Can I dovetail off of a topic that got started on the Yigal Ozeri post? It seems to me, that if you woke me in the middle of the night and asked if Rackstraw was a ‘good’ artist, I’d say ‘yes, yes, yes.’ But, truthfully, the paintings are every bit as predictable as Ozeri’s.
Well, yes, Downes has pretty well branded himself at this point, and yes, they are always very obviously based in perception, and, definitely yes, this drawing at the AAC is no paradigm-shifter. But I’d say he works at a level of thoughtful scrutiny that few can consistently muster. The comparison you’re suggesting is tricky, because you can’t really separate the ‘what’ from the ‘how.’
yeah… i gotta push back here a bit. with downes (and a number of others), i sense an investigation – specifically a kind of pictorial invention (yes, i’m using that word) whereby observationally-based, accurately-rendered scenes are presented as arenas for discovery and surprise and an enlivening of the viewers’ perception. i don’t get any feeling of in the ozeri work.
well…that may be the intention, to present an arena for discovery and invention. but i’m really not convinced I see that kind of engagement in the result. even so, i think they’re good. i guess my question is can the paintings still be good if they fail to deliver on their own conceptual underpinnings? and i guess my answer is yes.