Thinking about Figure Painting

I have been thinking about figure painting, and representational painting in general.

I think the key to making good painting does not have that much to do with producing a likeness, facile likenesses are the straightest route to boring painting.

I think that the point when representational painting becomes interesting is when the image is a reconstruction of the parts that make up the image, with signs of intelligence running along within the decisions of how the parts are represented. For instance when someone who has been drawing for 5 years learns to draw a very good likeness it is really exciting to them, but in 5 more years it has become tedious and a new solution is necessary. That is when things tend to get really engaging, the pulling apart and putting back together, and being able to "say something" with an image. The evidence of thoughtfulness, and the wizardry behind making an image force things on someone else's perception becomes exciting again.

I have been drawing a lot, and have found interesting things to read lately. The Believer has a phenomenally good article about Aby Warburg that really got my mind working overtime. I am also reading a few other books.

Working in Brooklyn is very interesting and I like going into the corner stores, last Friday I found one where I can get a buttered roll and a tea with sugar for $1.50, that's my kind of price - I can carry that in quarters, and my pocket won't even be heavy.

Dan Attoe emailed me a painting of bikers around a campfire that is completely amazing. Here it is:

Mark Ryden

I do not know how to feel about Mark Ryden.

On one hand I feel guilty enjoying the simplicity of his references, like Jesus, Buddhist Symbols, meat, anthropomorphic pumpkin men, and Christina Ricci. There is something cliched about the references.





But upon writing that, I do not think those things are so simple.

I have never laughed at British silliness, endless jokes about cheese are tedious. But, jokes about bodily functions are endlessly amusing, and Shakespeare and South Park rank about the same for humor. Who knows. I read in a catalog of Sigmar Polke drawings that people use the language of the things they control, so when people curse they are referring to the fact that they only control their own bodies. Most curses are bodily references.

I do like the level of painterly craftsmanship, something which I feel guilty about too. Going into the Chelsea galleries reinforces my feelings, because most of the paintings are painted really crummily, but the artists seem really smart. I guess, for this theory to work, you have to accept that Chelsea galleries are the center of contemporary art in the US, which is probably less and less true everyday. 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 was reading the most recent issue of The Believer, which incidentally came with some cool temporary tattoos, and the opening article is about the nature of cuteness. Pretty interesting, and while I was reading it I was thinking about Mark Ryden and his host of imitators that populate the magazines Juxtapoz and Hi Fructose. Knowing these artists informed my reading of the article, and helped me enjoy it, and compare some of the theories presented, one theory they present is the specific physical features that make something cute, and I enjoyed comparing what they were saying to the paintings of Mark Ryden.

In favor of Mark Ryden I think his images are unavoidably compelling, they can hold my unthinking mind for a long time. I have been giving more and more importance to images which hold my unthinking or nonverbal mind. The paintings are mesmerizing, and they use space well, they have complex compositions, the figures are, well, cute too.

In a way I think the case can be made that the paintings of Mark Ryden function on the same level as the paintings of Neo Rauch. Although for some reason it is easy to take Neo Rauch seriously and hard to take Mark Ryden seriously. They both use contemporary graphic culture, Neo Rauch uses one from Leipzig, and Mark Ryden uses one from California, and maybe that is the biggest difference. Their artist statements are similar, they both talk about referencing their unconscious mind in an uncritical way, and how composing those thoughts are central to their practice.

Check out the Ink Stained Hands bookstore, click here.