Have you seen this most recent batch in person? I haven’t but when I look at the jpegs it seems like there is all this variation in texture and soft, wispy/washy type edges. I thought they would be more spatially complex…hmmm. It’s disappointing if they’re not.
That interview sneaks up on you. Seems like they’re just shooting the breeze and then she lays it out there. I was looking at the newer work, thinking how the color had changed and some jazzy Picasso/Stuart Davis flat pattern cubodernism was overtaking the old pulpy volume–and then in the course of a few minutes she mentioned Picasso and how she used to have these purples in her paintings inspired by her broken printer. It made me feel how random our art lives are.
She also described a fairly severe reversal of her intentions in the work, toward more play with form and away from narrative with specific meaning. I’m not sure how I feel about her last two shows, but its a gutsy move considering her gallery dumped some cool artists recently. Whither Tal R?
I’m just laying it out: I’m stealing that question “How do you get your information in the world?” for future MWC interviews. That’s great, we always ask “what” information, but never “how” information. That’s a great question to ask, Frank Prattle.
PPS. At one point in the interview Schutz says that Renoir is kind of horrible. I always thought Renoir was horrible, but I kind of thought I was coming around on him. I’ve always been confused too, that Henry Miller thought Renoir was really great. I always get hung up trying to figure out how a shit-sticking asshole like Miller could be up on sugary-sweet Renoir. But…I’m just wondering can I get some opinions on this…Renoir is horrible or Renoir is kinda all right?
for what it’s worth, my opinion of Renoir is:
early work=good ( The Loge, all those complex figural works like Luncheon of the Boating Party and so on)
later work= not so good
At his best, he can make a really monumental figure that ends up being neither specific (i.e., a portrait of an individual) or generic. In this he seems to carry on a kind of classical approach to the figure that Corot also excelled at. And he does some really interesting things in how he places these figures in the space of the painting, moving from the volumetric figures into a flatter space.
Later he does seem to parody himself, with the sugary color (they are even more appalling when freshly cleaned) and the increasingly generic quality of the figures.
There is a lot of sentimentality, yes, and that is something that is taboo in our art world.
One of the first times I can remember not liking something that’s more or less presented as canonical in school involved Renoir. I was talking to another student, who mentioned he didn’t like Renoir, and it just kind of struck me–I realized I didn’t either. Though at this point, I’m sympathetic to your take, Kristin. There are good things in some of them. What started irritating me about them was what seemed like just lazy color usage on pretty much everything but the figure. Maybe it was bold or dynamic at some point? Just seems unfelt to me. And the seemingly endless parade of virtually the same painting (worked for some, not for him).
there’s a little painting of the piazza san marco in venice at the minneapolis institute – no saccharine figures, and there is a collection of litte ultramarine (?) blue dabs to the lower left of center that just seem totally wrong- they break the pictorial fiction and show it coming together or flying apart in a way that maybe all impressionism looked like when it was new. this is a wonderful little moment, surprising to me because i thought i didn’t like renoir.
can we also give him any credit for courting the deliberately awful a la picabia in his late works? maybe that’s a stretch, but it helps me enjoy them. i mean he did express a desire for greater classically-inflected solidity and less of the fleetingness of impressionism, right? So there is something nostalgic and melancholic.
anyway i like the blue confetti in the venice painting.