just got done reading the latest review of Richard Prince's new show at gagosian. i generally like his work and his content can be quite funny. joke paintings--literally funny--and--is painting a joke? sometimes. muscle cars, cowboys from certain cig ads, sexy nurses, etc. we all know the stuff pretty well. like I said--I tend to enjoy his work. mr. prince is very successful at setting up a visual with double meaning, usually, with a great amount of irony. his work is convincing in the sense that I believe he works hard at it.
ken johnson--art critic for the NY TIMES--has had enough. he says prince's new series--the "TIffany" paintings--is utterly predictable and crushingly obvious series of canvases at Gagosian Gallery. he goes on to say, all of this seems so neatly calculated that it is hard to believe that Mr. Prince has any personal stake in trying to reconcile the sacred and the profane. If his play with the semiotics of painting, consumerism and journalism were more surprising, that wouldn’t matter, but as it is, these works feel stale.
now, i have told you how i feel about prince's previous stuff. after seeing images of the paintings on the internet i will agree with mr. johnson. i know you can't really GET UP IN IT when you are not standing in front of a painting but you get the gist. the general feel. visually the images just feel boring and used. i felt i had seen something like that before. they were very familiar.
i encourage you to read to full review. johnson is much better at being an art critic than i am. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/28/arts/design/28gagosian.html?src=twt&twt=nytimesarts. it is pretty good. mr. johnson talks some shit. i like him.
i still like mr. prince and most of his work but you cannot hit a home run every time. it is nice to see him get called out. mr. prince is a very successful artist and i am positive that whatever he does next is going to be high and tight.
idle hands are the devils plaything.
0 comments:
Post a Comment