I'm going to start off with the last thing I did on Friday night just to get it out of the way. The main reason I was in Chelsea on October 19, 2007 was to attend Adult Drawing, billed as "not your typical figure drawing session." I haven't been to too many drawing sessions, myself, but I'm pretty sure this one was, in fact, atypical. I went in with approximately no expectations, although since the ad copy promised "adult film stars" as models, I thought perhaps there'd be more vulvas. (Most artists models are adept at being completely unclothed while keeping their vulvas hidden away.) Beyond that, I really had no idea what it'd be like.
It turned out to be absolutely dreadful. I didn't think the models would be professional artists models, but I did think someone would at least tell them to hold still. We started out with "pin-up superstar" Angela. And let me tell you that I was surprised to find that someone who could look so good in photos could so totally lack any charisma while posing live. It didn't help that the "stage" was made of two layers of foam into which half her body was submerged when she lay down.
After she went through a couple of face-forward, aggressively uninteresting poses, Angela retired and was replaced by a group of four models. All of them were very attractive, I have to say, but they seemed awfully young for adult film stars. If it wasn't for all their tattoos I'd have thought a couple of them were about fifteen. The models went unnamed at the time -- apparently only Angela rates top billing -- but further research indicates that one of the other models was Roxy from Suicide Girls' skankier younger sister Burning Angel. (I'd try to find some more names and details for you but these sites are decidedly NSFW and I'm right now I'm at W. That's okay: Just imagine a large group of mostly deeply damaged young women with incredibly dopey Gothish noms de nu like Apathy or Medusa and you've got it.)
Age, innocence, piercings and tattoos aside, the four models were just unable to manage an interesting pose. Which is just as well since they couldn't hold poses, either. And I don't mean that they moved a little, or shifted their balance; I mean they were having conversations and blowing kisses at the artists. We would've been better off going to the strip club downstairs where the dancers probably hold still longer.
After the foursome ran through a few tableaux of increasing pointlessness they went off to take a break while Angela returned with another model in the full Bettie Page bustier-garters-fishnet ensemble and riding crop. She stood unsteadily over Angela, who was on all fours, while I tried desperately to find something, anything worth drawing in that position. I ended up sketching another artist, a fantastically tall woman who held much more still than the models and was much better-looking anyway.
While I was trying to get something down on paper I was plagued by the dim lighting -- the place was lit like a go-go bar -- and the incessant flashes from the half-dozen or so photographers who were scuttling around. One of them nearly used my head for a tripod. So trying to see went like "squint squint squint BLIND! squint squint..."
Shortly after the DJ put on Depeche Mode -- "Words are very unnecessary," I'm with ya -- I decided it was time to go. I'd been there an hour.
I honestly didn't think anyone could make six hot naked women boring, but somehow they managed it. If you'd told me Thursday night that I'd regret paying ten bucks to look at topless women, I'd have laughed at you.
(To be fair: I posted pretty much the above review on the mailing list where I heard about the event and the creator and organizer wrote back to say that I'd completely missed the point -- it's supposed to be an art party, not a class at the Art Students League. And he graciously offered to let me in to the next Adult Drawing for free.)
Lucky for me and my drawing I spent Saturday at Dorian and Liana's with Theresa as our model. More about that on Probable Working Sequence.
Back to Friday: My wonderful evening began with meeting Stephanie at Leo Koenig where she had wandered before I arrived. Clearly that was a mistake because we had Justin Faunce's Pictophilia inflicted on us; in particular Justin has his name attached to one of the absolute worst paintings I've seen. At all. Ever. Luckily for you there's no image online, but let me describe it and be thankful I took this bullet for you: Imagine that hoary old Che Guevara t-shirt design enlarged to about four feet square. Instead of Che's face, Michael Jackson. With skulls for the pupils of his eyes.
This is so bad it moves beyond badness and into some realm of extreme horribleness previously unknown to human beings. Even the online thesaurus runs out of epithets for describing this level of atrociousness. It's so awful, I actually laughed.
But that's in the back room. In the front room is yet another Leo-Koenig-creamed-his-pants giant wall painting. I don't understand Leo's penchant for gigantic canvases. Is bigger better? More important? More serious? More...more? I can't imagine his thought process. Maybe art buyers pay by the square foot like one does for carpet.
Clearly this monster took Justin a long time to paint. It's hyperdetailed with tons of little bits crammed into every inch of the canvas. It looks to me like Justin must have had friskets laser-cut, or made silkscreens, because I can't imagine anyone doing all this by hand; so it looks like a lot of laser-cut friskets filled in with flat colors -- there's nary a blend to be seen. It's a humongous silkscreen with a hundred screens.
All to create a really really big mess of worthlessness. There's stuff everywhere, repeated at different sizes and mirrored: Bulldozers! The Google logo! The Space Needle! And, uh, loads of other things! All of which doesn't lead to sensory overload so much as a distinct air of Who Gives a Fuck? Justin doesn't seem to give a fuck, and no one else at the opening did, either; hell, the gallery verbiage manages to get off "signs and things signified" in the first line, proving that even someone being paid to give a fuck couldn't manage it. And neither could I.
Diana Al Hadid, Record of a Mortal Universe, 2007, mixed media, 128x138x106 inches
The piece consists of a stairway of sorts over the remains of a set of organ pedals, all with various columns and curlicues around made of painted and otherwise goobered up corrugated cardboard. Under it all is the "record," a big blobby puddle of black stuff, with a curving horn growing out of it like a diseased Victrola. About the best I can say is that the piece is undeniably there. It's clear that someone made something. Why, none can say.
That just about wrapped up the evening. I went to a couple of other things but nothing I feel like writing about just now. I was eager, anyway, to get to the Adult Draw. Ha ha on me.
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 canvasThat 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.
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@crywalt.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.