Interesting thing was, on Monday, I was actually at Google visiting for lunch. I was waiting in the lobby when one of the people who I was with saw the Governator on the front page of the Chronicle and picked up the paper. I saw myself on the top left …

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.