Wolf Kahn and Russell Chatham

Osso there was an article about Kahn in one of last years Art News. I'll try to find it. I agree that at first his use of color is startling, but I got used to it and now I love his work.

I forgot to ask. What formula does he use?

Osso Wolf Kahn has his way with color doesn't he. Might use some of his painting to copy for practice.

Russell Chatham puts me right at home in Marin County. I always feel I am home when I see those brown hills of California. Painting fog so realistically it is postiviely enchanting.

Thank you for the great links.

Formula....I guess I am saying the work is formulaic after you see a lot of it. Which is what I am getting at...the print process seems to foster selection of the more accessible pieces of an artist's work. These are two artists I liked enough to buy books on. Well, if I ever get my scanner going, I will scan some of the works of both I like better than those in the weblinks.

There may be some personal stuff here, I also do landscape and fog, etc. Either that makes me especially picky, or I speak with envy, but I don't think the latter.

wolf
I too found Wolf Kahn's colors startling. That was not bad; I love to be smacked right between the eyes upon first seeing a work (it passed the interocular traumatic test). But I also find his work formulaic, too predictable, and worst of all, for my taste, a bit TOO PRETTY. This is not to say that he's not a stupendous painter. I believe Firenze likes Kahn. I wish she were here.

Osso -- I don't really know Russell Chatham, but Wolf Kahn used to be a sort of neighbor and your interest made me go back and look at his work. If I had to be a quick-and-dirty critic (!), I'd say that his colors are very interesting and catching. But (big BUT) he's more of a designer than an artist -- someone in love with landscape, color, and form -- deft and competent but not... interesting. I like work that's more passionate and personal like... maybe?... yours? Perhaps he'd be a good teacher. (Now I'm going googling to check out Russell Chatham!)

Well, I like the luminist in Russell Chatham, but it's so hard to tell from online stuff. I'm a nut for the Hudson River school, and much of American 19th century landscape painting. What do you think of Rackstraw Downes? He's one of my all-time favorites. And, in another genre (urban), Robert Solotaire. I'll see if I can find links.

Tartarin, I am so glad you are here to add to all this.

Dang it, both of these people were more interesting in work I saw earlier; hard to really comment with out useful reference to that.

I didn't find anything I loved of R. Chatham on line, and I have really loved Russell Chatham. Gads, that I could just forward all of you my books on them.

He is to me, way too formulaically placing the light source....in way too pretty a way, nothing like i saw in the early paintings.

I'll, or others can if they have time, see if Chatham's 100 painting book is available. I bought it at a gallery in Monterey, the Hauk Gallery, but you can probably get it from his website. I swear it is more interesting than his prints.

osso

Rackstraw Downes
Robert Solotaire

we need to look these guys up.

which of course brings up, what would you find if you looked us up. I may have found a new site, dependent on my finishing my bookkeeping and foororaw and getting going. Something like $20 a month to do and maintain a website without yuckky stuff; reasonable graphic choices, we'll see.

Chatham has a history, and his history is Piazzoni, who is a well regarded california painter. More links to go, there..but not by me right now.

osso

wolf
Tartarin, you say of Wolf Kahn that "he's more of a designer than an artist". I'm obliged to you for the distinction: it clears up something for me (in addition to explaining why the prettiness in Kahn's painting fails to work for me). When I finish the first impulsive/intuitive/passionate stage of a painting and then procede to clean it up, to give it a more aesthetic look, I do so with design principles consciously or unconsciously in mind. But your distinction suggests to me why I often prefer a certain degree of awkwardness, even ugliness, in a painting I've decided is finished. The less-than-beautiful awkwardness/ugliness is an aesthetic result often felt to be a more genuine expression of ME, as opposed to a rational compliance with learned principles of design.

I agree, JL.

I did a little web searching. Didn't find Rickshaw yet, but here are some links of possible interest:
http://www.robertsolotaire.com/
http://www.tfaoi.com/aa/2aa/2aa594.htm
http://www.askart.com/theartist.asp?id=20721
http://www.tfaoi.com/mn/mia/mia9.jpg
http://www.irvinemuseum.org/

Lots of good paintings in those books at the irvine museum...

Wolf Kahn
So happy to discuss Wolf Kahn, because it is only within the
past year that I have looked at his work very closely. It started with a
gift of two excellent books at the same time: one on Wolf Kahn with great plates; the other on Richard Diebenkorn, also with great plates. For some reason, my mind
was obsessed with comparing the two. I won't get into the petty details; on
the surface, Diebenkorn was miles ahead, based on reputation, excellence, fame. But after more careful consideration, looking at the plates carefully, Kahn pulled right up alongside him, in my very personal judgement. I think it was the absolute intuitive sense of color in his work,
his ability to look at reality and abstract the essence of his landscape with
a certain naive clarity that rather stunned me.
What is disappointing about Kahn's work is his later work. I don't think it is as excellent as his earlier oeuvre.
What seems clear about Kahn's roots, are the fact that they ARE rooted
in German Expressionism, as are the roots of Jan Mueller with whom he
was allied in his earliest years in Provincetown at the Sun Gallery.
Particular works of Kahn which SHOULD be viewed, before he can be
judged, which I like very much, and which are definitely NOT pretty are as follows: VIEW ACROSS THE PLAIN (58), BETWEEN TWO ISLANDS (62),
YELLOW HOUSE MAINE (68), POND IN NOVEMBER(77), HOT SUMMER(90),
IN A RED SPACE(93), IN WESTPORT(87), A WALL OF TREES(83), DISTANT
RAIN(92).
The monograph I have and recommend is Justin Springer's WOLF KAHN, published by Abrams 1996. I think any painter would benefit from
looking through it carefully. Amazon.com sells it.

Good morning firenze pensaforte and welcome to A2k. We have been awaiting your presence in the art forum.

Certainly agree with you about color, Firenze! Diebenkorn always gets me in the gut, though. Hard to rationalize these things. I'm always surprised in what my eyes (as opposed to intellect or "taste") like in living landscape. Very interesting the connection you make to German Expressionism.

wolf
Firenze, I'm going to look for the books and examine those plates you've listed first chance I get. You know my views on the two artists, but since you've been examining Wolf far more carefully than I, and because of my regard for you as an artist, I will give it another effort. It's always a benefit, if not a pleasure, to be yanked away from one's moorings.

One thing I realized trying to compare Diebenkorn and Kahn was that there was a difference in their work, in style calligraphy, palette, etc...but that ultimately, I couldn't declare one artist superior to the other. It was a matter of individual difference, temperament, personality. Both were fine and had taken their development to very high levels of attainment, perhaps Kahn being more persistent in one line of development than
Diebenkorn, whose style and approach underwent more changes. Re: Chatham. I have used the links, but can't find enough to make a comparison. I will look further.
Maybe, that is one truth about art - it tells more about the creator in relationship to him/herself, than about the creator in relationship to other
selves (except for obvious influences). One is always hearing comparisons between Matisse and Picasso; depending upon the level or
approach it might be easy to declare one or the other superior. I think what is important is the individual level of achievement what is interesting is the individual approach to development.

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.