- Steven LaRose
- M. Cameron Boyd
- Woospace! Woo!
- James W. Bailey
Artists
- Tracy Helgeson
- Walter Darby Bannard
- Tim Folzenlogen
- Cory Marc
- François Dubeau
- Mark Kostabi
- James Wolanin
- Audrey Kawasaki
- Timothy Mutzel
- Stephanie Lee Jackson
Jerry Saltz
Personal and Critical Crisis Chris, as usual you are thinking too much. Don't worry about what was said 40 years ago, some things never change and some things do and that is just how it goes. Don't worry about your place in history; none of us really matter in the scheme of things and life will go on when each of us die.Believe it or not my intent is to give you a pep talk here:) Enjoy your lovely family, do some productive work to make a living and pursue the things that you enjoy, like art. Don't worry if it is "worth pursuing" just do it because you enjoy it. Be a good citizen, do some volunteer work once in awhile and help your son with his crazy NJ garden. Those are the things that are good.
Oh and just go to one show, don't worry about hitting all of them. Work your way back into all of it, if that's what you want to do.
We all go through these times so just in case you think you are special, you are not:) It is ironic that I am a label attached to your blog entry about your personal and critical CRISIS!
It is really hard to make worthwhile art when you are married and have kids. You have two kids right? That is why most scholars and artists that I know don't have kids. Hey at least you don't have to work full-time. I work as a teacher in a public school so at least I have summers off and a relatively short work day. It doesn't feel short believe me. The point is it is a struggle to stay creative when you have all these other responsibities. You play FPS video games? I do. They are the only video games I like. I have an xbox360 and tons of FPS games. I don't play online though. This steals away time. By the time we get the kids to sleep I am usually pretty fried. I try to keep up with my reading, writing, and drawing, but it is hard. Will I ever get gallery representation? Probably not. Does it still matter to me? Should I keep making stuff even though I will never become a successful artist in terms of gallery representation, financial success, attention from the art world and art press? That is the question you need to ask yourself. You should not trouble yourself about what kind of art you make. You wouldn't be more successful if you started to make avant-garde conceptual art, the stuff you hate, because you are over the hill (in terms of art world measurements of age), you don't look like a model, and you have no family connections to powerful people in the art world. Make stuff, keep blogging, keep going to see art, only if you really enjoy it. You are at a point in life where you don't have to bullshit yourself any longer. If it disappoints you when a lot of time passes by and you have not made any drawings or paintings, force yourself to set aside some time to make stuff every week. If art has become nothing but an albatross, something that only generates negative feelings, step away from it for a while, without feeling any regret. It won't be the end of the fucking world. You owe it to your family and yourself to try and have some fun. Chris I apologize if my last comment was unsolicited advice. I just felt bad that I somehow contributed to your crisis. You should read up on the Ruskin Whistler trial. Ruskin was a nearly critic and it's interesting to see what he says about ol' James McNeil who was at the time considered one the most avant-garde painters.
Some of is small landscapes are very abstract paintings.
I agree with everything Tracy says.
Live your life, it's sounds like a cliche but it's a good one.
I teach as an adjunct and for the most part I don't have representation. I am going to work on that, but I love to paint and draw so that's what I do.
As far as the art scene goes every time I go to Painter NYC my eyes start to hurt. So much work is so bad that it hurts my eyes.
This past week I saw a show here in Boston of Antonio Lopez Garcia, and all I have to say is this guy is an amazing artist. If you can see this show you should. He has some large pencil drawings one of which is over 6 feet and took him 5 or 6 years to do. He has a panoramic view of Madrid that he spent two decades on.
This mans work is not only inspirational but hes such a master at transcending the mediums he works in that you find your self looking at these works and wondering, how did he do that?
How does he make pencil look like ink or the light of a bulb?
Seeing this show as been for me a real great experience, this is what art is about. Chris. Holy shit! Thank you so much for sending me an ilegal download of the GIF animaor. I really appreciate it. It was a total surprise. I am lucky that I got it because it was sent to my old address. I want to send you a drawing this summer. Please send me your address. Thanks again. Really. I'm glad the CD arrived. Remember, it's only illegal if you don't pay for it, and of course, if it works on your system and you find it useful, you will pay for it.
I'll e-mail you my address, although it's easy enough to find. But you don't need to send me anything -- no thanks necessary. Holy shit, Jeff agrees with me! Wow!
I checked back thinking that this comment I left was awful, since I didn't hear from you Chris,but in rereading it, I stand by it. Sorry. But I hope you are feeling better. Maybe I'll come down to the city soon and fill your life with light and happiness. Heh. Cathleen Cueto and Long Time No See! ...so if you looked at it quickly you might think it was a knee or something more private, but an elbow it was.
heh! I liked that. dear bad guy, I never quite think of your writing as reviews so much as tiny short stories.
I liked today's cliff hanger....
.....Next up! An art movie...
clever! you dog
Danonymous Good to have you back Chris! Was just beginning to think you packed it in. Gaming is very addictive, but ultimately just too damn boring to maintain life.
Timothy Well, there you are! I had almost given up checking! I think you are a lovely friend. Oh, maybe not. I just noticed that after all these years, I am still not on your sidebar......
I am devastated. See? Bad person, like I said. You ARE a lovely friend-with enough sense to use a bigger typeface when appropriate:) Hey! You gave Tracy a bigger typeface than me. You must like her better. Women are evil. Men are gullible. Nice job Pretty Lady, but I can't believe he didn't make our names flash in a different color too:) And our hero has disappeared again! :( November 16, 2007 I know David Gibson, and so does Oriane. He visited my studio last year, and recently invited me to join 'the crit group.' When a person Googles my name, your blog posts come up.
Of course it's narcissistic of me to think that this is the reason you exist for him, but it's one possible connection.
In any case, you exist for me even when I'm in Texas or Maine, usually because I remember something funny you said, and repeat it for a family member, to prove that I do, indeed, have worthwhile friends. It's not that narcissistic, seeing as how on my blog's page on Technorati, your name is the biggest in the cloud of tags. And it is nice of you to say I exist, even though you're probably lying. Waaait-a-minny-nut
Did you just say (20 days ago):
"I'm still unknown enough as an art critic -- I'm still an amateur and all. . . "?
I think you have a future as an art critic.
Do I owe you any money?
What does it cost to make you a professional? jesus christ-amateur+someone(like you) who uses"I" every other word-leave your fucking dull,depressing self out of it,and also your ugly,nerdy friend uglylady,and references to both your works ,which are not to be mentioned in the area of new york city-try florida.And don't refer to artists by their first names. chris, you exist!
give us another post!
i must insist!
don't give up the ghost!
i'd be really pissed!
oriane David Gibson here. I must say you do exist. Your writing on the show at LTS is very good.
FYI I changed the link for Realform, it's now http://articleprojects-realform. blogspot.com
the next show there opens Sat 4/26, "Fools for Lust: New Paintings by Mary Katherine Murphy" from 7-9 pm. Hope you can make it by! The Blogger Show: Opening That guy was going on about my coat too, and it was nothing special, but he pronounced it fantastic. I also wondered about the splotched bathrobe lady, thought she might be Agni. Agni was there most of the night. The last I saw of her, she was sitting on the pew with the leather-clad guy with the tattoos and the Goth chick. She was not the woman in the bathrobe, but I can't recall what she was wearing, possibly because it wasn't anything like what she was wearing on the day we hung the show, which outfit required my averting my eyes due to extreme amounts of Agni on view. That guy had a coat fetish. He and I had a way too long discussion about my coat and the one he also bought once for $50 that looked just like it, only it was a lighter brown and had fewer buttons....
I would have loved to go for sushi, but you all wanted pizza!
Oh and both Doug and I liked Danny very much. I was incredibly flattered that he seemed to know who I was (told you I am easy) and I was glad to meet him. I would have liked to have talked to Libby and Roberta, but I missed out on that. I had to bail early, Chris. I had a commitment uptown. I was rather frustrated about the conflict.
I'm sure we'll meet before long, in any case. I'm the Next Charlie Finch It's easy to be angry at complete strangers. But beyond that, if a person learns that their expressions of anger are getting them zip zero nada of what they think they hoped to get, then it tend's to be discarded. Oh, there's probably going to be bitter fuming and sniping, but the frontal assaults will go by the wayside.
The bottom line is that most people think *much to highly of themselves*, (myself included) and that leads to all sorts of lame excuses for being angry. You *have* to be able to laugh at yourself, and even parody yourself when you see yourself being ridiculous. Yes, people are strange... is this the first step to give Charlie a hand? Did you invite him to the Blogger Show ? Often, not always, relation changes eye-to-eye, but may worsen too. I really like your opinions, the fact you write and discover. Best regards, Hans I think you handle getting beat up and insulted very well:) I get very upset when I am involved in that sort of thing, I say the wrong things and do NOT communicate well at all. Which is why I am much more of a lurker than a participant in those situations.
I have always enjoyed your observations about art and even though I don't always agree with you, I appreciate that you are honest. I imagine the anonymous types who persist in insulting you have a few anger issues that are not really about you. You are just an easy target because you are out there and are expressing your opinions. Hey Chris,
I might not agree with you all the time, sometimes your so dead on I find myself laughing and cheering.
We have had some disagreements, but I would like to think that it comes down to being rational with a good does of critical thinking to converse on this level.
If there are some who are snipping at you well let them fume and ignore them.
I don't hold a grudge unless money is involved or infidelity, even then I come around to life is to short to be to angry.
I think you do a fine job myself, and I really don't like Charlie Finch so I hope your sites are higher than that. Chris, my dear:
1) Do not ever change. I have full confidence that you will not; however I must state that the essential Chris is an extraordinary original who has glorious value in his wit and integrity. Those who do not understand this are not worth your time.
2) Sometimes it is simply not possible to be friends with people. Either you do not resonate, or they're not open to it for some reason having little to do with you. Finally coming to terms with this fact has done a lot toward relieving the excess anger in my life.
3) Some people deserve to be mocked. They do not deserve to be mocked for sincere efforts gone awry; they do not deserve to be mocked for genuine ill fortune, honest mistakes, genetic sensitivity, or any factor over which they have no control.
But when a person demonstrates gross incompetence, coupled with flaming arrogance, coupled with flagrant insincerity, coupled with obvious apathy, coupled with an attempt to control and suppress the responses of those people affected by said incompetence, arrogance, insincerity and apathy, that person must properly be first mocked, and then ignored.
It is only basic karma. I realized, after I posted this, that I needed to write out my post about the Blogger Show. So I was writing that out, and thinking about it, and I realized further that, while I've met maybe two people with whom I didn't get along in the art world, I've also met a bunch of really great people, too. And the great ones so far outweigh the lousy ones that I really shouldn't complain. I mean, I had to hug Tracy. How great is that?
My site is acting up so I didn't see these comments as they came in, but then, after my realizations, I found them, and I'm glad to find people on my side.
Thanks to all of you. And Pretty Lady: I often find myself thinking of Bob from What About Bob? saying that people are like phones, and sometimes when you call you get a busy signal. I can confirm the peculiar happenings around these parts. Your posts have been vanishing and reappearing. There was a post above this one (about the show), and yesterday evening, even this post was missing for a time.
Hmm hmm...you got a bloggergeist? Chris, loved you in the video. It's been a while since I've seen him, but I would say that you and Charlie are of the same approximate enormity, but his ego is bigger. The opening was really fun, it was great to meet the faces behind the blogs and it was also nice to meet Dawn. DC: Unlike most of my blogging brethren and sistren -- and I'm frightened to put it that way, believe me -- my blog is run through Blogger but hosted on my own server at crywalt.com, which is actually a machine shared by a whole bunch of people at WestNet, which ISP is owned by a friend of mine. So posts and comments need to go to Blogger, then get copied to my server. Something went weird with the copying process yesterday (which, for the technical among you, is no more arcane than an FTP connection). So, no geist, but just one of those Internet things.
Oriane: I passed along the inspiration for this post -- an e-mail exchange with one of those people I misunderstood who shall remain decidedly nameless -- to Stephanie, whose reaction was one of righteous rage. She said all the things I thought immediately when the e-mail exchange began.
But what I realize is that I quite simply do not have the self-esteem -- the ego -- to believe immediately that I am RIGHT and the other guy is WRONG. I've been wrong too many times. Once upon a time I was an arrogant bastard -- some people would probably say I still am -- but, believe me, I've mellowed. So when someone writes me a message saying I've done something wrong, my immediate reaction may be "Who the hell is this asshole to accuse me of wrongdoing?" but it's followed immediately by "Well, maybe I did do something wrong. Let me think about this."
Which may be sane and reasonable and all that, but when dealing with someone unreasonable, sanity isn't always the best reaction. It just gets you beat up more. It's like trying to have a discussion about motivations with the bully stuffing you into a locker.
But it's who I am these days. I found a quote from Robert Frost today -- serendipity, it's the foundation of the Internet! -- which sums me up nicely: "A liberal is a man too broadminded to take his own side in a quarrel." my blogging brethren and sistren -- and I'm frightened to put it that way, believe me
Oh pfft. You can hate me if you want, but as long as I'm a "blogging brethren" I'm fine with that. I'm just horrified to be aligning myself with any group. But especially one of [gulp] bloggers, who are pathetic smelly basement dwellers. I guess that makes me a self-hating pathetic smelly basement dweller. I should accept my pathetic smelly basement dwellerness! The Blogger Show: Hanging I just swiped your post. Thanks. Have fun. NIce post, I can hardly wait to see the show. Sounds like one in the "best of year" category. The few included images were enough to sell me a dream. Chris, what a fabuous post. Thank you. I was wondering, SO much, and certainly didn't want to disturb Pretty Lady during this time. Ya know. Tugging on her sleeve...
Hey! How's it going? Whatcha doing anyway? How's it all look? and and and Just jumped to your blog from Tracy Helgeson's blog.
Wished I could have seen the blogger show. Your writing is as wonderful as your work.
I tend to be drawn to artists and "regular folk" who also have a wry sense of humor.
Your blog is now on my daily "art blog" read. Thanks everyone. Jayne especially. Good post, Chris.
It reminds me that, even though I've been in Design and Printing for two decades, now, as far as Art is concerned...I still have no clue.
...except that I know what I like.
I especially appreciated your dealing with the tactile; being able to feel, to smell the work as you set up is such an added and needful dimension (Gerbils. HAW.)
And...WOW. Houston Street! We lived on Houston street when I was a baby. There was a Franciscan brother house across the street, and they would sometimes babysit - so I'm told, I was pretty young then.
Well played all around! October 25, 2007 I love the way you blog so that I don't have to. Shit, I don't even have to leave Oregon. Thanks for everything Chris. Hi Chris,
Thanks for visiting my blog & commenting on my paintings.(On Tracy's blog) Glad you like them! Reading your blog reminds me that I would like to make it to NY sometime in 2008. Lots to soak up & it's been a long time.
Thanks
Christine
http://passionforpainting.blogspot.com Adult Draw, Justin Faunce, Diana Al Hadid Not all those flash photos went into someone's private wank file: Here's a few from Nikki Johnson. You are completely insane or blind. Justin Faunce is an incredibly ambitious and talented young artist. You are a lazy, sexist middle-aged hack who can't draw. Wow. I'd be deeply, deeply hurt -- if you weren't an anonymous coward. Chris I agree with you Justin's work reminds me of a bad light show at the Filmore East.
His work is a painters rendition of masturbation.
He might be talented, but I think it's for using an x-acto knife on a magazine. Anon since when is ambition a talent.
and why pick on Chris's drawing, what the hell does that have to do with it?
Are you completely insane and bind? Anonymous, I think the fact that he is showing in 'Jersey' gives more than enough value to his opinion.
And 'painterdog' when one critiques the work of others, their talent plays a big part in the credibility of their opinion. Perhaps you and Chris should learn the art of a metaphor; you'd be able to appreciate the work of Justin a lot more. Who's showing in 'Jersey'? And why did you put 'Jersey' in quotes?
Also, I think artistic talent and artistic critical faculties are unrelated. Whether or not I can draw is irrelevant to whether I think Justin Faunce is any good. I'm not saying I'm a great artist or that Justin sucks; it's possible I'm untalented and it's possible that Justin is, in fact, a great painter. I just don't think so. Cahoon and yours is?
I am a painter an my critique of his work is based on what I am looking for in a painting.
Making large paintings from stencils or photoshop collage printouts is not my idea of good painting.
Is Justin a great painter? Not to me. Ingres is a great painter.
Turner is a great painter, Justin is not in my opinion doing anything on this level.
At least I can paint that's more than I can say for most art critics.
Why is Justin in your view a good painter?
What about his work makes you think this?
What I see is the product of bad schooling, his work looks like it just came out art school.
The bright garish color the vialed references to Koons and Michael Jackson, a palette based on last years designer colors.
There are a lot of comic book artist who make better work than this such as Kim Deitch.
Swoon is much better and she can draw. I saw Justin's painting too, dear Anonymous Cahooey, and my considered opinion as a brilliantly talented painter is that the work is vile. It is chaotic, overstuffed, relentlessly negative, egoistically aggrandizing and soulless.
It is very easy, Anon, to get a Big Reaction with Big and Ugly. It is easy to decide upon a Sisyphean process and get up every morning and apply it and apply it and apply it without thinking at all, as sort of a Satanic meditation. It is easy to to elide together some vaguely similar images, such as Michael Jackson and Che Guevara, and apply the aesthetics so that they violently clash, in a way that Gets People's Attention.
It is not easy to evoke the soul, or to inspire depth of consideration, and Justin has not even attempted to do that. 'painterdog', perhaps the quality of his work could some way be related to the reactions that it's provoked. For better. For worse. He's a breath of fresh air in a world where people binge on the opinions of others and then purge a wonderfully flat array of colors onto a canvas. He's following his own set of rules and wether you like it or not; he'll probably continue to do so regardless of what is being said here. And regardless of how affected you believe he is.
And Pretty Lady, You've a lot of class, I can tell. And a modest ego as well. Don't ever let this hold you back in the future. cahhon you did not answer the questions.Why? and What?
A breath of fresh air? What does that mean? How does that have anything to do with the critique that has been put forth. It's rehashed pop art done for the MTV generation.
wonderfully flat array of colors onto a canvas
That last statement is full of content, I can really get a sense that your up on the art scene with that one. What's next magic white and a happy brush.
He's not following his set of rules he's following the New York Art world set ofr rules, get real sparky.
In regard to him(you) doing what he(you) want to regardless of what is said, well I should hope so, I would hope he is not such a milk toast doing such macho art, now that's an interesting concept, weak effeminate men doing muscle painting... Sorry Chris I'll stop flaming on your blog now. I think it's interesting that you guys are looking at Justin Faunce's painting and even contrasting it to Ingres and others. It speaks volumes about how you are comparing him. Why walk into a show and say "well, it's no Picasso"? Not only is that ignorant, it also means alot considering the artists that you are comparing him to. It's wonderful how subjective art can be when it's done right. Justin has done it right, allthough I think that the "hatred" that is being spewed is meant to be directed at the images that he is criticising. I don't think that Justin walks around with an "i'm a great painter" button on his chest. He has an interesting and neurotic, obsessive technique that only furthurs the criticism of the media and mediated images that he explores. If you want soul, go listen to a Luther Vandross cd. In my opinion, he does an amazing job at showing us how soulless and assaulting media and our societie's relationship to image really is. oh yeah, painterdog,
Last time I checked, the "New york art set of rules" did not encompase spending nearly 2 years of ones life on a single painting.... considering all the excess trash that seems to be produced in order to fill up art fairs, and the wallets of artist and art dealers, I think its worth thinking about.
Also, you say the work looks like it just came out of art school. Well guess what, it did!! Whats the big deal with that? So a talented young artist graduates from art school and gets lucky enough to have a gallery show. Why would you expect it to compare to Ingres or Turner, what where they doing when they were 26? I think it's a good thing that collectors and gallerys are basically underwritting grad school for many young artists, allowing them to work full time on there craft.
And chris, a "distinct air of who gives a fuck?" If Justin did'nt give a fuck than why would he spend so much time on it? The painting was not made with screens or a machine, it says on the press release they were made with hand cut stencils. If you had looked at the painting, you would see the brushstrokes and layers of paint. But I guess you did'nt give a fuck enough to actually look at the thing before you spewed venom about it on your blog. This post has been removed by the author. I was not comparing him to Turner or Ingres, someone made statement that he was great. What does that mean? How do you gage what is great? Is he great in relation to Robert Crumb? Or Jeff Koons?
Spending 2 years on a painting does not mean he's great, he's most certainly obsessive but that does not mean it's wonderful because of this much time spent on a painting.
It's similar to the argument you hear in high school English classes when a student complains about their grade. They think they deserve an 'A' just because they spent so much time on the paper. Time spent on something does not equal good work, does it? What's behind the intent, the idea.
I think Turner or Ingres is a good example of what a certain kind of great art is, and it has stood the test of time. They were extremely obsessive about their art as well so that was my connection or comparison to that kind of personality not Justin's paintings.
I am not sure what this guy is trying to paint, and quite frankly political art or art that relies on making comments like you say he is, can be so one dimensional, it looks dated real fast. Maybe that's the point. That's what political cartoons and documentaries are for, no?
If so then why spend 2 years on 1 painting?
This is a difference of opinion as I read through the threads and instead of getting into a bitching match I think I am going to leave it as we are not discussing this on a rational level.
By the way Turner was elected a full member of the Royal Academy by age 27, he was already very successful in his early 20's. Cowardly Anonymous sez:
If you had looked at the painting, you would see the brushstrokes and layers of paint. But I guess you did'nt give a fuck enough to actually look at the thing before you spewed venom about it on your blog.
I looked very closely at both paintings. I saw hard paint edges like you get when you use a stencil; I didn't see layers of paint. It was clear that some kind of stencil was used. And from what I've read on Justin on the Web since I was at the show, he uses silkscreens, not hand-cut stencils. Which is not to say he didn't use them on that huge painting. Maybe he did.
It doesn't really matter if he held the brush in his ass and painted using his own blood. It's immaterial to the result.
As far as "showing us how soulless and assaulting media and our society's relationship to image," wow! Thanks for pointing that out! Because it never occurred to me that Justin could be doing that. Commenting sarcastically on our media culture -- what a coup! I mean, the field is WIDE OPEN! Only TEN MILLION OTHER ARTISTS ARE DOING THE EXACT SAME THING. Pardon me while I yawn expansively. Only TEN MILLION OTHER ARTISTS ARE DOING THE EXACT SAME THING.
If this is so then, which is also my take on the content and that's what is implied by the gallery. Than why is taking so long to do a painting on this kind idea redundant, or is that the ruse. Playing on our ability to forget in one news cycle.
I mean Michael Jackson should be replaced with Lindsey Lohan, no?
Oh I get it, it's time based art. That's the trouble with "topical" Pop Art, isn't it? It ages so quickly. And it's obvious and redundant. The only way to avoid this is to create something worthwhile in some other way -- something simply visually good apart from its content. And Justin Faunce has failed miserably at this. His color sense is abysmal. The Michael Jackson/Che Guevara pastiche is largely in two colors (primary red and a light blue) that clash so horrifically I'd guess Faunce is colorblind; and the larger piece contains just about every color reproducible in pigment. His sense of composition is equally incompetent: Michael Guevara works because it's someone else's composition (whoever designed that first Che t-shirt) and the larger thing is just a complete nightmare. About the only compositional structure it has is that it's roughly mirrored, which has got to be the least interesting composition known to man anyway.
Faunce really has nothing going for him except pigheadedness. He's got his technique -- such as it is -- and he plows on through with it. I don't dislike him personally -- I don't know the guy -- as much as I want to sit him down and tell him he needs to chill out. Justin doesn't need a bad review and he doesn't need art collectors enabling him -- he needs professional psychiatric help. Man, Chris, you talk a mean game considering your own art. Did Justin beat you up outside of drawing class or something? I hate to state the obvious, but your criticism seems to say a lot more about you and your particularly rigid rules for understanding "great art" than it does about Justins work.
How can you criticize someone for being unoriginal when you are mainly producing contour figure drawings? Im not criticizing the quality of your work, but it's not exactly awe inspiring in it's originality. And the colors are not particularly thoughtfull either. Im assuming that the colors in Justin's work are the result of the original source material, not his bad taste.
The composition is incredible!! I used to make collages and it's not easy at all to create a dynamic composition with a depth of field using 2 dimensional images from various sources. I think the composition is fairly harmonious and thoughtfull judged in terms of collage.
10 million artists are working on any givin set of ideas or styles, why should you make it a criteria for judging this particular one? And besides, I think there is something unique about the way he is handling the subject matter. Mainly that unlike Koons or Warhol, I dont get the impression that he is being sarcastic at all. He seems dedicated to capturing in his paintings a real feeling of hate for the rotten way that our culture has been effected by technology. He does'nt seem to be ironic or two faced about it. I think the work makes a fairly passionate statement about things in a way that maybe a documentary or political cartoon cannot. And besides, he is a painter not a documentary film maker, so what if he chooses to include a valid social critique in his work? You choose to make a painting of a pussy with butterfly wings and Justin chooses to make a painting about his fears about the state of the world...we all have our passions I guess.
Honestly though, do you always critique peoples art in such a shallow, might I say "pigheaded" way? In this blog Justin has been accused of "not giving a fuck," and in need of psychiatric help, called satanic, pigheaded and masturbatory, and his work has been described as worthless, beyond badness, abysmal and unoriginal. Do you have some personal beef with him? Cause honestly you and painterdog have basically proved yourselves to be what is know as HATERS. People who are jealous of or intimidated by someone who for whatever reason threatens them. Im all about constructive criticism, but this vile stuff that your laying out is beyond the pale. This isn't about me or my art, even if you'd like to make it so, so I'm not going to try to defend what I'm doing. I'll admit that the lack of originality argument is one that could be made against me, though.
Whether or not I'm original is besides the point when it comes to Justin's work. My work being derivative (if it is) doesn't make his work any less so. It's silly to try to connect the two, unless you want to undermine my credibility as a critic. Which is fine, I suppose, although anyone reading this has probably already formed their own ideas about my credibility (which I admit, too, is about nil).
The trouble here is that, in my opinion, Faunce's work has nothing else going for it except for his ideas, and his ideas are tired and old hat. If his ideas were shallow and boring but his execution beautiful or intriguing or exciting or just something, that'd be different. But I don't think it is.
And I do think he's being sarcastic. No one can seriously slap up a painting containing Michael Jackson without being sarcastic. It's just not possible. Conflating Che Guevara -- a major political revolutionary and possible murderer -- with a wacky pop music idol is worse than sophistry, it's malicious irony.
All his execution -- his technique -- has going for it is that it's painstaking. I think he's in need of psychiatric help because anyone with a process as intensive as his probably suffers from Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder and could use a combination of medication and therapy to help regain control of their life.
I'm not a hater. I don't hate Justin. I hate his work. Very different thing. I think his work is absolutely without merit. I am not jealous or intimidated or threatened; I'm just mildly disgusted that anyone would show dreck like his in public. First of all I never said I hated his work, I used the word masturbation because that is what it seems like to me. There seems to be a lot of visual overload and the ideas seem to get side tracked by the obsessiveness.
So lets try and get back to a rational discussion.
My issue is with the post-modern ethos that dismisses beauty, and replaces it with pathology.
That was my point. Sorry if I did not make it clear that is my fault.
As far as the compositions they are so busy and full of overload, I can't can't see anything but obsessive compulsiveness. Nothing wrong with that, but it does nothing for me when I have to confront it in this way with this kind visual language.
Mainly that unlike Koons or Warhol, I don't get the impression that he is being sarcastic at all. He seems dedicated to capturing in his paintings a real feeling of hate for the rotten way that our culture has been effected by technology.
In this statement you seem to contradict yourself, how can he make post-modern work without being sarcastic?
He is being sarcastic is he not? Why would you juxtapose Michael Jackson and Che Guevara and not be making a sarcastic comment on society, this work is full of it and if the artist was not intending this to be the central theme of the work he has failed to some extent, as that's what people are seeing, at least here where this issue has been stated.
He doesn't seem to be ironic or two faced about it. I think the work makes a fairly passionate statement about things in a way that maybe a documentary or political cartoon cannot.
Really? the work is very cold and calculated, how much more irony does one need to be ironic. It hits one in the head with it's irony. Nothing wrong with that per say,
the point gets lost in the over worked surfaces on one level, I can't look at them long enough to care.
Jealous? Intimidated? Threatened?
No I'm not any of the above, just tired of seeing post-modern art with nothing to say except look at how ugly the world is.
I already know this, I don't need art to remind me of it as well.
Which is why I am off to the museum to go look at Sargent's wonderful painting of the Boit children to help me forget all the crap I have to deal with everyday and all the BS I read about happening in the world.
I just think art should be more about bringing calm and beauty into the world instead of chaos.
It's already been done to death and you know what I think most people are sick of it. They aren't silkscreens moron And you didn't read that on the internet anwhere. Nobody could make a huge pristine painting with a million silkscreens and a sloppy squeegee. They are hand cut stencils. You just display your ignorance of painting technique. Aside from when you try to make art. hmmm... I sense a bit of anger, is this a friend of Justin's perhaps?
Maybe it is him self, however you are be a man or a woman or a mouse and come out from behind that curtain.
There was an incident a few years ago on PainterNYC involving Zak Smith and his work. Someone trashed it and a lot of people joined in. He came on the blog and defended his work with an amazing amount of grace and inelegance, I gained a lot of respect for that man after I read his very well crafted responses.
It also helped me to take a new look at his work and I was able to see things I had not before, I mean I liked his worked before but after he talked about in a rational and concise way with good arguments to counter the bile, I liked it more. I have known justin for a few years ever since the museum school. He hand cuts his stencils with standard yellow masking tape and x-acto blades. There is no screenprinting involved. It is all by hand. if you get the chance you all should actually talk to him, whether or not you like the work. He is a really funny guy and has a lot of interesting things to say.
It is interesting that you all say the work is so negative, thoughtless or theory driven. If you really look at the imagery and what he is doing with it, it is more akin to play rather than labor. From my experience with his work he is taking these rather serious media onslaughts and redefining them in a way where he can laugh at them. Or at least make their onslaught harmless, if for no other psyche but his own.
You all really think the way justin uses imagery is serious???
As for the Che/Jackson piece, I think that was just a practical mishap. I don't know but this is my guess. His paintings take so long but he needed more paintings to fill the space. Koenig probably wanted to fill wallspace as simple as that. There was that pressure. What are you supposed to do in that situation? it is a tough call. I guess he could have left the walls blank. And had a one piece show.
Have any of you all been in that situation, where there is a demand on your work but your work takes a long time to make? I have, it isn't easy. When that pressure is on it is tough to say no.
Personally, I don't think the the stand-in pieces work as paintings. It should have just been a one piece show. The photoshop quality shows through in the che/jackson piece too much that it gets distracting. The photoshop quality is much less distracting in the more detailed pieces.
Out of curiousity, for the ones who don't like the new show, are you all also critical of Justin's show two years ago? to painterdog
"I just think art should be more about bringing calm and beauty into the world instead of chaos."
Is there not a certain beauty within chaos?
I think that comment opens up a can of worms dealing with escapism. i am just curious, and don't mean this to sound antagonizing but do you prefer art to distract from the gritty side to life? i am just curious where you stand. Anonymous: I read that Justin uses silkscreens on Leo Koenig's page for Justin. Some of his paintings are credited by technique ("silkscreen") and others by media ("acrylic"). I feel it's a failure of the gallery that they don't make a consistent distinction.
Further, having used silkscreens myself, and looking at Justin's use of them, I can say that it is perfectly possible to make a huge pristine painting using a lot of silkscreens.
Also, you're a fuckwit.
Now, Mark C: Justin may be a really great guy. I wouldn't mind meeting him, although I'd probably feel uncomfortable given my review of his work. I'm sure no one likes to be told their painting is the worst I've ever seen.
I don't think the way he uses his imagery is serious at all. I think it's ironic. That's the problem. I'm kind of over the whole irony thing.
As far as pressure goes, well, we should all have such problems. I hope I one day find myself with the difficulty of holding down a ground-floor gallery show in Chelsea.
The Michael Jackson painting I refer to is Medusa and it's from 2005. Clearly Justin -- or Leo -- was just clearing out back inventory to "fill" the space, although only two paintings hardly qualifies as filling anything. I agree that the large painting -- Pictophilia -- is better than Medusa. But since I think Medusa is one of the worst paintings I've ever seen, that's pretty faint praise. I think Pictophilia represents dumpster diving of the worst sort; Justin's thrown in a welter of appropriated images and logos -- Cat bulldozers, John Lennon and Yoko Ono in bed, Joan Collins, the Universal sphere, the Google logo, and on and on -- with no coherence, no purpose, no focus, no sense. Its jumble of images dissolves into visual noise just short of the static of a badly-tuned TV station.
The more I look at his work the more I see Photoshop Gone Wild. Yawn. painterdog:
i forgot that justin does do some screenprints, though there is a definite distinction. For all his paintings on canvas they are done using only masking tape and acrylic paint. He did a few screenprints I recall way back. But the screenprint that i think koenig is referring to is this one piece that was a screenprint in editions of the poster collage that was used for the last show. It was a collage of all of his paintings from the last show. That has to be what they are referring to. So leo koenig is not misrepresenting the information.
As with your comment about justin's lack of coherence- i felt with the large painting he was reflecting his own frustration with the lack of coherence in the mass of imagery we are faced with in our day to day lives. the bulldozers in the forground seemed to imply that he wished the whole mess would be bulldozed away. that is my own interpretation. I can't speak for him since it has been a while since I've talked to him about this piece. All I can ask is, given the task of presenting so much imagery into one painting could you make a coherent statement?
Anyway, I am sure justin would be happy to talk to you about his work. If you have an email I could email you his address. He would be way more articulate about discussing and defending his work than me. Mark C. sez:
So leo koenig is not misrepresenting the information.
It's not so much that the information is a misrepresentation as it is that "screenprint" and "acrylic paint" are two separate categories. To be consistent, the pieces should all be labeled by technique (screenprint, brush, aquatint, woodcut, whatever) or medium (acrylic, oil, ink, whatever). Personally I prefer more details; some people like to use, for example, the phrase "mixed media," but I'd rather read "bubblegum, hair and watercolor on paper." The important thing, though, is the gallery shouldn't mix its terms willy-nilly.
...i felt with the large painting he was reflecting his own frustration...
Anyone can make an argument for almost anything based on a given painting. If that's what you got from it, that's fine. That's not what I got from it.
...given the task of presenting so much imagery into one painting could you make a coherent statement?
Almost certainly not. But then I wouldn't make the attempt, either, because I don't think it's a good idea.
If you have an email I could email you his address.
I'd prefer if you sent my address to him and let him decide if he wants to give out his address. My e-mail address is on the site here but more than one person has told me it's not obvious -- I just haven't gotten around to fixing that. So here it is: crywalt@westnet.com.
I'd honestly feel uncomfortable discussing anything with him given how nasty I was in my review. But if he's willing to write, I am too. I don't know that he can change my mind about his work -- either it works or it doesn't. But I'm willing to talk. Chris while I think it's interesting and very brave to had write such a bad review of his work you should be prepared to defend your view point with the artist, it's the least one can do.
Maybe find ways to write a critique that is critical without being so much out on a limb that this kind of exchange becomes a problem.
MarkC,
You ask: Is there not a certain beauty within chaos?
In nature there is, weather is full of chaos.
I'm not talking about that, I'm talking about post-modern art and it's self indulgence in most cases to, not all, to create so much ugly crap.
I think that comment opens up a can of worms dealing with escapism. i am just curious, and don't mean this to sound antagonizing but do you prefer art to distract from the gritty side to life? i am just curious where you stand.
Yes I do to some extent, for me a painting is more about this idea of escape into a different world.
If I want reality or grit I can watch TV, or a film, such as the brilliant The Lives of Others.
I am a traditionalist, and I don't like a lot modern art, and I loath most post-modern art. Not all mind you, and that is the real gist of my post, I am not a total modern/post-modern Luddite.
The definitive answer is that I like to be removed from the crap of everyday life when I go to the museum, not hit over the head with the frivolity of our existence.
After all we did create civilization, the root of the word is civil, and out that came the Greeks, the Renaissance and some great art which transcends the moment of time they had been created in. Is this not one definition of high art? Enough about Justin. What about the totally mediocre and stupidly ambitious Diana Al-Hadid sculpture?
It's not bad enough to be good and not good enough to be art. Looks like a Disney prop. If it was 3 times the size, it might be a more impressive structure, but even then, what's the point? This the worst kind of kitsch and crammed into the storefront of Perry Rubenstien like it was, I thought perhaps there should be some naked mannequins on it to reduce the preciousness and give the piece a context. PD sez:
Chris while I think it's interesting and very brave to had write such a bad review of his work you should be prepared to defend your view point with the artist, it's the least one can do.
I'm prepared to defend it. I'd just be uncomfortable.
Maybe find ways to write a critique that is critical without being so much out on a limb that this kind of exchange becomes a problem.
I always think I should, but then it doesn't work out. Heat of the moment and all.
Also, and this is a bit odd, it's my experience that people I like make art I like, and art I don't like is made by people I don't like. This is apart from reviews -- obviously if I've trashed an artist, they're going to be less than pleasant to me, and so I might not like them. I mean in cases where I've met the artist and art separately -- like Tracy Helgeson. Love her, love her art.
So looking at Justin's art, I'd expect we wouldn't get along anyway. But like I said, I'm open to trying. If he turns out to be a really nice, gracious guy, I'm going to feel like a real jerk. Anon sez:
What about the totally mediocre and stupidly ambitious Diana Al-Hadid sculpture?
Obviously you disliked it more than I did. I think the adjective is the trouble: I thought it's ambitious, but not stupidly so. And I think I appreciated that it is ambitious. It's good to try.
I certainly don't think the piece is "the worst kind of kitsch," either. Kitsch is pretty without admitting the grit and pain of the real world. Diana's piece isn't pretty and it has plenty of grit. Too much, maybe. I don't think she was trying to make something deliberately ugly -- if she was, I'd have liked it even less -- I think she was trying to make something much nicer but couldn't manage it. Maybe if she gets a better budget next time, with better tools and more experience -- I don't know. I just didn't feel strongly about it one way or the other. You're right. There's just not much to react to there one way or another. Like I said-totally mediocre. I'm responding more strongly to the pervasiveness of this type of dreadfully boring yet too ambitious academic installation/sculpture.
Phoebe Washburn?
And speaking of ambition, Justin's painting far surpasses the ambition of most young painters, but like a lot of painters, content is still an unresolved issue. The enormous problem with Justin's work is it's ambitious in process -- even Sisyphean, as Pretty Lady wrote -- but not in any other way. That's the distinct air of Who Gives a Fuck? I wrote about. Check It Out Oh my! It does, doesn't it? Oh I SO wish I could be there. Reading your description of the unpacking is so vivid. Thank you. BloggerHacks
archives
| Javascript Tree Menu |

Friday, May 02, 2008
Personal and Critical Crisis
I'm having something of a personal crisis here. Just like last year, this crisis rather unfortunately coincides with the high point of the New York art scene, so when I should be out at openings as often as possible, and writing up a storm, instead I find I have a stack -- a stack, I tell you! -- of cards from shows I've been to but haven't written about, a blank calendar for all of April -- I haven't been to a show in months -- and an empty blog.
I'm not really part of the art world, except maybe as the most peripheral of spectators, but I do have one thing in common with most of the people in the art world: I have a day job. A lot of them don't talk about it because talking about it makes them look less successful -- if you can afford your Chelsea rent because you're, I don't know, a network technician or a real estate broker or something, and not because you're actually selling any art, then potential customers are going to take you a lot less seriously. I assume. So you simply don't let anyone know you've got a day job and you pretend you're staying in business because you're savvy and tenacious. This is called "keeping up appearances."
But I'll admit it to you because we're such good friends: I have a day job. Technically I retired from being a computer programmer two and a half years ago, but here I'm using "retired" in a very specific way: Two and a half years ago I officially told my wife and any business acquaintances who happened to be within earshot that I was no longer actively looking for work. However, I left myself the loophole: If work came looking for me, I wouldn't necessarily turn it away. I figured it was a safe bet, since who would actually want me working for them?
Well, for some reason, work did find me and has continued to find me. Not a lot of work, mind you -- I'm still making less than I was before I retired -- but enough work to keep me occupied here and there and prevent me from having nothing to do. Enough work to seriously cut into my art time, anyway. I'd turn it down if I could, but I'm incapable of saying no to anyone, and at one point work arrived when we had precisely 81 cents in the bank, so there you go.
It's not all about the work, though. There's something bothering me, something nagging at me. I'm filled with doubts. I can't tell if my art's any good, I can't tell if it's worth pursuing, I feel terrible about everything. Life sucks.
Recently Eric Gelber, commenting on a post on Ed's blog quoted Harold Rosenberg, one of the most influential art critics of the 20th century, and I realized I'd read nothing this guy wrote. I haven't read any Clement Greenberg, either. They're on my list. Something about the quotes struck me, though, so I ran right out to the library and took out Art on the Edge and The De-Definition of Art and started reading. I finished the former and am about halfway through the latter; what's blown me away about these books is good old Harry is writing things I could've written myself. In fact at one point he even does write something I wrote myself (although I'd be hard pressed to tell you where). Only these essays are from one entire lifetime ago -- mine. Most of these were published before my third birthday.
What bothers me most about this is it tells me the art world is standing still. Dead still. It hasn't changed in forty years. It's still playing out the same dumbshow from the late 1960s. Rosenberg writes about all the problems and they're in full flower then: The collapse of visual art into word-based philosophy; the collusions of the dealer-collector-curator complex; the ridiculous auctions and their distortion of the art world; the phony posing of the avant-garde; the shift towards art degrees and a professional class of artists playing out the old clichés. It's all in place already before my life even begins.
This isn't a crisis. It's so far beyond crisis I don't even know what to call it.
Labels: Edward Winkleman, Eric Gelber, Harold Rosenberg
Monday, February 18, 2008
Cathleen Cueto and Long Time No See!
I am a bad person. I've said it before but I don't remember if I've said it here; anyway, there it is. I'm a bad person. I'm a lousy husband, an incompetent father, an unworthy son, a faithless friend, a mediocre artist and at best a middling writer. And, worst of all, I haven't posted a word here in, according to Technorati, 84 days.
For this I have reasons but not excuses. A lot's come up in the last 76 days including a drop into the deepest crevasse of despair and the intrusion into my life of a PC capable of running Crysis along with a copy of Crysis, which enjoyable waste of time has eaten a fair amount of my life so far. In fact I'm seeing the game when I close my eyes, which is a good sign of having played it way too much.
In the meantime I've gone to a few art events and totally failed to write about them. What can I say? I've let you down. I'm a bad person. I can't make it up to you -- I can't make it up to anyone, ever, that's part of being a bad person -- but I can try and make amends like the friends of Bill W. say. Let's start now.
The first event I didn't get around to telling you about was the group show Another Last Year held by Ad Nauseam Lyceum. I was invited by Cathleen Cueto, with whom I became friends at the School of Visual Arts. I hope she didn't invite me because she hoped I'd bring lots of visitors to the show, because it's over now and you can't see it. Hell, I barely saw it, because the opening was so crowded it was almost impossible to see the art. I've never been asked to move over so someone could see something behind me at any show, but it happened here.
From what I could see it was a groovy show. Cathleen had a single elbow in it. She had made a cast of her own elbow and from that a plaster sculpture which she set on a square mirror atop a waist-high plinth. The elbow was bent and only showed from a few inches up her arm, so if you looked at it quickly you might think it was a knee or something more private, but an elbow it was.
Aside from Cathleen's, I only got a good look at a couple of other pieces. Due to the show's being nearly completely undocumented online, I can't figure out who made them or what they were. I'm pretty sure Brent Birnbaum had a really excitingly colorful wall/ceiling hanging thing with beads and sequins and gewgaws all over it. I wanted to get a better look at it but didn't. Matt Broach had a neat-looking animation up, something dark and landscapey going by a car window, maybe. Hard to tell. And there was another video whose creator I wanted to talk to, because they'd made a video of one painting being painted, followed by another painted on top, followed by another, over and over, until the canvas is painted white and the loop begins again. All this was projected onto white canvas, so it was like a moving painting, and it reminded me of one of my favorite movies, The Mystery of Picasso. And I think I met Brent's girlfriend, who has a tattoo of a Georgia O'Keeffe painting covering her upper arm, which is very cool.
I'd only gone for Cathleen and her elbow and would've left pretty quickly but then a bunch of other people I knew from SVA showed up and we stood around talking and I realized I was an idiot for not inviting them to the opening of the Blogger Show. If you'll permit me to name-drop, I met up with Steve DeFrank, Josh Harris and his girlfriend Cameron, Marcos Chin and his boyfriend Mikee, and Pooneh Maghazehe. I'd forgotten how much I love all these people -- is it love if you can forget it? -- and I plan to keep clos