OK. I’m taking the day off to go shopping and grade drawing portfolios. I’ll give 10 points to anyone who can start a topic here that DOESN’T involve a discussion of kitsch. 5 Points to start a topic that does involve kitsch.
the question i keep thinking about in the newest batch of work by edwards is what the emotional element might really be. in the older pieces there was, to me, a kind of direct expression of an emotional state or an exploration of physiognomy as metaphor. sort of like a contemporary affectation of the “four temperaments” theme. but when paired up with the references to canonical works of the last century, the expressions of the toy figures seems less about the emotional quotient and more about a kind of contrast. the work always seems to talk to me about seriousness in the observational painting arena – even though more recent works do seem to move away from depiction and seem to take more cues from the distortions inherent in the toys themselves. so are they about playing against seriousness via emotional “expressions” or really commentary of or some sort of innuendo meant to tweak the canon? or am i reading too much into them?
on a side note, i think one of the big things i’ve taken way from the experience taking my students to see the “idealized (dis)placements” show (at the pulitzer foundation) and the “action/abstraction” show (at the saint louis museum of art) yesterday was the contrast between two different kinds of earnestness… received earnestness that may indeed have been simply a social expectation/expression (the renaissance work at the pulitzer) versus the knowing, self-aware earnestness (in the action/abstraction show).
in the “action/abstraction” show there was a short video of de kooning painting. and both my wife and i were really struck at the sort of plodding, methodical nature of the picture-making in that film (it was shown right next to clips from the namuth film of pollack painting – definitely a contrast). i have a hard time believing the pictures were made that way. but i also don’t trust my own estimation of how “expressive” marks have to be made. so… to bring it back to edwards, i guess i’m questioning my own previous assumptions about how and why edwards’ pictures come about in the light of her putting a guston or a manet in the background… make any sense?
These are actually a little creepy, too. Not the one above so much, but others. Is anybody else feeling that? Kind of the way clowns can be creepy. Maybe I just react that way because of those cheesy horror movies with the evil doll.
above i say “the work always seems to talk to me about seriousness in the observational painting arena.” i feel like i should clarify this. what i meant is that in the past i’ve read edwards’ works as using observational painting as a kind of playfully anti-austere activity. and this poses a real question for me (and for, i think, a lot of observational painters): can i make an observationally-based work that doesn’t take itself so damn seriously? part of it is just subject matter, but part of it is being led by the subject into the potential of content. and for me, the experience i have with perception and investigation is one of supreme seriousness. so it’s refreshing to have edwards’ work push me on that.
…and some people may not take edwards’ paintings in as “observational” works, but i think a good portion of them are, particularly in the “figures” if not in the backgrounds. perhaps the newer ones are more constructed and less observed than earlier works were… but it’s obvious she’s not making up these figurines – she’s looking at them and using them as types, etc.
Even creepier than the BK King is Lady Elaine Fairchild from Mr. Roger’s Neighborhood. I think there is something inherently sinister/creepy about faces that are permanently smiling. I think the toys in Edwards’ paintings have that effect.
I agree with Matt that these are very much about “observation painting”. There is almost a purity to her style, not unlike some illustration, where a lot of love is directed into painted depiction. But then the subject matter almost derails the viewer from all that, not in a bad way. I don’t know what to make of the combo.
The web site has a time lapse painting sequence, I think it’s under “small works”…. She really likes painting things.
-I keep wondering about these tonally? Where have I seen it before? Some sort of children’s illustration. Happy Meal packages in the 80s? Children’s Encyclopedias in the 70s? Hitchcock, maybe even?
-Anybody have any take on the cropping in these? It’s not just a little aggressive. It’s pretty overstated. I’m reading it as related to film–it’s like these all show a moment that would usually end up on the editing floor, the actors all taking their places.
i was obsessed with lady elaine as a youth. i wonder if that’s why i love the burger king character even though i only very rarely eat there.
i don’t know if i feel like the cropping is cinematic, but i feel a compositional will with it. i know, obviously all sorts of cropping and arrangement are compositional, but i really sense a kind of “big bulbous doll thing” part to “stylized background scene” whole action going on here.
What a discussion of my work. I am floored. Thanks for taking the time to work out some of the issues I am working with and for looking at my work so attentively.
oh, shit. with the guston in the background. that’s too much.
too much in a good way.
OK. I’m taking the day off to go shopping and grade drawing portfolios. I’ll give 10 points to anyone who can start a topic here that DOESN’T involve a discussion of kitsch. 5 Points to start a topic that does involve kitsch.
the question i keep thinking about in the newest batch of work by edwards is what the emotional element might really be. in the older pieces there was, to me, a kind of direct expression of an emotional state or an exploration of physiognomy as metaphor. sort of like a contemporary affectation of the “four temperaments” theme. but when paired up with the references to canonical works of the last century, the expressions of the toy figures seems less about the emotional quotient and more about a kind of contrast. the work always seems to talk to me about seriousness in the observational painting arena – even though more recent works do seem to move away from depiction and seem to take more cues from the distortions inherent in the toys themselves. so are they about playing against seriousness via emotional “expressions” or really commentary of or some sort of innuendo meant to tweak the canon? or am i reading too much into them?
on a side note, i think one of the big things i’ve taken way from the experience taking my students to see the “idealized (dis)placements” show (at the pulitzer foundation) and the “action/abstraction” show (at the saint louis museum of art) yesterday was the contrast between two different kinds of earnestness… received earnestness that may indeed have been simply a social expectation/expression (the renaissance work at the pulitzer) versus the knowing, self-aware earnestness (in the action/abstraction show).
in the “action/abstraction” show there was a short video of de kooning painting. and both my wife and i were really struck at the sort of plodding, methodical nature of the picture-making in that film (it was shown right next to clips from the namuth film of pollack painting – definitely a contrast). i have a hard time believing the pictures were made that way. but i also don’t trust my own estimation of how “expressive” marks have to be made. so… to bring it back to edwards, i guess i’m questioning my own previous assumptions about how and why edwards’ pictures come about in the light of her putting a guston or a manet in the background… make any sense?
15 points for Matt for starting and pretty much being an entire dialogue on Edwards unto himself.
These are actually a little creepy, too. Not the one above so much, but others. Is anybody else feeling that? Kind of the way clowns can be creepy. Maybe I just react that way because of those cheesy horror movies with the evil doll.
to continue the discussion…
above i say “the work always seems to talk to me about seriousness in the observational painting arena.” i feel like i should clarify this. what i meant is that in the past i’ve read edwards’ works as using observational painting as a kind of playfully anti-austere activity. and this poses a real question for me (and for, i think, a lot of observational painters): can i make an observationally-based work that doesn’t take itself so damn seriously? part of it is just subject matter, but part of it is being led by the subject into the potential of content. and for me, the experience i have with perception and investigation is one of supreme seriousness. so it’s refreshing to have edwards’ work push me on that.
…and some people may not take edwards’ paintings in as “observational” works, but i think a good portion of them are, particularly in the “figures” if not in the backgrounds. perhaps the newer ones are more constructed and less observed than earlier works were… but it’s obvious she’s not making up these figurines – she’s looking at them and using them as types, etc.
sam, creepy in the burger king kind of way, or creepy in another way?
You mean The King from the Burger King commercials? I.E. “wakin’ up with the King?” Yes. Definitely like that.
Even creepier than the BK King is Lady Elaine Fairchild from Mr. Roger’s Neighborhood. I think there is something inherently sinister/creepy about faces that are permanently smiling. I think the toys in Edwards’ paintings have that effect.
I agree with Matt that these are very much about “observation painting”. There is almost a purity to her style, not unlike some illustration, where a lot of love is directed into painted depiction. But then the subject matter almost derails the viewer from all that, not in a bad way. I don’t know what to make of the combo.
The web site has a time lapse painting sequence, I think it’s under “small works”…. She really likes painting things.
-I keep wondering about these tonally? Where have I seen it before? Some sort of children’s illustration. Happy Meal packages in the 80s? Children’s Encyclopedias in the 70s? Hitchcock, maybe even?
-Anybody have any take on the cropping in these? It’s not just a little aggressive. It’s pretty overstated. I’m reading it as related to film–it’s like these all show a moment that would usually end up on the editing floor, the actors all taking their places.
i was obsessed with lady elaine as a youth. i wonder if that’s why i love the burger king character even though i only very rarely eat there.
i don’t know if i feel like the cropping is cinematic, but i feel a compositional will with it. i know, obviously all sorts of cropping and arrangement are compositional, but i really sense a kind of “big bulbous doll thing” part to “stylized background scene” whole action going on here.
What a discussion of my work. I am floored. Thanks for taking the time to work out some of the issues I am working with and for looking at my work so attentively.
Happy to do so, Beth.