New Dumb Little Painting Timeline
1978
"'Bad' Painting" at the New Museum: Neil Jenney, Joan Brown, etc.
1980s
George Condo (right, a painting from 2002), Martin Kippenberger
Early 1990s
John Currin (Moved Over Lady, as opposed to the "hanging out in the Met a lot" stuff he's doing now) |
|  |
 | Mid to Late 1990s
Laura Owens (don't really like her work, but many curators seem to; also, it isn't little, but it is dumb, I guess), Karen Kilimnick (should have been at MOMA with Currin and Tuymans instead of you-know-who)
2000s
Dana Schutz (also not little, and it's debatable how dumb it is), Brian Calvin (left), Ezra Johnson, Emily Miranda, Holly Coulis, Jeffrey Lutonsky |
|
Dana Shutz makes very complex images that are--in one glance--dumb, but the bits--the Goya, and symbolist imagery, brought into focus within the tragic, the register of a 21 century bite--are deeper than an 'intent-for-all-purpose' expression of dumb--they register the profound.
However, the images remain in the byte of a picture image, thus remain, picture, canvas, and tradition--and there is nothing dumb in that--nor adventuresome.
They are paintings--that ultimately, even though pushing rigorously all the above buttons--do not ask, or are not intended to question, and, in this way, despite all the visual intelligence Shutz' images assure that we the witness on the outside--bearing a husk holding a glory of a bygone.
thats dumb!
|
1978
"'Bad' Painting" at the New Museum: Neil Jenney, Joan Brown, etc.
1980s
George Condo (right, a painting from 2002), Martin Kippenberger
Early 1990s
John Currin (Moved Over Lady, as opposed to the "hanging out in the Met a lot" stuff he's doing now)
Laura Owens (don't really like her work, but many curators seem to; also, it isn't little, but it is dumb, I guess), Karen Kilimnick (should have been at MOMA with Currin and Tuymans instead of you-know-who)
2000s
Dana Schutz (also not little, and it's debatable how dumb it is), Brian Calvin (left), Ezra Johnson, Emily Miranda, Holly Coulis, Jeffrey Lutonsky
- tom moody 9-29-2004 4:54 am
Dana Shutz makes very complex images that are--in one glance--dumb, but the bits--the Goya, and symbolist imagery, brought into focus within the tragic, the register of a 21 century bite--are deeper than an 'intent-for-all-purpose' expression of dumb--they register the profound.
However, the images remain in the byte of a picture image, thus remain, picture, canvas, and tradition--and there is nothing dumb in that--nor adventuresome.
They are paintings--that ultimately, even though pushing rigorously all the above buttons--do not ask, or are not intended to question, and, in this way, despite all the visual intelligence Shutz' images assure that we the witness on the outside--bearing a husk holding a glory of a bygone.
- anonymous (guest) 9-29-2004 5:33 pm
thats dumb!
- anonymous (guest) 6-12-2007 8:26 am