Episode 115: Judy Ledgerwood with guest host Tony Tasset

November 11, 2007 · Print This Article

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

downloadJudy Ledgerwood

Holy crap! This show is an instant classic. Richard returns; not only to production duty but also, at long last, to interview duty. Painter and art legend Judy Ledgerwood is our guest. Guest host Tony Tasset joins in on interviewing duties to ask the hard hitting questions. Not to be missed.

The following bio is shamelessly stolen from the Hyde Park Art Center, please don’t sue us:

In the tradition of Modernist painting, Judy Ledgerwood paints monumental abstract compositions that explore light, color, and structure. Her paintings are formal, decorative, and tranquil while simultaneously being highly personal, optically challenging, and inherently subversive. In her compositions, she creates a dialogue that is uniquely feminine but also powerful and authoritative. Early in her career, Ledgerwood began incorporating traditionally feminine pastel colors into her landscape based paintings in an attempt to challenge and undermine the historically male-dominated tradition of gestural abstract paintings. Today her compositions include circular motifs typically associated with the decorative arts tradition. In the 1970s many feminist artists identified and celebrated circular patterns as being connected to female identity. Ledgerwood acknowledges this tradition through her continued use of dot motifs, which she identifies as her form of non exclamatory mark-making. Ledgerwood is the recipient of a Tiffany Award in the Visual Arts, a National Endowment for the Arts Award, an Illinois Art Council Award and two CIRA Grants from Northwestern University. Her work is represented in the public collections of the Art Institute of Chicago, the Metropolitan Museum of Art, the Milwaukee Museum of Art, the Museum of Contemporary Art Chicago, and Swissbank New York. Her degrees are from the Art Academy of Cincinnati, BFA, and the School of the Art Institute of Chicago, MFA.

If that weren’t enough, crack open a diet coke plus and sit down for Mike Benedetto who is joined by Tony Fitzpatrick as they review the new Jodi Foster Revenge thriller The Brave One during which they use the phrase “Charles Bronson with tits”.

And for you Encyclopedia Brown sleuths out there, allegedly there is a secret message from Tony Tasset hidden somewhere in the show.

If you listen to one freaking episode of BAS this year it sure as hell better be this one.

Tony Tasset
Judy Ledgerwood
Hyde Park Art Center
Tony Fitzpatrick
Kathryn Hixson
Mark Rothko
Brice Marden
Judith Kirshner
David Coyle
Matthew Richie
Jeanne Dunning
Hirsch Pearlman
Gaylen Gerber
Sol Lewitt
Rhona Hoffman”>
Ad Reinhardt
The Brave One
Jodi Foster
Terrance Howard
Colin Farrell
Hustle and Flow

Direct download: Bad_at_Sports_Episode_115_Judy_Ledgerwood.mp3

16 thoughts on “Episode 115: Judy Ledgerwood with guest host Tony Tasset”

  1. Balzac says:

    Insert the Shark ensemble exploding here.

  2. The Shark says:

    Contraire! Actually, we sharks have a pictorial essay of the ‘artist’s’ work up at sharkforum honoring this momentous occasion.

  3. David Roth says:

    An entertaining show. I especially enjoyed the bookend comments about best painters and Mr. Tasset’s expression of love.

    The movie review was great, if short. I guess it follows the rule of “don’t leave ’em wanting less.” Forget about Roeper et.al – these two are hilarious.

    On to painting – I know I’m showing my ignorance, but I’m sure that I don’t understand the gender issues discussed here. Can someone please help me out – I understand in principle the concept that darker is generally masculine and pastel is generally feminine (culturally at least), but I’m hitting bottom otherwise. How does this dialectic relate to someone like Louise Nevelson, or Clifford Still? Would these just be considered exceptions to what is otherwise considered a cultural rule?

    I ask this in a non-sarcastic way. I haven’t got an opinion about Ms. Ledgerwood’s work, and have only seen it on-line for the most part.

    I enjoyed the section dealing with the conceptual vs. the illustrative, and how all that relates to language. Personally I would have liked to have heard more on that subject.

    The other point that I think is really interesting is that scale changes everything. Because of the fact that art objects have to create their own context to work I think it’s worth noting the difference in experience the physicality of the work and the iconographic quality it may take on if reduced in size.

  4. duncan says:

    David it would seem that fear and trepidation has shut down our blog.

    When I was a student, Judy’s paintings were position very much as taking on the issues of a male dominated painting tradition, as you heard her say in the interview. She maded/makes paintings that would/do take as their scope to carve out a space… or maybe to take back elements of painting that had been gendered as male. The idea being that a feminine might still have something to add to genres that had collapsed (often under there own macho weight) in terms of their relevance in the contemporary art world. So she took those elements on. Or at least those she felt a need to resuscitate.

    I’m too tired to be the one to do this but I’m afraid that no one else will under threat of a serious smack down.

    So I can cover my “back side…” This is the history as I understand it though the bits and pieces I read in the pages of the New Art Examiner and Art Forum and the courses I took from the authors of those articles, whether that history is correct or not I can’t say. But the questions about the gendering of painting still seems to have some traction.

    I don’t know I’m tired so maybe I just made this all up. Kathryn Hixson is back to town so maybe we can ask her when she comes on in feb or march.

    Regardless, Judy is still in my top five.

  5. David Roth says:

    Thanks Sleepy. I guess I figured that’s what it was about, but I must confess that I still don’t quite get it. What I mean is this – the narrative doesn’t quite make sense to me.

    I’d like to think that people would weigh in if they have something to say, particuarly the subjec(s) of your piece. Wesley’s digging into the particulars at SF.

  6. darrell says:

    I am very happy to own a Ledgerwood 🙂 I luv her pretty paintings.

  7. peter noser says:

    Oh come on. You blame the Sharks if they are here and if they are not. One, David, is here, and is that a smack down? I think the amount of commentary comes from the subject. Most people find this ‘classic’ podcast, the explanation and this art boring. We are not afraid, we are bored. One of my bottom five.

  8. David Roth says:

    Well, Peter, I don’t think Duncan was referring to me when he referred to the smackdown, since I’m rather agnostic on the subject.

    I don’t know if I’ve ever been much good at being “sharkie” anyhow – I’ve sorta hung up my fin. I’m more interested in concepts in this case. Regardless of the relative merits of the works in question (I’ve got very little opinion on them, having had very little exposure to them), there’s usually something interesting to dig into.

  9. peter noser says:

    Not here. Whether you know anything or not, David, is beside the point. The boredom shown here in the lack of comments has nothing to do with any opposite group, whether you are in it or not. This isn’t about you. To repeat, most people find this ‘classic’ podcast, the explanation and this art boring. We are not afraid, we are bored. One of my bottom five.

  10. David Roth says:

    I love it when people refer to “most people.” I’m not saying you’re wrong Peter, I just wonder…

  11. katie says:

    thank you, judy.

  12. Caliope says:

    why would a contemporary artist (Ledgerwood) be overly concerned with the big bad group of hyper-male AbEx artists? This is not 1957. Those issues have already been worked out by scores of other artists, even by their own wives.

    This is not to discount Ledgerwood’s paintings, though. Just get a different reason for painting. Your painting is not important simply because you invoke Pollock.

  13. Steve Hamann says:

    I thought this episode was pretty darn entertaining.

    Any episode that has RunDMC gets a thumbs up in my book.

  14. There are definite gender issues here but the live action dynamics is much more interesting than the incestual labrynth all be it personally fascinating art world dribble. There are three men in that room and one women, I think she holds her own.-Hot and spicey.

  15. Bahl Zack says:

    Are you high or simply incoherent?

Comments are closed.

Point of Origin

  • No results yet!