Response to Lisa Yuskavage

This week I looked up Lisa Yuskavage. This artist works in oil on linen, making highly sexualized female nudes. The figures she paints are highly artistic and are exaggerated usually in a sexually appealing way. The artist's use of color is unrealistic and stands out from other figures. The most apparent part of these paintings though is the confrontational sexuality that is portrayed. According to various art dealers, museums and articles, some consider the work to be no more than kitschy soft-porn, while others see the work as strong feminism. I don't really care which is the artists intention, and am rather annoyed about the way I saw this theory discussed. I cannot attribute confrontational sexuality in a female nude as feminist. The theory of that seems to rely on a double standard of voyeurism. This is a matter of female portrayal in media and no one seems to know if it is helpful or hurtful to the equal rights of women. I can't give that argument too much credit as it seems that people are more interested in making the artist more politically involved than she appears to be. In this article, they say that Lisa said the work was a personal exploration of what she hated, and her sexuality. I'll give that more credit. If a person has an opinion or a context in which they see a piece, that's perfectly fine, but it seems in this case that the noise of what people want to see in her work is overpowering the work itself. I could only find the work itself in the context of sales as well. It is being marketed this way, and though I'm glad the artist is successful, I don't like seeing this much commerce based on vogue popularity and blind speculation. The art itself has merit. It is skillfully crafted and both confronts and entices the viewer. The audience of artists critiquing it just cannot seem to make up their minds.

Response to Tim Gardner

It seems I'm falling a bit behind on these. I can't make any excuses so I'll just have to do more than one a week for a little while. This probably isn't the best news after that, but the semester is wearing me out a bit particularly in the life drawing aspect. Not that Life Drawing II is too much, but it seems like most of my classes have become surrogate life drawing classes. I've filled up close to five sketchbooks with life drawings but haven't had time for any really fun, personal drawings. With this craving for creativity and imagination, I'm afraid I didn't enjoy the artist I'm responding to too much this week. Tim Gardner is a watercolor painter. While his works are technically sound, I find them to be a tad stiff. It was hard to determine which paintings I was supposed to be looking at. Apparently there is more than one artistic Tim Gardner. The paintings I found to be most interesting are the ones where one or two figures stand alone in a space. There is often some scenic vista that fills the canvas. Though I can see the scene made larger by the small figure, I didn't really get any emotional reaction. This is probably just on my end, but as I said the figures looked a bit stiff and bland. Nothing really stood out as unique or especially engaging. On another day I might give a bit more credit but I just didn't really get exited about Gardner's work.

Final poster

Here's a photo of my work on my final canvas project. Not all of it, just the only photo that came out. Using only 4H on a 8x3 is not effective for photography. But I assure you my understructure is done.

Response to Shawn Barber

This week I looked at the work of Shawn Barber. Like Alyssa Monks, he works in large-scale oils depicting mostly portraits. The two shows of work I saw were the tattooed series and the doll series. The tattoo portrait series consist of portraits of the tattoo artists he works with. Different styles are depicted ranging from very expressive and transformational, to formal portraits. Each does a very good job of catching a likeness through subtle exaggeration. Movement is depicted with multiple representations of the same object in the picture plane, capturing an ethereal or otherworldly essence. This movement was very interesting to look at and made the portraits more engaging. Other motifs that appear in this series are a focus on hands or tattooing instruments. Both of these compliment each other and are rendered in high detail. The rendering itself is remarkable. All of the figures in Barber’s paintings have tattoos that cover much of their body. Each tattoo is rendered in great detail with accurate perspective. The only exception is when the tattoo transcends the figure and takes on a life of it’s own. These paintings in particular reveal Barber’s creativity and technical skill. The doll series had its merit as well. Though I personally wasn’t too interested in the subject matter, everything was well rendered. These paintings were focused around different dolls in different states of alteration and/or disrepair. There were a select few that interested me more than the rest. These involved skulls sized and proportioned to the dolls while super imposing the doll’s face over it. They were slightly offset in a way that made me look closer. The two forms meld together to form an interesting monster. They blend in a way that is both believable and makes you wonder how it was possible. Looking even further, I found that he had a very inspiring attitude which he portrayed on his website. It was really nice seeing him communicate with his audience in such a constructive manner.

Definitely check out this guy’s gallery and read the FAQ. You won’t regret it.

Response to Neo Rauch

I'm back again this week. This time I took a look at the work of Neo Rauch. This German artist works in oil paints where he creates large scale paintings that remind me of the surrealist work of Dali and more so Earnst. Rauch uses a much more impressionistic style. He puts minimal detail into his figures, just enough that they will read properly. The subject of each painting seems to always involve multiple figures interacting with each other. Odd symbols are often seen within the figures, their actions and all around them. These seem to have a very deep meaning but I felt I lacked the context to really see what the artist was trying to communicate. I looked at many of his works, and while the style drew me in for a closer look. I couldn't find any close relationship with any of the paintings. The sharp edges he uses in his compositions feel abrupt and I don't venture too close or spend too much time trying to decode a painting. The paintings are so vivid and full of energy that I am quickly drawn close but then feel like I'm being attacked and I take a step back and try to view the piece as a whole. I try to follow the energy through the work but its not so much flowing, like I tend to enjoy, but it shoots everywhere with chaotic force. Awkward angles and poses with transforming figures generate movement and send it whizzing every which direction, sending it toward me when it hits one of those angles. This feels very chaotic, frantic, and cryptic to me. These things together create an interesting dynamic flow that I find interesting for a short while, but wards me off. Perhaps my interest would persist if I could read the symbolism. As it is, it keeps my interest for only a short while, not because I think poorly of it, but I don't find anything to keep me involved for very long.

Response to Chuck Forsman

Last week I went to the Robischon gallery in Denver to see the work of Chuck Forsman. Forsman is an oil painter who makes large scale paintings featuring many landscapes. Each work had it's own sense of scale that invited me into the piece to explore. Depth was well represented and gave each landscape a very scenic quality. Everything had it's own air of impressionism to it. Color was mixed by putting a variety of strokes side by side. It would blend and make subtle changes in hue and increase realism from a distance. Though landscapes were predominant, each contained at least one figure that brought context to the piece. These figures weren't always human, but they were characters who could interact or interpret the landscape. I tried to view the landscape first and then attempt to see it from the figure's point of view.

As I looked closer, hidden symbols began to appear. They were not obvious, but they stood out enough that they could not be accidental. They were all subtle things such as a tree's shadow becoming the landscape, or streets that were flattened by perspective. I could not read the symbolism in them all. There were even themes and motifs that I didn't notice until speaking with the curator about the pieces. For example, I did not see the inherent danger in the second piece of “Honeymoon.” In the painting, there are two planes flying in a cloudscape. The clouds twist and contort in different values representing atmospheric conditions of variable violence. My first interpretation yielded an emotion of excitement and serenity, which amplified when I found the piece was a diptych and compared it to its mate. This changed when it was explained that the setting was Vietnam, and the planes would be interpreted differently, with more dread than thrill, as a result of the relatively recent war. The added context of Vietnam was apparent in the other paintings in the show, unifying them thematically.

These were obviously works with intent. Countless hidden themes were supported by the painting. This is why the medium is so effectively used. These would not work as well if they were photographs because the ideas would take a second seat to the landscape. Photography is more about seeing what is real and drawing meaning from what we see, where a painting is an idea communicated through an image. Forsman has ideas in the root of all his works, which affects the way the scene is represented. If it were done the other way around, it would still be an appealing image, but it would not have the thematic depth of messages that the artist is trying to communicate.

Here's the gallery site if you want to check it out:

http://www.robischongallery.com/html/exhibitions.asp

Response to: Alyssa Monks

I began my journey by picking a random name from the list, a digital dart throw. This brought me to the website of Alyssa Monks. I began with an image search. My first impression was that I was looking at the work of a photographer. The repeating themes of water pulled me in. Here were a set of photos of people swimming, people lying in the bath, or behind the steamed up glass of a shower. I tend to be drawn to water in life and in art and very much welcomed the theme. Behind the glass were figures, faces showing great ranges of emotion. From serene and almost dead to angry or enthusiastic, all these emotions were well represented almost creating a narrative. Figures would be obstructed and distorted by the glass, a fair theme for photography. Except it wasn't photography. When I wen to her homepage I found these works to be oil paintings. Enlarged images revealed the true, almost impressionistic nature that fooled my eye. I became instantly impressed by the distortions of glass and water. The brushstrokes were exceedingly expressive yet could provide a photo realistic representation of the form when viewed from a distance. The attention to detail in the waves of the water as in the following images. Furthermore, I admire the way she creates abstractions of the human form. At times, she shows small parts of the body, underwater it may take a second look to know exactly what you are looking at but it is still recognizable. They are all very pleasant to look at. The combination of realism and impressionism in each piece flows well together in showing the human form in a way it is not often painted.

.

Her galley can be found here:

http://alyssamonks.com/index.asp

I highly recommend checking it out.