Selina Trieff

Name starts with an "R".
Good night.

With that I went to ArtNet and found Ed Ruscha. He did a few gas stations.
Good night again

That is so.

Selina Trieff
We are getting mixed here as to what is "flat"painting, and what is NOT.
I will again, for purposes of clarification, refer to Mondrian's work, which is SO clearly 2 dimensional, and still is powerful in a spatial sense.
One has only to look at early Guston to appreciate the sense of 2 d and
3 d in all his work. His inclusion later of the image may have dulled a purity of abstract sense in his work, but both dimensions are represented.
And I think that if Motherwell were told that his work was "flat" , he would be advancing towards you, JL, as if he were the bullfighter and you were the bull.
There is NO way that a "flat"painting can be profound or have depth.
The point of a "flat" painting, apart from an aesthetic exercise such as
Stella was interested in, is NOT to have any profundity or depth, ipso facto, by definition.
One doesn't have to employ chiarascuro, modelling, perspective, etc to get a spatial dimension in a painting. Modernists themselves rejected that notion....and realized that positioning, rhythm, color and other elements played their role in structuring and determining space.
I'm off to NYC tomorrow to see the new MOMA, to visit E Hampton, and visit with friends.

Have a great trip to NYC/MOMA, Florence.
We are probably talking about space in different senses. I refer to the illusion of three-dimensional representation, i.e., perspective. I do not exclude from my meaning of two-dimensional "flatness" an aesthetic sublliminal sense of "space" that results from combinations of color, value, angle-contrast, etc. In that sense even the works of Wols and Appel have a sense of depth sans explicit reference background and foreground. I think that Motherwell would agree that his work 'represents' colors and shapes on a two-dimensional ground, but that their juxtaposition precludes a "dead" flatness. So, perhaps, I am understanding you.

it struck me that an artist whose work I really like has an echo of
Trieff - her name was Joan Eardley and she had a sad life, dying young.





she did landscapes as well but did these interesting images of children in the Glasgow slums. I like her work better, it has more depth for me.

I'm glad to find others who find flat work unsatisfying - I just don't find it sustaining.

Oh, I really like this one! She has depth, and dimension. Could this be a little of what Ms Shapiro was trying to explain to us in her last post?

To me, the bottom picture is far more effectdive than the upper one. I like how the brighter colors in the foreground move the figures toward the viewer, reinforcing the use of perspective lines and angles.
Vivien, what about the "flat" (in the sense of non-two-dimensional) paintings of Picasso and Tamayo? Do they have sustaining power for you? To me, it is the particular quality of the specific painting. It's difficult for me to make generalizations. Some flat paintings are sustaining, some are not. But that also applies, of course, to works having three-dimensional depth.

I've been trying to figure out why Trieff doesn't seem 'flat' to me.
Finally figured it out today.


Her work reminds me of one of my favourite children's theatre troupes.

http://www.theatrebeyondwords.com/perf_repertoire.shtml

Seems I'm adding dimension and movement to what I'm seeing.

It's possible that for Trieff dimension was not as important as the impression the images, and color made to the viewer.

I am a bit unsettled that respected artists on this thread do not seem to share the appreciation I have for some of Thieff's paintings. I am working very hard not to question my aesthetic values on the basis of others' judgements. Osso and Florence are, therefore, doing me a great service in testing my artistic autonomy. I ask you, how can anyone NOT appreciate the aesthetic power (indeed, the aesthetic drama) of Thieff's "Two With Hats" picture in the following?:
< http://www.mirandafinearts.com/artists/SelinaTrieff/STgallery.htm >

I am not concerned with any "meaning" the picture may embody. My sole focus is on its aesthetic impact. The gold contrasts so beautifully with the black. This painterly use of gold is the only time I've appreciated gold leaf in paintings (even in its use in Orthodox religious iconic paintings). The golden negative shapes--defined in part by the black "puffy" shoulder on the right--have great power. The slight tilt of the heads/hats does wonders for me. (by the way, the tilt of the head in "One Fig" is also very satisfying; it generates a very lyrical outline of the body).
If we think of it as pure design, it might open up--as it does for me--a well of aesthetic appreciation.
Wow! I hope that vindicates me.

JL -

In the range of her work that I've seen, I'll put than one on the plus side. If you review my posts, you may see flatness isn't the very big problem to me that it is to GS, though I am interested in spatial depth and all it's benefits myself. I've said I like some of the figures, don't dislike all of them. I don't find the faces profound, but I liked the first one I saw and lost interest with repetition - so, the Two with Hats painting presents me with two more of them, when they are getting annoying to me. But - I rather like the forms and the colors, including the black - and the arrangement of them, the design, if you will.

I think vindication is fine if you like it but I don't remember questioning your judgement.

I am always trying to figure out my own reactions and try to express them honestly, at any given time. I can see that some of my negative comments on Trieff's work have been personal reactions unrelated to the work's value to everybody else, e.g., not liking what I've called the fifties outline forms in some pieces; and some have been about simple traits of the work, e.g., repetition, iconicity - matters that might bother others as well as myself.


My opinions change sometimes. You give me too much power. My own paintings have many weaknesses and do not compose a coherent body of work. I could do a bigger number on my own than on Trieff's. (I'd rather not do that today, it would depress me.)

GS asks if there are objective criteria and I blurted that there are - but to me individual viewers' criteria vary, even at the same point in time, and historians' criteria vary with time passing. So, whose objective criteria? I am more interested in my own reactions for my own pleasure, while I get a kick out of hearing what other people think about some given work.

Osso, a very sensible response. Thanks much.

(You get one of my rare smilies...)

Selina Trieff
JL, you stick to your guns.
For me, space IS a moral issue, in terms of art...because historically and actually it runs parallel with history in terms of a group's freedom, economic welfare and growth. And in terms of what it offers the artist in the way of development and growth, it is incomparable,. Flatness may lead to some striking effective visual statements, but very limited.
In any event, I love you.

Likewise.

If I read her right I think so. That's what made me look up Joan Eardley to compare.

I don't dislike Trieff, simply I wouldn't find the work sustaining in the long term, I think it's interesting, it just doesn't grab me like Eardley.

Yes, the bottom picture is a completed piece and the top has been left at the sketch stage - but I actually like it equally. I like the subtle colours (slum tenements were drab in Scotland in that era and she catches the feeling).

As you know <gasp of horror from jln> I'm not really a Picasso fan - this is partly due ot the flatness in a lot of the work and I really don't like his use of paint - I do like some though - Woman Crying (even if he was a total ***** mocking and painting ?Dora was it? when she was ill and upset!) and Guernica has a passion.

In cubism I prefer Braque (lovely use of paint). Yes, it is the specific quality of a specific painting I agree.

Now, I do love Toulouse Lautrec, including his posters but although they are flat they do have depth and character - the use of line and mass is so beautifully used.

I prefer Mondrian's trees just before his grids. I enjoy the grids in the short term but wouldn't want to spend a long time looking at one. I don't know Tamayo so will have to google.

I don't really like Ben Nicholson or Roger Hilton or that whole St Ives feel in English art of the era. I don't like Guston either I'm afraid - I was bored stiff by a big exhibition of his stuff here a couple of years back.

mmm having said that I do quite like Hiltons Oy Oy Oy - painted after an arguement with his wife - same level as Trieff though, having seen it, move on.

this isn't the painting I'm talking about (can't find it) but is similar in it's energy.

link to image

Oh dear what a list of don't likes!

Yes I see what you like about that last image, it has a very effective simplicity and economy.



..... and echoing Osso and GS!!! to thine own self be true

I like her paintings with colors because I see light in her work. Light in a work of art is important to me. Too much darkness in a work of art does not appeal to me. I must see light in some way. I also feel a constant moodiness in her work. Someone else may see something different. I like when an artist is able to transmit an emotion in their work no matter what that emotion is.

I'm not a picasso fan either, I only like a few of his works.

You are speaking about Trieff there, aren't you, Angelique? I see what you mean about the emotion. I might not always like how it is depicted, but .. emotion or mood depicted is an aspect that gives spirit to the work.