Viewing entries in
Art

Comment

Gallery Chronicle (May 2013)

Dana Gordon, Some Talmud, 2012, oil on linen, 78" x 60"

THE NEW CRITERION
May 2013

Gallery Chronicle
by James Panero

On “Dana Gordon & John Mendelsohn: New Paintings” at Sideshow Gallery, Brooklyn, “Jane Freilicher: Painter Among Poets” at Tibor de Nagy Gallery, “Fedele Spadafora: New Paintings” at Slag Gallery, Brooklyn, and “John Dubrow: Recent Work” at Lori Bookstein Fine Art.

We live in an age that could use a few more heroes. Artists who pursue beauty regardless of the recognition they receive are heroes of a certain stripe. Of course, most serious artists fit this bill to one extent or another. Public appreciation rarely matches the effort that goes into what they make. Disbelief, even contempt, comes more often than praise. Just about any other form of labor offers an easier road to acceptance.

Yet even within this definition, there are those artists who receive fewer rewards than most. Over years and decades, they brush and hammer away without getting any of those commonly accepted tokens of artistic worth, be it a show, a review, or a sale.

What most impresses me about such artists is how the absence of these measures rarely reduces the quality of what they do. Often, the very lack of recognition clarifies and energizes the work. Their art becomes their reward. Freed from the requirements to please others, they create art that must be pleasing only to themselves.

Dana Gordon is an abstract painter who has developed along such lines. Over the years, I have seen him paint away in his home studios with little to show for it but the work on the walls. All the while, he has been slowly boiling down and reducing his homemade stock of shapes and colors. His process has been focused and determined, with a confidence in what comes next and a sense that things were going according to plan, even if he might not know how it would end up or just where it would all lead.


Dana Gordon, 
Night, 2013, oil on linen, 60" x 78"

Gordon’s arrival in Williamsburg, Brooklyn, with a front-room exhibition at Sideshow Gallery, is therefore both a noteworthy event and a long time in coming.1 The show opens at just the right moment. The paintings, variations on a theme Gordon has been mining for decades, have reached a vein of coloristic brilliance that calls out to be seen.

On top of a grid of colored tiles, Gordon lays down a free-form shape. Where the shape crosses a tile, the color appears to shift. Through this simple idiom, Gordon explores the underlying vocabulary of abstraction. He looks for the tension between the shape and the grid. Figure and ground, pattern and gesture, texture and form are all at play. The choices he makes are not so much programmatic as felt.

The amoeba-like form is free-handed and, in its scale, often relates to the dimensions of the body. A purple square turns green in one place but pink in another. A red one could go blue, yellow, or orange. The texture of the paint changes, with some spots left as thick pools of color while others are whipped and brushy. At each square, little paintings in themselves, Gordon determines how much of the shape comes forward or dissolves into the quilted pattern.


John Mendelsohn, 
Benefaction (detail), 2013, acrylic on canvas, 50" x 34"

As the exhibition follows Gordon’s development from 2009 to the present, one can see a progression from larger grids and frontal shapes to increasingly complex compositions. One of the most recent paintings, Some Talmud (2013), by the gallery entrance, features the tightest grid. Night(2013) dims the lights while also introducing a noticeable border to the grid, which forms a sort of compositional frame.

For me, the best painting is the large untitled one from 2012 at the entry to the back room—like Talmud, five feet wide and six and a half feet tall. Here the balancing act is near perfect. As we look to make sense of its shapes and colors, the painting shimmers between puzzlement and resolution—an Orphic kaleidoscope that demonstrates how Gordon’s long journey was worth the trip and how fortunate we are to see what has come of it.

Richard Timperio, the artist-owner of Sideshow, has wisely paired Gordon with finely crafted new paintings and works on paper by John Mendelsohn, which appear in the back room. With paint combed through with a white medium of pumice, Mendelsohn’s compositions convey an organic, pastoral calm. What appear as folds of wheat or drops of rain are, up close, refractions of color and stripes of paint. Sometimes Mendelsohn’s innovative paint handling takes over, and his work comes off as overly decorative. More often, he introduces just the right amount of unexpected color to give this two-person exhibition its wonder.

The challenge of a contextual exhibition such as “Jane Freilicher: Painter Among Poets” is just how the context should inform the art on view.2 The poets here are the New York School writers John Ashbery, Kenneth Koch, Frank O’Hara, and James Schuyler—a circle that included Freilicher as a painter-in-residence starting in the late 1940s. In the case of Ashbery (born in 1927) and Freilicher (born in 1924), surviving members of the circle, this includes a friendship that continues to the present day.

Through correspondence, some of it collected along with books and manuscripts in display cases, we see how much the poets relied on Freilicher’s advice and friendship. O’Hara wrote a series of “Jane poems” with her name woven into the titles. For her part, Freilicher frequently portrayed the writers in her paintings. The exhibition includes her portraits of Ashbery (ca. 1954 and ca. 1968), Koch (ca. 1966), Schuyler (ca. 1965), and O’Hara (ca. 1951 and ca. 1967). (She once wondered if O’Hara’s “attractiveness was one of the reasons so many painters enjoyed knowing him.”)


Jane Freilicher, 
Portrait of Kenneth Koch, c.1966, oil on linen, 30 x 40 inches

No other gallery but Tibor de Nagy could mine this territory so expertly. The gallery mounted its first exhibition of Freilicher’s work in 1952. The gallery’s namesake, along with John Myers, De Nagy’s gallery partner from 1951 to 1970, was part of this same large circle of painters and poets. The exhibition also includes a hundred-page catalogue with an extensive essay by Jenni Quilter, an academic who has focused on the New York School poets and their connections with visual artists.

The exhibition steers clear of drawing too easy a connection between the visual and written work. “My poet friends didn’t influence me directly,” Freilicher explains through the catalogue. She “followed her own path,” says Ashbery, “with stops along the way to take in Bonnard, Balthus, Watteau, and even, unless I’m mistaken, Hofmann himself.” “Like a shout across a body of water,” writes Quilter, “we cannot trace these echoes back to their source, and nor would we really want to.”

The cross-connections are more about tone than substance. Freilicher identifies a shared “sympathetic vibration, a natural syntax—a lack of pomposity or heavy symbolism—and something to do with intimism, an intimate kind of expression.” Quilter writes of their “gracious existence composed of the pleasures of the good life: beautiful things, fine food, excellent company.”

This lightness and intimacy that Freilicher brought to the circle becomes clear early on. Her appearance in two sketch comedies filmed by Rudy Burckhardt in the early 1950s, screened in the gallery’s back room, demonstrates how, as a serious artist, she still never took herself too seriously. Her style was clearly different from New York’s hardboiled abstract painters of the 1940s; such machismo, she said, was “not terribly interesting” to her. Reviewing her 1952 exhibition at Tibor de Nagy, Fairfield Porter wrote how Freilicher was “trying to rediscover first principles. Her painting is traditional and radical.”


Jane Freilicher, 
Study in Blue and Gray, 2011, oil on linen, 24 x 24 inches

In her intimate work, Freilicher was unafraid of small statements. “A can of coffee, a 35¢ ear/ ring, a handful of hair, what/ do these things do to us?” wrote O’Hara in his “Interior (with Jane)” in 1951. Freilicher’s paintings have always “lacked that authoritarian look, public-spirited and public-addressed, stamped on so much postwar work like a purple ‘OK to Eat’ on a rump of beef,” Schuyler colorfully concluded. Instead, Freilicher finds greatness in vignettes—in Long Island landscapes, and in glimpses from her studio overlooking the rooftops around New York’s Union Square. As the window on a circle of poets, she also offers a view that is equally inviting.

Fedele Spadafora is a realist who brings a modern sensibility to classical training. A former student of Nelson Shanks and his Studio Incamminati, Spadafora uses the tools of realism to explore the modern landscape.

The transmission of both television and memory—and the qualities they share—are recurring themes in his work. Recently, Spadafora painted a series of portraits of Ian Curtis, the tragic hero of punk rock, as though appearing in the degraded off-color image of a videotape.


Fedele Spadafora, 
Prague, 2013, 26 x 18 in, oil on canvas

For his exhibition of new paintings at Slag, a gallery now in the 56 Bogart Street building of Bushwick, Spadafora revisited trips he made through Prague and Tunisia.3 The Tunis paintings, with their blue skies, white fireballs, and orange bridges, bring too much to the canvas. Here memory comes off as a muddle. Far more successful are the paintings based on old snapshots from Prague, where he lived just after the fall of Communism.

The Žižkov Television Tower, a monument to the high-tech authoritarianism of the former regime, appears in several works. In each painting, the tower is bathed in cobalt blue, as though irradiated in microwave signals. This is Spadafora at his best, with a realism zapped with the realities of technology and its role in how we remember the lives we lead.

Walking through the exhibition of the recent work of John Dubrow, I couldn’t help but notice two old columns cutting through the middle of his Chelsea gallery.4 Compared to the pristine white box walls of the space, the fluted columns were coated in layers of paint, some of it splattered and much of it trowelled on through what must have been the long and varied history of an old dockland building.


John Dubrow, 
Central Park, 2011-13, Oil on linen, 20" x 24"

My guess is that Lori Bookstein Fine Art chose to leave these columns in their roughed-up shape for the same reason that I find Dubrow’s cityscapes so beguiling. Beneath the surface, peeking through in layers of paint, is the mystery of what came before.

Dubrow builds up his paint, often over years, to the point where his canvases appear to bend from the weight of their own creation. He applies oils with the knife and returns to his compositions repeatedly to move his cast of characters around the streets, playgrounds, and parks they inhabit. The accretion speaks to the process of painting and animates the work. These canvases have a history.


John Dubrow, Hudson River Park, 2012-13, Oil on linen, 30" x 40"

Dubrow’s paintings are worked over but not overworked. Rather than correct all of their imperfections, he leaves his paintings with a raw intensity. This is especially true in Hudson River Park (2012–13), where one can clearly see how the figures have been revised and shifted. Central Park (2011–2013) dissolves into a Pointillist riot the closer one gets. These paintings are landscapes in relief. A third dimension of paint gives meaning to the other two and completes the work, just as the images are left undone.

1 “Dana Gordon & John Mendelsohn: New Paintings” opened at Sideshow Gallery, Brooklyn, on April 13 and remains on view through May 12, 2013.

2 “Jane Freilicher: Painter Among Poets” opened at Tibor de Nagy Gallery, New York, on April 13 and remains on view through June 14, 2013.

3 “Fedele Spadafora: New Paintings” was on view at Slag Gallery, Brooklyn, from March 22 through April 18, 2013.

4 “John Dubrow: Recent Work” was on view at Lori Bookstein Fine Art, New York, from March 21 through April 20, 2013.

Comment

1 Comment

Copycat Quandary

Safe_image
Edward C. Banfield

THE NEW CRITERION
April 2013

To the Editors:

James Panero writes in “The Culture of the Copy” (The New Criterion, January 2013) that my college professor Ed Banfield suggested museums sell their original works and replace them with passable facsimiles—a suggestion for which your founder Hilton Kramer criticized him. This gives the wrong impression. Ed thought many second-rate museums felt they had to purchase only original works, and, due to their very limited budgets, they could only afford second-rate art originals. As a result, museumgoers in smaller cities did not have the opportunity to view first-rate art. He thought that the Rockefellers and others had created copies of well-known works which were indistinguishable from the originals and which sold for relatively modest prices. Therefore, why not allow smaller, less wealthy museums to purchase these copies so their publics could view first-rate rather than second-rate art? It sounded reasonable to me when Ed proposed it, and it sounds reasonable to me now. I am at a loss to understand why the art community so violently objects to this.

Robert L. Freedman, Esq.
Philadelphia

 

2885065_f520

James Panero replies:

The use of copies has an important place in the history of art. This is true especially when access to original artwork has been limited. Up through the first half of the twentieth century, plaster casts made from original sculptures were used widely as study aids in museums and art academies. By mid-century, however, these casts were removed from view. In part, American museums had by then come into possession of more original work. But I would also argue that copies came to be overly devalued in relation to originals, and this was unfortunate. I am glad to hear that the Metropolitan Museum now lends its plaster cast collection out to universities here and abroad. The art museum at Fairfield University in Connecticut, for example, currently displays several Met casts on long-term loan.

In other words, the idea of us allowing “smaller, less wealthy museums” to display copies “so their publics could view first-rate rather than second-rate art” was around long before Professor Banfield made his proposal concerning art copies in the early 1980s. One could say that art-library slide collections, and before that magic lantern projections, were all copies used in much the same way as those plaster casts. The same goes today for the high resolution digital scans available through initiatives such as Google Art Project.

In all of these cases, copies serve as necessary substitutes. Their availability has been widely beneficial to a public that might not otherwise have access to great works of art. And even when originals are available, reproductions have a place, because they don’t keep museum hours, and it’s not always possible to lecture about art in a gallery setting.

If Professor Banfield had suggested only that second-rate museums use their limited resources to purchase copies, as Freedman suggests, I agree that would have sounded reasonable. But Banfield suggested much more in his proposal, and the art community was right to object to it.

“I go further,” Banfield wrote in 1982, “Why should public museums not substitute reproductions for originals?” Kramer was therefore correct in giving the impression that Banfield advocated the wholesale deaccessioning, or selling off, of museum collections to fulfill his vision. Banfield’s arguments for this were esoteric at best, nonsensical at worst, but had something to do with a desire to see the “multibillion-dollar art business . . . fall into an acute and permanent recession.” Whatever the reasoning, it was an unreasonable and vastly destructive idea when Banfield proposed it. It remains so today in ideas such as the “Central Library Plan,” a proposal to remove the books and gut the stacks at the main branch of the New York Public Library, which I mention in my essay.

At the heart of these ideas is both a contempt for the art-going, book-reading public and the elitist sense that they either don’t deserve or cannot appreciate the real thing. “It would not be unduly cynical,” Banfield wrote in 1982, “to say that many of the thousands who stood in line for a ten-second look at ‘Aristotle Contemplating the Bust of Homer,’ after the Metropolitan Museum paid $6 million to acquire it, would as willingly have stood to see the $6 million in cash.” Sorry, but to make such a statement is about as cynical as you can get.

1 Comment

1 Comment

An Awful Rainbow

DSC_0920

Paul Behnke with d'Artagnan (2013, Acrylic on canvas, 48 x 50 in).
All studio photographs by James Panero

CATALOGUE ESSAY

Paul Behnke: An Awful Rainbow
by James Panero

Kathryn Markel Fine Arts, New York.
April 18 through May 18, 2013

Paul Behnke is a painter of layers. He paints less in strokes than in slicks. In the studio he uses spatulas, sticks, brushes, and rags to build up, scrape back, rebuild, dig out, and pull up his acrylics to the point where there is no front or back, top or bottom, figure or ground. His contentious colors conceal as they reveal, add as they subtract, draw as they erase.

Blue- Green Bow Street_sm

Paul Behnke, Blue-Green Bow Street (2013 Acrylic on canvas, 48 x 50 in)

“I like that jostling, jockeying for position. It gives an anxious feeling, a push and pull,” he tells me as we survey his latest work in the studio.

His paintings, all square, act more like descriptions than depictions. They are not horizontal like landscapes or vertical like portraits. They are real things as much as the images of things.

DSC_0918

Paul Behnke with A Pink Grotto Near the Bay of Naples (2013, Acrylic on canvas, 48 x 50 in)

“I like the square because it isn’t a strong image,” he says. “In my high school I used a large-format camera. I got used to composing in that square. I want them to be like objects and I want them to be non-objective.”

What results are layered objects of sedimentary colors. They mean what they are. They become what we make them. Their final layer is the meaning we apply.

But while their future is open, these paintings have a past. Their layers speak of the processes that made them. Their paint tells of the artist behind them.

DSC_0894

“My paintings are very process oriented,” Behnke explains. “I want, whatever happens, for me to react to that. Painting. Scraping down. Just alternating back and forth. I’m trying to achieve a coherent painting in the end, but you can’t think too much while you’re painting. Then I’ll sit down and think about it, about what I want to do next. It’s like solving a puzzle.”

DSC_0905

Behnke’s work connects with the studio practices now coming out of the alternative scene of New York’s outer boroughs, where he continues to paint. He has been tapping into the intensifying energy of Bushwick, Brooklyn and Ridgewood, Queens since he first moved here as an artist pioneer in 1999.

Drop a pebble in water and its energy ripples out from the center to the margins. So it has been for New York’s peripheral communities. As artists have been pushed out of Manhattan, once marginal neighborhoods have risen up to become new centers of activity and innovation.

The greatest centers for art have often developed along such margins. Montmartre and Montparnasse, the two neighborhoods that fueled the studios of Paris’s modern masters, were the north and south poles around which that city once spun, tied together by the Nord-Sud Metro line, which opened just after the turn of the last century. A century later, Bushwick has developed as the leading edge of New York eastern momentum, as artists have moved from the East Village to Williamsburg on out through the L line. With cheap rents and expansive spaces, Bushwick has evolved as an artistic center almost entirely apart from mainstream New York, with a culture that has embraced studio experimentation, do-it-yourself independence, and communal interaction.

DSC_0884

The view from Behnke's studio

“It was certainly a culture shock for me,” says the Tennessee native of his early days in the neighborhood. “I came up here and it was, like, literally, every night there were cars on fire. There were packs of dogs wandering the streets. We lived in this building on White Street—9 White Street, between the Morgan Stop and Bushwick Avenue—and almost everyone living there was mugged. The first time we came to look at the place, my wife had just come off from her job and was wearing her work clothes, and the driver who drove us to the address looked at us and said, what are you doing here? But it was 1,000 square feet. It was cheap. I was just off from school.”

For influence Behnke says he looks to the German Expressionists, to the Fauves, to Hans Hofmann, to the Neo Expressionists of the 1980s, and to the British abstractionists of the 1960s--John Hoyland, Sandra Blow, Albert Irvin and Roger Hilton, among others.

A Kind of Grail_sm

Paul Behnke, A Kind of Grail (2012, Acrylic on canvas, 48 x 50 in)

The old roughness of Bushwick, an industrial landscape now far more gentrified than a decade ago, combines with these influences to give this work its particular feel. Behnke’s use of charged acrylic colors, straight from the jar, quick and provisional, with splatters and runs, reflects the neighborhood’s unsentimental spirit and its embrace of imperfection.

Sleepwalker_sm

Paul Behnke, Sleepwalker (2012, Acrylic on canvas, 48 x 50 in)

“If I need a hammer,” he says, “I would not make one by hand if I already had one in my tool box. I feel the same way about color. The purity and artificiality of the color will inevitably be dulled by mixing. The color will lose its impact. I take what comes to hand and use it in any way that will facilitate spontaneity, intuition, and recklessness.”

IMAG0346

Flushing Avenue

His search for edge may be one reason why Behnke has continued to move farther afield. The studio where we meet, north of Bushwick in the warehouse district of Ridgewood, is a solid walk from the closest subway stop and up a windblown corridor of Flushing Avenue. A railroad line cuts through the block. A tributary of Newtown Creek, known as the East Branch, begins a few buildings further on. Now a stagnant, poisonous canal, the East Branch once served as open drainage for the neighborhood’s defunct industry. Fifteen feet of pollutants, popularly known as “black mayonnaise,” have now silted up along the banks.

The Columbic_sm

Paul Behnke, Columbic (2013, Acrylic on canvas, 48 x 50 in)

Behnke’s layers of colors reflect the peeling, painted-over, derelict quality of this environment and its walk-up studios. Buried marks appear along the edges of the paintings, between layers, and in the open spaces of the slicks. There is the pink and black behind Fleet and Green, the cursive edges around the squares of Blue-Green Bow Street, the greens in A Pink Grotto Near the Bay of Naples, the unpainted gap in the center of Sleepwalker.

Glory of Glories_sm

Paul Behnke, Glory of Glories (2013, Acrylic on canvas, 50 x 48 in)

At the same time, the bright colors of Behnke’s palette pick up the sunlight and sky of Bushwick’s open streets. They radiate the post-punk optimism that seems to permeate this community. The title of the show, “An Awful Rainbow,” which comes from a line of Keats’s poem “Lamia,” speaks to this dual position. These paintings have a terrifying beauty.

DSC_0898

Behnke is a close observer of the scene around him and engaged in supporting its alternative networks. His blog, Structure and Imagery, offers profiles of local artists and serves as a valuable record of the neighborhood’s studio culture. I have particularly benefited from his photo essays of artists at work. As an important counterpoint to his painting, the blog keeps Behnke’s eyes open and reveals his great sensitivity to the innovations around him.

Fleet and Green_sm (1)

Paul Behnke, Fleet and Green (2013, Acrylic on canvas, 48 x 50 in)

The project goes hand in hand with the boldness of these abstractions. Both demonstrate an artistic energy that is inspirational and inspired. Layers upon layers, layered on layers, the influences come together in the layers of Behnke’s paint.

DSC_0923

.

1 Comment