Recent art that you liked

[Artyczar]

John, I also love Doig. He's popular among many artists, especially my some of friends, one in particular, but she has her own style. She had her own before she knew about him, but now she's inspired by him. I think she's in a similar boat as you.

As far as Elaine Marie Catherine de Kooning, I don't think that's really a "rip," but I'm not excited about the work. We all get inspired by something.

 

[Claude J Greengrass]

Robert Heindel (October 1, 1938 - July 3, 2005) was an American painter, illustrator, and stage designer best known for his paintings of dance and performing arts.

 

[john]

I treated myself to a nice book. "Landscape Painting Now" Beautiful book and I thumbed through it tonight.

This artist stood out to me. This painting in particular.

bonfire

Lisa Yuskavage - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Jaka]

Not a painting, but I loved Arcane on Netflix.

 

[laika]

Not a painting, but I loved Arcane on Netflix.

I watched that too and thought it had a good look.

 

[Jaka]

I watched that too and thought it had a good look.

I loved the art style.

 

[laika]

I loved the art style.

I find that animation art can be pretty instructive. I watched all of Arcane, at first for the art, but it was kind of a good story too. Samurai Jack is another favorite that I watch - when ever it's available - for backgrounds, night scenes, and such. Lately, I've been watching that ridiculous Desert Punk for the ruined building and desert scenes. I don't know anything about all that stuff, but yes, some animated series have good art.

 

[john]

Not a painting, but I loved Arcane on Netflix.

Hmmm, I didn't realize it but yeah the painting I posted above is very much like anima art. Not seeing a lot of anima art it seems unusual to me.

I want to check out that series.

 

[stlukesguild]

Never been fond of Lisa Yuskavage.

 

[john]

Never been fond of Lisa Yuskavage.

I'm surprised, I thought this would be right up your alley. Why don't you like her? I must say that her work in general is a little over the top sexually charged for my tastes but that painting is more subtle and dreamlike to me.

 

[stlukesguild]

I'm surprised, I thought this would be right up your alley. Why don't you like her? I must say that her work in general is a little over the top sexually charged for my tastes but that painting is more subtle and dreamlike to me.

Yuskavage came on the art scene during a period much like our own rife with "political correctness or "cancel culture". Both Yuskavage and John Currin clearly sought to give the finger to the censorship of erotic imagery in art. In this, I was on her side. But the paintings strike me as shocking merely for the sake of shock. One critic called them "visual stink bombs whose sickly sweetness masked a rotten misogynistic core." That seems to describe them well IMO. Another critic... it might have been Robert Hughes... suggested that the reminded him of nothing so much as the cheesy, sleazy illustrations from Penthouse Magazine. Like John Currin and Dana Schutz,... and many of the so-called "lowbrow" painters, she has some real technical chops, but I find myself asking, why would a painter so skilled want to paint like this? Picasso suggested that "good taste" was a detriment to art... but the bad taste of a populist vulgarian pandering to a super-wealthy audience who imagines shock alone is a signifier of great art and originality is even worse.

 

[john]

I'm surprised, I thought this would be right up your alley. Why don't you like her? I must say that her work in general is a little over the top sexually charged for my tastes but that painting is more subtle and dreamlike to me.

Yuskavage came on the art scene during a period much like our own rife with "political correctness or "cancel culture". Both Yuskavage and John Currin clearly sought to give the finger to the censorship of erotic imagery in art. In this, I was on her side. But the paintings strike me as shocking merely for the sake of shock. One critic called them "visual stink bombs whose sickly sweetness masked a rotten misogynistic core." That seems to describe them well IMO. Another critic... it might have been Robert Hughes... suggested that the reminded him of nothing so much as the cheesy, sleazy illustrations from Penthouse Magazine. Like John Currin and Dana Schutz,... and many of the so-called "lowbrow" painters, she has some real technical chops, but I find myself asking, why would a painter so skilled want to paint like this? Picasso suggested that "good taste" was a detriment to art... but the bad taste of a populist vulgarian pandering to a super-wealthy audience who imagines shock alone is a signifier of great art and originality is even worse.

To answer the bolded above...

Because the painting posted above and some other paintings by her are entrancing stories that play with our psyche. They are far more than simple vulgarities. And her paintings are not really shocking, nor are they about shock value alone. As she says, she just loads the gun. It's up to viewer to be shocked or not. There is nothing untoward going on unless one thinks that way. The shocking part is that we have to think about it. Makes us uncomfortable.

At least the female nudes in her paintings are more than just objects. They are dramatic characters and complicated. Part of some larger mystery. And importantly, they jar our psychology. I actually find the usual old timey nudes to be more sexist and vulgar and lowbrow. They are just women as objects. The women in her painting above are holding a golden orb and a collection of animals, as if the sun and the Ark. The matriarch in that painting is doing some serious bonfire work. Whatever it is. Not sure I want to know.

Rotten misogynistic core to her paintings? I don't see that at all. Seems that they are actually powerfully feminist. She asks us to confront our usual comfortable polite sexism. Her women are not just objects of desire. They are pretty scary innocent goddesses and seem to have mystical power.

I will admit that I haven't seen all her work and perhaps that criticism is valid for some of it.

You really think she is just pandering to a super-wealthy audience? I don't think so at all. And heaven forbid. Great artists of the past never did that.


I was surprised to see her paintings in a book about contemporary landscapes though.

 

[laika]

Ivan Seal (love that rearing horse!) :

 

[laika]

At least the female nudes in her paintings are more than just objects. They are dramatic characters and complicated.

Supposing they were painted by a man? Would you feel the same way? After reading the back-and-forth above, and looking at many of the paintings, I wonder how such work, if done by a male, would be received in the current thought-climate?

 

[john]

Supposing they were painted by a man? Would you feel the same way? After reading the back-and-forth above, and looking at many of the paintings, I wonder how such work, if done by a male, would be received in the current thought-climate?

Well looking at her paintings here https://www.wikiart.org/en/lisa-yus...-paintings-chronologically,resultType:masonry

I don't see much that is shocking or exploitative or would change meaning, such as it is, depending on whether a man or a woman did it. These paintings seem pretty tame to me. Maybe there are others that are different?

I must say that the bulk of them are actually pretty boring IMO. This one is perhaps one of the more shocking but also is one of the most interesting ones. And not really shocking IMO.

 

[laika]

I must say that the bulk of them are actually pretty boring IMO.

I agree with that. Maybe the sheer volume of paintings taxed her imagination. But yes, some were pretty interesting, for instance, that diptych you posted; as you mentioned, some pretty wild goings-on in that background!

I saw some on her website that were pretty explicit; kind of reminiscent of old Penthouse magazine spreads, as I think Hermes said. And a lot of them seemed to have very young faces. I think a male painter would be pilloried for a few of them.

 

[Artyczar]

I'm surprised, I thought this would be right up your alley. Why don't you like her? I must say that her work in general is a little over the top sexually charged for my tastes but that painting is more subtle and dreamlike to me.

Yuskavage came on the art scene during a period much like our own rife with "political correctness or "cancel culture". Both Yuskavage and John Currin clearly sought to give the finger to the censorship of erotic imagery in art. In this, I was on her side. But the paintings strike me as shocking merely for the sake of shock. One critic called them "visual stink bombs whose sickly sweetness masked a rotten misogynistic core." That seems to describe them well IMO. Another critic... it might have been Robert Hughes... suggested that the reminded him of nothing so much as the cheesy, sleazy illustrations from Penthouse Magazine. Like John Currin and Dana Schutz,... and many of the so-called "lowbrow" painters, she has some real technical chops, but I find myself asking, why would a painter so skilled want to paint like this? Picasso suggested that "good taste" was a detriment to art... but the bad taste of a populist vulgarian pandering to a super-wealthy audience who imagines shock alone is a signifier of great art and originality is even worse.

I didn't know you felt this way. I could have sworn I saw that you liked her once upon a time. I was never all that into her, but notice how wildly popular she'd become.

So you don't like Shutz? She is one of my favorite painters, but I would not call her lowbrow. I feel like she's in a different class or genre, and her work is powerful, but I'm no critic. I discovered her a few years after Sillman (I think they were paired in a show together), and though their work is not too similar, it's not so dissimilar either.

I never noticed Yuskavage as an "erotic" painter either. I just felt indifferent to her work. If I were to give my very honest impression of her work, I thought it was maybe technically skilled, but it felt wispy, weak, and too fantasized for my liking. That's just a personal opinion of course, and I didn't get it when a bunch of my peers were over the moon about her when there are so many other incredible painters with better and more original ideas.

 

[Artyczar]

Well looking at her paintings here https://www.wikiart.org/en/lisa-yus...-paintings-chronologically,resultType:masonry

I don't see much that is shocking or exploitative or would change meaning, such as it is, depending on whether a man or a woman did it. These paintings seem pretty tame to me. Maybe there are others that are different?

I must say that the bulk of them are actually pretty boring IMO. This one is perhaps one of the more shocking but also is one of the most interesting ones. And not really shocking IMO.

Not shocking. And it doesn't matter which gender painted it.

 

[laika]

And it doesn't matter which gender painted it.

OK, not that it matters, but below is an example of what I idly wondered out loud about regarding who could or could not paint it without negative public reaction. Notice that the face is that of a child:

 

[Artyczar]

I did not notice that. It still does not matter (to me) the gender of the person who creates these things. Sally Mann put out a photography book years ago of her kids where her girls were naked and she got a ton of shit for it. They are just standing around, totally innocent and beautiful, playing as young kids do--not posing with their legs open! You can read about it somewhere, I'm sure. People tried to ruin her career. This was before the internet days though.