Reply
Thu 12 Jul, 2007 01:19 am
Quote:Once upon a time, we knew what painting was. As recently as the 1960s, there was, if not a single consensus, then at least several broad and overlapping consensuses about what constituted a painting: It was two-dimensional and used pigments on some type of support, like a canvas; it was abstract, or it was representational; it was defined by its medium and sought to exclude the influence of all others, or it was defined by how prettily or truthfully it employed its medium, etc.
The delightful proposition of "What Is Painting?" ?- a broad survey of art from the 1960s to today, drawn from the Museum of Modern Art's contemporary collection ?- is that we have utterly lost our way: We no longer have any idea what painting is, and we are much better for it. Loosely chronological and with an equally relaxed thematic structure, the show makes its argument largely through the variety and quality of the work on view.
Source: New York Sun (pages 1 & 19) and online report:
Step 1: Buy Paint. Step 2: ?
What Is Painting? Contemporary Art from the Collection
July 7-September 17, 2007
(The Joan and Preston Robert Tisch Gallery, sixth floor)
Works from the exhibition
Pretty good. I like the Richard Pettibone's
1969 -- just the beginnings of the abstract pattern painting movement (well, mini-movement as it only last a few years), most of them actually by academically trained artists. I see an influence of, of course, Mondrian but also Kandinsky and, believe it or not, Duchamp.
I always did like Richard Pettibone's art, Amigo -- genuine originality.
The thing that impressed my the most is the fit choice and mix of color. Thats not easy. Look at his pallet. The geometry is secondary.
I forgot the obvious comparison: Frank Stella, so as these are miniatures, I will have to retract the originality (brain slippage)
I had totally forgotten that Pettibone was well-known for duplicating artist's work from the past:
Richard Pettibone, the copiest?
I like the Pettibone renditions alot. He did a very good job. I like them better then the originals.
He was noted for his meticulous renditions so the painterly quality of the huge Stella paintings is gone.
Huge? Thats the problem with looking at art on the web. So stella art was big. I like big art. I change my mind I like the stella better.
Friggin art!!! It's as bad a politics.
I'm going to have to go check the size of these Stella peices.
Pettibone's idea was to reproduce the art as it was seen in an art coffee table book!
Museum of FIne Arts in NYC has a big Stella exposition, including some statues of his up on the roof.
I liked this Kippenberger. I just did. So there.
10x20!!! Thats Awesome!
The Kippenberger, I like the pink on the green.
you should come see MoMA and MFA in person, amigo. It's worth it!
I like Lee Lozano's Hammer,
but then, I would....
I once did an entire room in pink and green -- naturally, it was in Palm Springs. That's one reason I like that painting.
I think I know the other.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace