Comments on: Has Elizabeth Peyton-bashing become a sub-genre of art criticism?

By: Mark Staff Brandl

Mark Staff Brandl — Sat, 25 Jul 2009 11:01:44 +0000

Agreed to an extent, WK, BUT to that extent the whole WORLD has fallen off. NYC did have Pop and Minimal and Conceptualism and East Village and and and— all after Ab Ex. Look at Germany — where they often proclaim the end of the US, and then promote Daniel Richter as a “star”! Gimme a break. I think Mary is/was historically important (as stubborn defense of painting during and against puritanical anti-painting-ists like Judd — similar to and leading to Lasker and Reed who are pals of hers). Josh Smith pretty well sums up a TON of problems. But looking beyond the US I see the same problems everywhere, and see it in what gets focused on.

By: The Shark

The Shark — Fri, 24 Jul 2009 14:12:34 +0000

Mark -David Reed is a very good painter -there are other serious painters in New York- compared to where it was at its apogee- decline has happened -precipitous decline -one need look no further than the recent ascension of Mary Heilman -and or Josh Smith -in the realm of more modernist-abstraction to see what I mean- this has to do with both artists and the critics who champion this falling off—–

By: Mark Staff Brandl

Mark Staff Brandl — Fri, 24 Jul 2009 05:55:30 +0000

I would like to point out that there are indeed wonderful things going on in NYC — I have regular contact with many great artists there. But WK is right in that what gets ATTENTION is mostly the butt end of the scene. I suspect the decline is 99% in the CRITICS, a decline he points out. A synecdoche of the overall decline in talented observers/critics in the artworld. And that in NYC, the spot that had generally lead the way.

You are right about Snow, I think, Claudine. And about Peyton to an extent too — in short she is interesting as a symptom, not as an artist.

By: The Shark

The Shark — Fri, 24 Jul 2009 00:15:00 +0000

Well Caludine -you hit on another very interesting topic -at least to me -that being the precipitous decline of the New York school -from Peyton -to Josh Smith and most points in between -its pretty grim- incompetent -and I should note-this miasma extends to the critics-who for the most part (there are several notable exceptions -Perl -Cotter-) seem almost completely clueless- illiterate! when it comes to the language of painting -and by extension-what is visual- its simply stunning -mind boggling!

By: Claudine Ise

Claudine Ise — Thu, 23 Jul 2009 14:07:16 +0000

Mark, Shark, thanks for your comments. You’re right when you say “just because someone famous is worse doesn’t make another bad artist any better,” and I def. wasn’t arguing that we should reconsider Peyton’s oeuvre or anything. The laudatory Snow coverage was just annoying to me and it was more about questioning that. But both of your comments highlight the false dichotomy I set up btw. Peyton/Snow as chroniclers of their scene — the wrath Peyton inspires may more accurately be due to the hype surrounding her (lack of) abilities as a painter – and her vaunted role as a great painter of her day — Snow’s celebrity was due mostly to his grunge-glam lifestyle (though smart writers have argued otherwise, see recent post on Art Fag City which I’m too lazy to link to this AM).

Mr. Snow will be remembered lovingly by his friends and family I am sure – but I think his 15 minutes of art historical import are already over – I don’t think people will still be talking about him next week — but Peyton will linger on awhile longer as a lightening rod for various issues in contemporary painting. That doesn’t make her work any better– just better fodder for art critics, I think.

By: The Shark

The Shark — Wed, 22 Jul 2009 16:49:57 +0000

Its interesting: when you look at the high water mark of the New York School -Pollock -de kooning -joan mitchell -and Hans Hoffman I would think -and look at what is happening now -it is a ‘revenge of the philistines’ -the talk a few years ago that ‘Currin could really paint’—why? because he can do a third rate Norman Rockwell pastiche? -There was a time when the context and lineage of de Kooning for instance -or Hoffman was understood -that these were european masters extending a tradition of mastery to American painting- that there is nothing flailing or undisciplined about this work -but rather great understanding-control and vision -along with technique taking place—and now we are discussing Currins painting of a thanksgiving turkey -how convincing it is? Convincingly idiotic and insipid -it does accomplish that-

By: Mark Staff Brandl

Mark Staff Brandl — Wed, 22 Jul 2009 06:24:05 +0000

I don’t see it as bashing. I see it as a few people finally coming to their visual senses. Yes, Snow’s work was worse, and sorry to speak ill of the tragically dead, but his presence in the artworld elite AT ALL had simply to do with his family connections. But just because someone famous is worse doesn’t make another bad artist any better.

By: The Shark

The Shark — Wed, 22 Jul 2009 06:12:20 +0000

Claudine -I think a more healthy and accurate approach would be New York School bashing -Peyton is nothing special -in fact when one looks at bay area figurative painting of the mid-50′s -60′s for instance she doesn’t make the cut -and yet next to some of her peers (Kilimnick) -she comes off positively briliiant- its a long way down from works like Door To The River or Havana Suburb or Who’s Name Was Writ on Water -to name three modern masterpieces -to any of the trendy junk coming from this group of painters associated with New York today – perhaps the time has come to acknowlege the decline-