Michael Berryhill: Basement States at Horton & Liu in New York, September 10-October 10, 2009. More Michael Berryhill.
Michael Berryhill: Basement States
September 30, 2009 by Chris
Posted in Painting | Tagged Art, Austin TX, Horton & Liu, Michael Berryhill, New York, Painting | 19 Comments
19 Responses
Leave a reply to Chris Cancel reply
Recent Comments
- Allison Jenae Fall Copeland on Sharon Patten, a roundtable discussion
- aphdesign on George Rose
- Interview with Jessie Fisher – Craft Erra on Interview with Jessie Fisher
- Interview with Jessie Fisher - Painting Perceptions on Interview with Jessie Fisher
- scott seaboldt on Albert York, R.I.P.
Archives
- March 2017
- October 2016
- September 2016
- July 2016
- June 2016
- May 2016
- April 2016
- March 2016
- February 2016
- January 2016
- November 2015
- October 2015
- September 2015
- August 2015
- July 2015
- June 2015
- May 2015
- April 2015
- March 2015
- February 2015
- January 2015
- December 2014
- November 2014
- October 2014
- September 2014
- April 2014
- January 2014
- December 2013
- November 2013
- October 2013
- September 2013
- August 2013
- July 2013
- June 2013
- May 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
- November 2012
- October 2012
- August 2012
- June 2012
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- October 2010
- September 2010
- August 2010
- July 2010
- June 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
I love that these paintings have some absurdist humor to them, yet they are carried out with a very direct paint handling. The color palette almost operates in some middle ground between naturalistic and over the top neo-fauve, it’s a very nice balance. I’m really engaged by the contrasts in this work. It always helps to have nice titles… Crymaster, Harry Dean Stand-In, Gay Pride Moustache. With these ridiculous titles, I’m left thinking about Garbage Pail Kids and the crazy iconic names they were so famously known for.
i think Dennis is on to something with the Garbage Pail Kids comparison. these paintings tease at meaning in a way that plays in that space of convergence between the intellectualism and pure blundering. a lot of these remind me of being blindsided somehow, but not necessarily harshly. like, you drive down the highway and see the sign for ‘world’s largest ball of twine’ and you pull off on the exit. the ball of twine sucks and is a huge letdown, but you get a fantastic cup of coffee or something.
there is also something re-constructive about a lot of these. in that they feel tied to a style of documentary. like, i imagine Berryhill would really enjoy writing a memoir for someone based on attending their posthumous estate-sale.
i recently heard it mentioned that it isn’t common for painters to be interested in character development. Kentridge was being mentioned as the exception to this rule. i gotta say, purely based on personal taste, that i enjoy kentridge’s work much more than these, but, i’m wondering how many painters take the idea of character development into consideration when painting…
or drawing(knowing that kentridge is not a painter) …or whatever.
and, i say all this with the question of: what exactly is character development?
-and not necessarily thinking that what this guy does is it. but, is possibly the more tangential and common partner to it-
With respect to character development, I think that these paintings develop the character of the artist much more so than they develop the character of the paintings themselves. I like the pieces of artistic identity that are implied within the various aspects of these paintings (title, palette, composition etc). I get a sense of the trickster that Berryhill is, and i am intrigued by the strange statements or blurbs that he is making.
I think that Berryhill is probably an intelligent and humorous guy, so I suppose his paintings certainly help to develop a some kind of character or persona (at least for me).
I hadn’t really thought of the issue of character development, but Jen’s comments had me considering the possibilities….where do you see evidence of this issue within the work Jen?
Actually, now that I take a second look at the work, I am definitely seeing that there is a distinct character within each of these paintings, but I need the title to gather this reading of them. I love the parallel between the character of the painting and character of the artist.
I agree that development of author is a lot more common in painting than development of character. Though I probably mean narrator not author. I’m not really comfortable with the idea of that one-to-one, author=object relationship. The idea of the development of some zone in between the painting and the painter—call it narration, call it voice or whatever— is comforting to me as a maker and viewer.
Dennis, i often think of the difference between types of character development having to do with the difference between being the guy who writes the novel or being the guy who writes the book report.
it’s not that i don’t thing the first isn’t possible through this mode of painting, or through the use of still-life as subject matter (morandi certainly accomplished it very poetically), it’s just that for me, this work falls into the second category rather than the first.
Aside from the music-related imagery in these, “Mi Amigo Sound Machine” and “Little Big Form” really emanate a sonic quality formally with vibrating parallel lines and Stuart Davis-like staccato shapes of color. Once I’m on that train of thought I see “Harry Dean Stand-In” and “Gay Pride Moustache” as two versions of the same song, one as a three chord punk song and the other one with a full range of strings and horns.
i also recognize that whole allusion to the ‘novel’ in painting has been thrown around in past discussions, as have ideas considering ‘voice’ in narration. i have been thinking a lot about kentridge lately. i structure a couple of discussions in grad seminar around an interview with him and then a documentary on him. i think one of the most interesting things he speaks about in terms of character development, is his lack of fear regarding conjoining the very personal with the iconic or social. by way of being highly specific and particular, he actually feels that he arrives at something more universally accessible and capable of exchanging pathos.
with these (above) works, the type of specificity seems more about the iconic to begin with, which seems to make them specific, but possibly exclusive (depending on who is doing the looking), rather than specific and accessible.
I love Kentridge as well, but I also think that just as many people would find Kentridge’s work inaccessible. I think the issue of accessibility of a work is a responsibility that lies more with the viewer than the artist. Certain people will always be struck by particular art, but it is the audience that seeks to look deeper into a work that is rewarded for their efforts.
I think Berryhill has much more in common with Crumb, Erik Parker, Kenny Scharf etc, than Kentridge. Personally, I like all of these artists, but it’s hard for me to find something that I’m not interested in.
With that, I would like to thank Chris and Sam for offering up this fine forum for the discussion of a wide variety of eclectic artists. It is always nice to exchange in intelligent dialogue with a group of other serious artists.
These paintings keep looking like monuments, or shrines, to me. I took Til to an early Dios de los Muertos street party on the west side and there was a gallery full of homemade shrines to departed loved ones, and one awesome one for Lux Interior from the Cramps. These seem related in spirit. Which would, I think, necessarily make them of limited accessibility. Or accessible by degrees.
PS I’m not trying to be a broken record about the ‘narration’ thing. Matt Ballou and Elizabeth Schlatter did a lot of work to get that post together, so I feel like I owe ’em to keep it in the mix a bit. It is an interesting frame for viewing a lot of recent art, but if people are getting sick of it, I’ll close that chapter.
As a viewer, I always craft my own narrative for the work, so I think this issue is really a two way street. I’m not always sure of the intentions of any given artist, but I am always aware of what the work means to me and what it comes to mean to me as I spend more time considering it.
In the case of Berryhill’s work, I see the narrative of humor and satire as running through the work. This may not perfectly fit the definition of narration, but if there is an idea consistently carried throughout the a body of work, then I think a narrative does in fact develop.
Getting back to the accessibility issue, I think it’s all very subjective as to whether the work is accessible for any individual viewer. For me, the ridiculous humor of this work makes it extremely accessible.
…but could we talk about a ‘will to accessibility’? which isn’t about the work’s ultimate accessibility, it’s just about the degree to which it’s a consideration for the artist. for kentridge there’s a stated degree of accessibility he strives for. berryhill may or may not think about the degree of accessibility the paintings may have, but seems to gravitate toward arrangements that feel official, iconic, monumental, memorial.
NICE… I’m definitely feeling that “will to accessibility” comment! In this case, I think hands down there is a huge gap between Kentridge and Berryhill. In spite of this will to accessibility, I think many people will still be lost to this notion, which makes the “ultimate accessibility” just as important albeit in a different way.
can i just unlurk for a second to point out that this blog is consistently awesome, I had just come across this berryhill guy recently when the nytimes ran a review for this (?) show. Have any of you seen these in real life, there’s some really nice passages of painting in the example you used and I’d be really curious to see how, for example, the part enclosed by the rainbow banner looks close up, I’m kinda surprised that nobody has mentioned Picasso though or is that a little obvious, but even forgetting the woodgrain and bottles I think I see definite quoting in esp. those turqoise shapes that put me in mind of the arm of the chair in this http://i386.photobucket.com/albums/oo305/lejospopo/vollard.jpg
also the drapery seems kinda funny or jokey to me, but I couldn’t say for sure why
No, I’m thinking Picasso is one that ought to be said more often. I think I read recently someone linking late Picasso specifically and the mythology of the ‘late style’ in general to a lot of younger painters, though I can’t remember where I read that.
PS I have to deflect those kudos off on to the regular commenters (and irregular ones too).