Selina Trieff

I have been to Selina Trieff's studio in Provincetown. It's fantastic!

Lucky you. I wish I could see them in person. Such a wonderful sense of design, just sublime.

JL, Thanks so much for the good tip. These figures have a LOT of presence. I also like Trieff's sparing-yet-powerful use of color and the subtly-shifting balance in her compositions. I wish the reproductions were better (and larger); some seem out of focus!
This work deserves a first-class presentation. As you say, "I wish I could see them in person." NickFun, you are, indeed, fortunate. On my next trip to Boston, I will hope to have researched an opportunity to view some of Trieff's paintings in a gallery.

these are really powerful, I'd never heard of her. Thanks. I'm off to look at more

I love some of them and am cool to some of them. I have to figure out the whys of my reactions.
I favor the compositions, the working out of space. the colors and distribution of those. I seem to like the picassoness of much of it. I think I am put off by what is described somewhere as a virtue, the non articulated human shapes, which oddly seem a little easy to me - I prefer the ones with a bit of quirkiness related to reality.

More later as I look harder.
link -
http://images.google.com/images?svnum=10&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&c2coff=1&q=Selina+Trieff&spell=1

Osso, could your reservation have anything to do with the postures of the women, very classical, even as Gauguin's subjects were posed? I find that a little "affected" (maybe what you mean by "easy") but done SO well, so well designed that I succumb to her "taste" and aethestic power without hesitation.

most of my hesitation has to do with the whatever figures... which I just don't find interesting or inventive or creative -- more posterlike. I know, probably the opposite of your take, alas. I get it that they're symbolic... but I lose interest.

Also I see her aesthetic power as Picasso'n. Centered, simplified...

sorry, bummer, I like to agree, but we don't need to. Spikes and differences are spice to discussion.

I'll get you for that some day; just you wait.

LOL

Probably sooner than later, as you're smarter..

Think so? :wink:

Yes.

But wait, I do really like some of them.

Back on that manana, fading now.

Re: Selina Trieff

The painter, Florence Walton, responded to me that, while she likes some of Thieff's paintings, she thinks some of it is overly decorative and flat, and that her figures were sometimes stilff and lacking in structure and rhythm (if I recall her comments correctly).
I agree that Theiff's paintings--the few that I've seen--are very decorative and flat, but decorativeness does not bother me, when it's in moderation and in the service of aesthetic power; I see much of Matisse as decorative in that way.
Frankly, I've only seen a few of Thieff's works and jumped perhaps prematurely to my enthusiastic reaction. But SO FAR I do not see her figures as lacking in structure (I think they are well formed and balanced. The rhythm in the flow of the body shapes and the rhythm of spacing between them are aesthetically pleasing. I agree that there is stiffness (to me it comes across as stillness). But I agree with Florence that, at least for the pictures I've seen, namely the pictures of two and three women, seem a bit formulaic. THAT is her major failing to my way of thinking, but I didn't notice til Florence pointed it out. I agree that when we begin to copy ourselves, we begin to dry up. But I DO like her work as marvelous examples of effective design.
I often evaluate a painter on the basis of my very first impressions. First impressions may not apply well to the general oeuvre of an artist, but it does work with regard to specific works...at least for me. I am going to examine Thieff's work further.

I like her very colorful paintings best. Thats because I'm mad about color.

http://www.bertawalker.com/artists/trieff-s/

But, I agree with osso, and the watered down Picasso look. I also agree with Walton when she speaks about flat, and lacking structure and rhythm.

Some of her animals remind me of the animal images by Alfred Kubin, Eindringlinge (Intruders) 1902-03. I could not find an example on the net of this particular work of AK. Some of his art was considered to be part of the Comic Grotesque.

I love the Surrealists, and the Comic Grotesque artist. Thank you JLN for sharing this artist with us. Now, I'm not saying that she is one.

Well, my calling some of the figures easy was put more descriptively by Florence Walton. The word commercial flashed though my mind, but not for all the work, which I am still going to go back and look harder at.
I see the Matisse connection, I had thought that too, in Trieff's favor, in my talk with myself about the pieces. And I am not entirely down on decorative, or I'd be self hating re my own work, which is not done to be decorative but can occasionally hang over a sofa without scaring the cats, although some work better on the garage wall...

back upon review.

OK, upon review -
I started out really liking trieff43, probably still do, but by the time I looked at all the paintings I was getting irritated by the faces (sorry) and it colors my new looking at it. The animals do irritate me generally if not every single time (I'm neutral on the sheep).
I liked 43947t, 43948t, + selina2_trieff for color and composition, and while I had trouble with one or the other figure, I was fine with some of the figures.
Liked selfportrait as Gilles, Picasso yelling out at me. Well, I like some of Picasso for a reason.
Re the first slide, called 'artistpaintings', I kind of like the top piece with the Pierrot face and the animal.

It's odd, reactions to work. I think I will stay irritated with some of this work for a while, and maybe look at it again in a few years and say, oh, I like that. Or maybe it'll move over to the pile where I put Keane paintings in my mind. But now I'll describe myself as in between those poles.