Comments on Ink Stained Hands: Mark Ryden

No, I would not think he was fibbing, but how he w...

2007-12-16T00:07:00.000-05:00

No, I would not think he was fibbing, but how he would justify his work to me, and how he justifies it to his friends are, I am guessing, two very different things.

I mean it is obvious that Kahrs is into Richter paintings. His paintings and Richter paintings look the same, even the way he applies the paint is similar. I think he would admit some fascination with Richter in private, in public is another thing.

This is interesting, because there is a distinction being made between a few more things then I initially thought about. Thanks for asking me about it.

Now the disctinctions are being made between gallerist, and artist in studio, and artist in public.

I think studio practice is normally idiosyncratic, but you make an interesting point about the artists trending towards more strategy when producing work. I generally discount the value of calculated stratgey for an artist, and I think I am validated by the hundreds of very smart professors all over the world who started off making great work and the more the know the less work they make, and the more stilted the work is. There are occassionally people like Bridget Riley (sic?) and Mike Kelley who make work with a very directed thesis/mind, but notice that Bridget Riley announces the death of painting, and Mike Kelley makes work meant to put people off his work - abject art. I think strategy on the part of the artist may be an illusion, at least for the compelling artists, because creativity and calculated strategy are at odds with each other.

yes....though, i think more and more artists do sp...

2007-12-15T21:03:00.000-05:00

yes....though, i think more and more artists do spend more time strategizing. the contemporary art world seems to glorify ideas like "identity politics" as you are suggesting, and because of this the artist is forced to consider the context and overarching themes in the work prior to putting it out there in an effort to secure their place in the market.
i wonder if Kahrs would say that he was simply emulating an art hero... if he were to say that he was , in fact, only considering the political/ implications while making the painting, would you think he was fibbing? ha. just curious?

Hi, sure I can say some more about that comment. ...

2007-12-15T01:08:00.000-05:00

Hi, sure I can say some more about that comment.

When I talk to artists who are sucessful they tend to spend a lot of time in the studio, they have a sustainable art practice, based on some kind of process they either like to do or are good at for other reasons. The making of the work usually is very personal, idosyncratic activity.

If you accept the above statement, then you must consider that meta-statements about an artwork are not conceived during the creation of the work, but before or after, and tend to justify or rationalize the end product, and sometimes to justify the process as well.

This means that the line you hear in a gallery is a calculated rationalization of an irrational/idosyncratic act or behavior/process.

For instance, when I saw the last show up at Luhring Augustine, called Portraits, there was a painting by Johannes Kahrs that looked like a painting I have seen other people make, namely Gerhard Richter and Luc Tuymens, but when I asked about the painting I got a speil about identity politics (which is ironic). Do you think someone who makes a painting that pretty easily and clearly links themselves with a major figure like Richter was thinking about identity politics? No, he was enjoying himself emulating an art hero, and it is probably that simple.

(Johannes Kahrs painting kicked ass visually.)

Mark Ryden does not seem to deal with art theory, but reading the recent issue of The Believer made me respect his thought process more. There are definately some decisions of exquisite calculation that are probably meant to gratify his (base) desires. Some of the most famous artists have engaged their art with motivation, Balthus is the quickest and easiest example.

So I think artists have to have a reason besides the BIG PICTURE to make work, there is something personal driving them. Galleries tend to sanitize, editorialize, justify, and in other ways strategize and present the work in the strongest possible way. Which is a skill set independant of what the artist does.

I hope that answers the question a little.

hi, bill...can you elaborate on your comment "I am...

2007-12-14T19:59:00.000-05:00

hi, bill...can you elaborate on your comment "I am also suspicious that the gallerists might be the smart ones, and the painters are more like demiurges, pushing their unbridled desires out. Which is the opposite of calculation, strategy, and smartness." i think that sometimes, too and am interested in hearing more about what you have to say on the subject.