YAY! I'm so glad! I'm going back to D.C. on like... Tuesday. It's such a weird time to go back, but I feel a major relief knowing that I'm going back to the city. Even though there's nothing to do, I'm going to try to do something -- get a job or SOMETHING. I really do need a job. Spending money is just something that comes natural to me -- I don't have self control when it comes to money!
I'm a little upset I missed First-Friday this month. First-Friday is when all the galleries have their openings in D.C. I'm not really a social person, so I always thought going out to those would be really uncomfortable; however, in an effort to not be so retarded and introverted, I think I'm gonna start trying to go out more. I mean, if it's something I'm interested in, it can't be THAT uncomfortable... right?
Anyway, check out these awesome cheery paintings by Martina Nehrling. They're like color field paintings, but way more complex and intricate -- unity in multiplicity is definitely a key factor in their creation, and I love how it actually works. Every stroke of paint looks different and unique, but when they all come together, they just form a flowing mass -- it's so exciting! I love that someone can make simple colors and uniform lines into an interesting painting by doing nothing more than mixing color and applying. I think that's what I always liked about color field painting from the 50s -- they're so "empty," pictorally, but if you look long enough and think a little more, they can definitely make you feel something; it's more subtle, but the feeling is all the same.
There was one day in Drawing class when half the class decided to just not show up. There was probably about 5 of us in there watching an alumni present his newer works and talk about his experiences at the Corcoran... and that was exciting. He talked about how he participated in the New York Studio Program and how experiencing New York that way is incomparable to anything else. Our drawing prof. really has a thing for New York and contemporary art, as well as keeping up with her former students. Lisa is basically just a really cool woman.
After we came back from break she found this blog entry by a current Corkie participating in the Studio Program about this video artist who was "all the rage in New York." This is what we watched in class on her laptop:
The whole time we watched this video, I was thinking to myself "This is insane! This is like being on mushrooms! This is more intense than that! WTF IS HE ON!? Why is this all the rage in New York!?"
It was definitely memorable though. After that class I ended up showing everyone I knew that exact video. I've probably seen all of the videos on his youtube account at least 3 or 4 times. There's something eerie and wrong about them, but they're so right -- so addicting. I keep comparing it to being on drugs because that's almost what it's like. Everything is so fucked up and strange, but it does make sense in some form of reality.
I feel like these videos are perfect portrayals of today's society. They're scattered, fast-paced, excessive, induldgent, and there's a total focus on the "self" and what defines it in today's terms. At that -- look at all the video filters! It's like he took Final Cut Pro and a home computer with upgraded processing speed and threw them into a blender. There's no clear presentation -- there's no attention to "craft" as it would be (I don't know what to call it in film-making), but that doesn't even seem to matter. I mean, if you look at conceptual art now, it's all rough around the edges. Craft isn't a concern so much as concept.
And these videos do have concept. I think that is what I like about Trecartin so much. When I look at these videos, I feel like I'm watching my friends in a hyperbole. These are people I know -- they're saying things I have said and think, though they may be a bit more jumbled and strange. He definitely has them grounded in contemporary society though, commenting on everything from organic food stores like Whole Foods, Red Bulls, coming out, lust, friendships grotesque fascinations with tragedy, how entertainment and "awesomeness" seem to cloud moral and ethical thinking, etc.
Anyway, I thought this would be interesting to show because I just saw an article in the New York Times about video art, and Trecartin is featured first. They have a preview of his latest piece I-Be Area. It looks even better than A Family Finds Entertainment. I hope I can see it in its entirety one day. Trecartin's videos are crazy, but I admire the fact that through all of that craziness, there is some meaning. That's where Trecartin really establishes his work as being "art" as opposed to just "entertainment," even though, some would argue, the goal of both is the same.
"... MURDER ON THE DANCE FLOOR, I CAN MAKE A NEW DOOR, LINDA!" That's probably my favorite line from a movie... ever.
I love this new painting by Regino Gonzales. I saw it featured on a blog on Fecal Face. His website says NYC, but he shows with people from the west-coast. The assemblage is wonderful -- bits and pieces of all types of birds, vermin, trees... It's so complex but so well done. What strikes me most though is the Andrew Schoults influences I think I see, and how well they're married to Regino's own style. The colors of this painting are so great -- everything is pretty subdued, but the contrast between that bright blue and everything else just makes the whole thing come to life.
It's interesting that there's such an obvious difference between work from the west coast and work from th east. The west is so much more fun and illustrative, and the east is so much more pretentious and conceptual. Sometimes I feel like New York is trying too hard to be art... and that they just need to chill out a little, like the west coast.
Regardless, I think that both sides produce really interesting work. I'm glad that there's an outlet and market for both kinds, even if it is on the other end of the country.
Browsing around tonight, I ran across this scathing description of a show in New York months ago by Julie Heffernan. It goes:
At long last we mounted the steep stairs to PPOW to see Julie Heffernan's latest show, Booty. After walking around a bit I said to Stephanie, "Old Master technique and topless women. So how come I'm not excited?"
"Yeah, what's wrong with you?" she shot back.
But that pretty much summed it up. Two years ago I'd have been blown away by this show, but last night I was just unimpressed. Julie's a good painter, an excellent painter, with technique to spare. But that's all there is. I asked Stephanie if she liked the work.
"I think I do," she allowed, "but I'm not sure I understand it."
What's not to understand? A nauseous, naked Uma Thurman stands half-buried in dead animals. How much clearer can Julie's theme be?
Actually, I think Julie's theme is more obvious than that. I think she's aiming to create ART. Not regular old art, that is, but ART, something a well-to-do person can buy which is very definitely A PAINTING. Whatever else you might say about these, they're certainly PAINTINGS. No question. They're big, they're made of paint, and they don't make sense. They must be ART! No one will walk into your well-appointed home and say, "My kid could paint that!" No one will squint at it with puzzlement and say "You paid how much for this?" No: This is so unequivocally ART everyone will simply accept it and your good taste for buying it.
In other words: This is a couple of paintings from Sears for people who shop on Fifth Avenue.
After reading such harsh words, I had to know what these paintings looked like! What could "ART" possibly look like, and why were these paintings in particular given such a dismissive blow-off?
Clicking the link brought me to the show in question -- full of sickly nude women clad in dead game animals and fruit. All of the paintings seemed to be pretty much the same; the same idea at least, carried through in different environments or with different intentions. However, the reviewer seemed to be right -- they didn't seem to make sense.
Then, I remembered a painting that I had seen in the National Gallery of Art once and things start to click.
This is that painting. (It struck me so much when I first saw it that I happened to take a picture! Lucky!)
Now... when I see this painting, I think vanitas still life -- showing the bounty yet despair of life and its fragility. This concept of bounty is what I believe that Heffernan is getting at... I mean damn, the show was called "Booty." Obviously, even if it is a bit contrived, the paintings were all meant to serve as allegories for the idea of bounty, and whatever that means in this age.
As opposed to when these icons first appeared, I believe that bounty has a new meaning. In olden days, I suppose having a goose and a rabbit would be quite bountiful; however, I could go out and get both of those things right now with less work than when that painting was made. Simply having one goose and one rabbit is not bountiful in today's society -- no... one must have MANY. I believe Heffernan takes the old ideas of bounty and pushes them towards complete and utter excess. Bounty becomes booty as it accumulates at her central figures' feet and essentially dress the lower half of the figures' bodies.
I can see meaning in that. I see that as being more than an intent to sell "ART" or "PAINTINGS."
Perhaps it's my own internal optimist, but I like to believe that Heffernan is actually trying. I like to believe that these oppulent paintings are more than just wall-decorations, and perhaps are commenting on the availability and excessiveness of the contemporary wealthy -- those same people who are in the budget to buy her work. Perhaps she's clever -- perhaps it's a joke on them.
