Wolf Kahn and Russell Chatham

I'll have to dig out my Kahn book. It may be the one you are talking about, as it was there that I liked his work.

art
Osso, I also like his work, but I told Firenze once that I thought it was a bit too pretty (the colors were overwhelmingly georgeous and not sufficiently subtle to suit my taste. But this was in comparison with Diebenkorn whose pre-ocean park work is, together with some of the works of Tamayo and Motherwell, among my favorite. I went to my local bookstore today to check the paintings suggested by Firenze, examples of how Kahn's work is not always "so pretty." Unfortunately, this non-chain store let me down, so tomorrow I must resort to the chains, Borders and Barnes and Noble. I DO think Wolf Kahn is a true master of color. But the pleasure they give me is more like those of dessert than entre. One more thing: representational art is a bit too restricting for me (I refer to work as realistic as Kahn's, not the representational work of, say, Milton Avery where there is more room for abstraction). I hope Firenze sees this post. It's also meant for her eyes.

It looks like to me an "East -coast / West-coast " landscape dichotomy presented here in the comparison with the two painters. This of course brings in the issue of the different types of light; the west is a more "diffused" type of light, and, I am told the reason why you can shoot better slides out there outside. The east , particularly in spring and fall has a strong raking light; and I know this to be the fundamental subject and point of departure for Kahn color. He is stressing a deeper, stronger light-filled color; pushing a painting agenda from opposing areas in twentieth century painting; doing so conscientiously. His roots are abstract expressionism and yet he grew beyond this; persisting in plein air painting/landscape representationalism, deriving compositions while seeking a spontaneous quality that direct naturalist painting affords. Yet he understands fully the graphic use of color pertaining
to light perception, something he'd tell you he "steals" from Bonnard, and which he pushes to a level comparable to Rothko. Radiance is what he seeks while maintaining a devotion to the formalism of his "Hofmanesque" training. "Begin each painting anew" he says.
Chatham (unfortuately I have only seen his work on line...not in person) is apparently a conscious or unconscious torch carrier of the second generation Hudson River School painters...the "Luminists"; very much like Gifford, Kensett and I see Inness, there too. He is definitely more of a traditionalist and not concerned with the twentieth century painting idioms, but more of an exactitude to the appearence of nature. Kahn is a NY painter and his influences, beyond studying of nature have to do with his association of the cauldron of post WWII New York school of painting from which he comes. This is what I see as the "East-coast/ West coast difference.

Colorific, I really liked your description of Kahn's work, and your
description of his goals. I do see in his work a deeper emotional content at times, which I do trace back to German Expressionism
(influences on Mueller and Hofmann as well.

the whole thread got gobbled up inhere some how

thanks Firenze; good to read you here

wolf
Thanks, Colorific. The light factor explains a lot. It's great to see you and Firenze together again. A potent (I originally said "fertile" but that didn't sound right) combination.

I found a link for Russell Chatham's work that shows some that I like. I found it because one of the artists who shows at the same gallery is now local to us and a friend.

The gallery link grouping of recent Chatam work still doesn't draw me like that book of a hundred paintings, but this re-triggers my interest in posting a few of those to show you what I mean. I suppose I should ask permission to post those from the book though; I think he likes to maintain control of his images, which I can appreciate.

Anyway, here's the link, which I think will bring you to a work I like; it's just one image on a larger site.
http://www.legendsfineart.com/images/Chatham/paintings/Chatham_rainsquall.jpg

To see more and more artists, google legendsfineart.com





edit to improve spelling of 'local'

An interesting cloud burst. I'm not familiar with Chatam. Thanks.

wow! I like that Chatham - I'm off to Google for more

I too love Diebenkorn and don't know Kahn so am off to look at his stuff too




I googled more Chatham's and like his compositions, the way he plays with viewpoints and the way the eye moves around the painting. He is very good tonally but not a colourist. I enjoyed the work and would like to see more.

Kahn on the other hand doesn't work for me. I don't like the way he uses colour - it lacks something - I find his compositions unimaginative and his work doesn't compare (for me- this is just personal taste) with the German Expressionists, who had a far stronger understanding of how colours reacted and the drama they can create. I prefer Diebenkorn's beautiful cool subtlety. I's like to see the one's Osso liked to see if I could relate more to them. I do feel he is formulaic, with a sort of false naivety. (I'm sorry Firenze - feel free to be equally harsh with my favourite artists!)

I don't think the Hudson River School is for me either

I'm ready to be persuaded if anyone shows me something I can relate to ....





I think David Blackburn has some of the qualities of Diebenkorn
Webpage


better webpage more work