Comments on: MYARTSPACE Interviews Saul Chernick

By: Donald Frazell

Donald Frazell — Tue, 14 Oct 2008 21:50:50 +0000

Hit a spot, didnt I?

By: Jesse Patrick Martin

Jesse Patrick Martin — Tue, 14 Oct 2008 21:39:15 +0000

And what better to counter such rampant “MEism” than a self-righteous, rambling, worldview polemic? Though the cynic in me agrees with you, like, 300% or so.

By: Brian Sherwin @ Myartspace Blog

Brian Sherwin @ Myartspace Blog — Tue, 14 Oct 2008 20:38:41 +0000

Thanks Paddy! I would have responded sooner, but I was busy observing marriage ceremonies and all that jazz over the weekend.

By: Donald Frazell

Donald Frazell — Tue, 14 Oct 2008 20:12:46 +0000

Who cares whose hip and who isnt? Gerome and Meisonnier and many others were the Hirst and Emin(em) of their time. And look where they ended up. Creative art is outside of time, universal, and about Gauguins cry. Who are WE, where are WE going? How will WE get there? Not I. Eveyone, every single last post modern, contemporary or whatever you call it has been consumed by ME. Guess what? No one outside the art world gives a shit.

And why it needs to go. Now. Their time of raping the earth of its bounties is over. Back to WE. Its really simple. But art school types will come up with myriad versions of MEism to avoid confronting the truth. Art sucks over the last forty years, and its their fault. Because no one will say no to the children. No one will take responsibility. What is going on in Washington and Wall street and Main street is Arts fault as much as the economic rapists. After all, who are YOUR benefactors? YOUR patrons? YOUR market? YOUR subjects? YOUR perversions? More often than not, YOUR parents.

J’accuse

By: Jill

Jill — Tue, 14 Oct 2008 17:07:16 +0000

I can admire the depth that Donald Frazell attempts to convey, but the practice of art does not rest on the dichotomy of right/wrong. It’s more about what works and at what time; about what people are longing to see and when. There have been many points in time in when contemporary artists bring back elements that have appeared earlier in the history of visual art. But that’s not a taboo. However, I also believe that Donald Frazell is entitled to his opinion so while I don’t agree with it, I think it’s a valid element to the many dialogues on contemporary art. It would, however, be more interesting if Frazell could be a little more clear in his explication.

By: Jesse Patrick Martin

Jesse Patrick Martin — Tue, 14 Oct 2008 02:27:28 +0000

To Jill’s point, I just saw the Dant show and definitely see similarities between his work and Saul’s (though Saul’s work seems more preoccupied with decoration and surface, hence the elaborate mark-making and significance of the flatscreen).

I also think that the Durer show at the MoBIA was one of the best NYC exhibits I’ve seen in some time, which reinforces why I find Saul’s anachronistic style so appealing. Then again, “anachronistic” doesn’t quite feel like the right word, since he’s definitely tapping into something both contemporary and–dare I say it?–timeless with his drawing. But that kind of praise really is anachronistic these days…

By: Donald Frazell

Donald Frazell — Mon, 13 Oct 2008 22:22:55 +0000

Its actualy kinda intersting, just dont see any merit to the arguments he makes. Who said artists had to make sense?

By: Donald Frazell

Donald Frazell — Mon, 13 Oct 2008 22:21:49 +0000

Waht do you mean? Look at any Japanese art and Cezannes landscapes, and you see this used frequently. What DO they teach in art school these days?

And who cares about dimensions? It matter within each piece of art, as in modern art the borders are reinvorced, and rhythms created in space. His is simple composition, abd while mildly important in creating each work, over all and to the viewer it is meaningless. HE must provide evidence, or is a flat earth Statement. It is up to the person making their case to document and suppport it. What he states does not equate. The dimensions are different than woodblock prints, mostly, but bet I CAN find many similar. Just dont have the time, he is making a blanket statement, as I believe I have many my mother bought with very similar dimensions. Just not as a standard. So what?

And really, why would it matter? Besides, wide screen TVs are NOT those dimensions, Movie theater screens much wider. Still, irrelevant.

By: Jill

Jill — Mon, 13 Oct 2008 20:57:04 +0000

It might be hard for others to grasp Saul’s work due to the fact that the crux of it really lies in the time-consuming technique of making marks to assemble beautifully elaborate drawings. Adam Dant’s work, currently on view at Pierogi Gallery, reflects a similar fascination with the mark and how it can be used to create very surrealistic imagery.

By: Art Fag City

Art Fag City — Mon, 13 Oct 2008 18:57:29 +0000

Donald: You need to provide links for the examples your citing because your comments don’t mean anything without them. Also, you need to provide rationale for why you think work isn’t relevant if you’re going to make that claim. Finally, Chernick tells you exactly why the TV dimensions are important so just because you’re not interested in it, doesn’t mean the distinction between old master and contemporary composition is irrelevant. It directly affects how a picture looks, which is something that is discussed with regularity here.