*****************************************************************************
I see that Carla Knopp has put up a post on Nathan Boyer over at her blog, Rocktown,IN.
Jessie Fisher is the winner of the 2008 Miami University Young Painters Prize.
Shorttage has some photos and a review of Marcie Miller Gross‘s new show at Review Studios in KC.
You know how you see some images, and you kinda hope it’s painted? You actually shout an inner “yay!” when it is, “shucks” when it’s not?
I have no such preference with these.
Dang, these are creepy.
Like visual paper cuts.
slicin’ up eyeballs, I want you to know… Close to the mark. This is from her artist statement: “The paintings entice viewers with slick surfaces and the promised rewards of meticulous chiaroscuro, and then repel them with the excessive intensity and flatness of the negative space. They are bratty rejections of hierarchical analysis that invite the viewer into a flirtatious struggle for power.”
Here’s the rest, and a few more images for the interested.
-That said, I have to admit that I’m a little suspicious of the intent. Is attract/repel a goal worth chasing? Or too close to DEFAULT mode for contemporary art? Anyone?
-One other thing, I have seen these in person, and I’m going to vouch for them as paintings. Relative to artists I’d compare most closely (Julia Jacquette, Nicky Hoberman and especially Katherine Kuharic) these objects really do exist as paintings. There’s a sense of the discovery of color and texture; the surfaces don’t reveal much about the making but are jewel-like and rich. There is a pay-off to seeing them in real life.
Do collectors have a ‘yuck’ room?
Like, the room where they put the art that is thought-provoking and enriching but also meant for only a small part of the day/week/year’s looking?
It’s easier to archive movies and music in this regard (if, like me, you live in a 2 1/2 room apartment!).
I can see how these may be a much different experience in person, and may be interesting as paintings. Regarding the attract/repel goal…I take it more personally. I resent art which is overly focussed on orchestrating my/viewers’ reactions. I’d rather be a voyeur to an artist’s self-mystification.
i don’t know, i don’t have the reaction against aspects of these that i’m reading above. they don’t seem to cut my eye “andalusian dog” style, nor do they seem to be really breaking down hierarchical analysis – they seem very structured and readable in a simple, direct manner that isn’t strange or particularly bratty to me (are bright, saturated colors, sharp edges and felt-board paste-ups of slightly odd imagery supposed to equal daring-do?). they seem too focused and DONE to be jackass. this isn’t to say they don’t have some uncanny weirdness in some ways (honestly i never did like those doll eyes that open went tilted properly). i do like them in any case.
the subject matter reminds me of charles pfahl’s work, a good number of which would be appropriate for the “yuck” room in that i feel more of a visceral thing with them than with farstad’s.
http://www.charlespfahl.com/Portfolio.cfm?nK=3573&nL=0&nS=0
Does anyone else think the drawing’s a bit awkward? On some more than others–mostly I’m thinking of those linked on Chris’s comment (#4).
My earlier description was probably too dramatic. I’m not injured by them, just annoyed.
It’s mostly a visual reaction. But the statement doesn’t help. I agree with Carla, I hate it when art tries to “force” me. When it does that, I tend to spill my drink on it.
For the record, just so you know I’m not being prudish, I like Pfahl much better.