How Many Lightbulbs Does This Network Need?

by Art Fag City on May 4, 2010 · 77 comments Posting Notice

POST BY PADDY JOHNSON

Amy Sillman, Shade, 2010, Oil on canvas, 90 x 84 inches

“Simply to hang a painting on the wall and say that it's art is dreadful. The whole network is important! Even spaghettini . . . . When you say art, then everything possible belongs to it. In a gallery that is also the floor, the architecture, the color of the walls.” Martin Kippenberger quoted in the David Joselt essay for October Painting Beside Itself

“How does painting belong to a network?” asks David Joselt in his essay Painting Beside Itself. The paper was brought to my attention by commentor SS in Thursday’s comment thread on Amy Sillman and the death of painting, and has particular relevance to her show at Sikkema Jenkins, as the exhibition’s success rests in whether it can be situated within said network. In other words, the show would not work without all of its many components, the zine, the poster “Some Problems in Philosophy”,  the CD, the drawings and the paintings. How much of each is needed to provide balance however, is up for debate.

The question Sillman seeks to tackle with these drawings and the show as a whole, is how to create work that integrates thinking, feeling, speaking and acting.  The light bulb is identified as a marker of both ideas and new technology, its advent coinciding and perhaps even engendering the death of painting. Artist and AFC commenter Jesse P. Martin sees the paintings “as a necessary part of giving this system traction, but are now just spent leftovers hung to be sold as expensive husks to some willing consumer.” This assessment is mostly sound, though I can’t help but think the husk to cob ratio isn’t right. In this scenario the objects are inevitably sidelined for their concepts, which is precisely the opposite of what Sillman advocates. To wit, “Think & Feel! Speak & Act!” close the pictorial Train of Thought in the zine.

It bears observing that with the exception of Shade, [pictured above] a bona fide tour de force of figuration, freshness and ingenuity, the paintings in this show are mostly over worked. More annoying however is the assumption that every light bulb study *needs* to be part of the exhibition. I appreciate seeing Sillman’s process, but editing helps.

Selection problems aside, a few unexpected choices mark the show. The inclusion of an audio CD is one (full discussion here). Also, David Salle as inspiration for Amy Sillman’s paintings as indicated in her zine is not one I would have guessed (though as noted in the comments, it’s used primarily because it prominently pictures a light bulb). Salle is hardly a feminist, and judging by the zine, Sillman hardly the subservient type. In reclaiming those paintings, the artist achieves the thinking, feeling, speaking and acting she seeks while name-checking the painter most frequently cited as defining “the post-modern sensibility.” It’s a bold move and one that makes sense, as post-modernism certainly informs today’s Cyber-Everything-Culture Tom Moody describes in the previous Transformer comment thread. As flawed as each body of work is, I’ll take Sillman any day.

{ 77 comments }

Justin Simoni May 5, 2010 at 2:49 am

This sounds similar to the arguments over an sort of installation work, no? This is a few steps down from Piero Manzoni –

or am I missing a big piece?

Justin Simoni May 4, 2010 at 10:49 pm

This sounds similar to the arguments over an sort of installation work, no? This is a few steps down from Piero Manzoni –

or am I missing a big piece?

Jesse P. Martin May 5, 2010 at 5:30 am

The closing page of Sillman’s zine’s liner notes suggest that she isn’t advocating a hierarchy of object over subject (husk over cob), but rather that we consider them as one and the same:

“The O-G stands for OBJECT-GEGENSTAND… ‘Gegenstand’ is the German word for OBJECT but also means SUBJECT — which blows my mind!” (Sillman)

The Salle painting she includes in “The O-G” appears to have been selected for the same reason that most of the other images were: it features light bulbs in its composition. That Salle’s work is emphatically anti-feminist is all the better for Sillman, since she’s absorbed his deadpan, “reified” phalli into the matrices of her “transformer” to be redistributed, remixed, and re-membered through manifold conduits. The back (and cover?) of “The O-G” sports a tweaked, shopped, and otherwise recontextualized Salle bulb represented as the “idea” pictogram. Sillman pwned Salle (or grabbed his source-imagery).

For those who are still enjoying kicking this dead horse, Joselit’s essay does offer insight, and not only because he mentions Sillman. I didn’t like her paintings, and her scattershot approach comes close to feeling like catch-all gimmickry. But it’s foolish for me not to recognize that all of this bother and blather hasn’t “moved” her work, and maybe that’s why it’s sometimes alright to “bestow” credence to buzzwords like “transitive painting” to works that have earned their blessings:

“The problem with the term ‘reification’ is that it connotes the permanent arrest of an object’s circulation within a network: it is halted, paid for, put on a wall, or sent to storage, therefore permanently crystallizing a particular social relation. Transitive painting, on the other hand, invents forms and structures whose purpose is to demonstrate that once an object enters a network, it can never be fully stilled, but only subjected to different material states and speeds of circulation ranging from the geologically slow (cold storage) to the infinitely fast.” (Joselit)

Jesse P. Martin May 5, 2010 at 5:30 am

The closing page of Sillman’s zine’s liner notes suggest that she isn’t advocating a hierarchy of object over subject (husk over cob), but rather that we consider them as one and the same:

“The O-G stands for OBJECT-GEGENSTAND… ‘Gegenstand’ is the German word for OBJECT but also means SUBJECT — which blows my mind!” (Sillman)

The Salle painting she includes in “The O-G” appears to have been selected for the same reason that most of the other images were: it features light bulbs in its composition. That Salle’s work is emphatically anti-feminist is all the better for Sillman, since she’s absorbed his deadpan, “reified” phalli into the matrices of her “transformer” to be redistributed, remixed, and re-membered through manifold conduits. The back (and cover?) of “The O-G” sports a tweaked, shopped, and otherwise recontextualized Salle bulb represented as the “idea” pictogram. Sillman pwned Salle (or grabbed his source-imagery).

For those who are still enjoying kicking this dead horse, Joselit’s essay does offer insight, and not only because he mentions Sillman. I didn’t like her paintings, and her scattershot approach comes close to feeling like catch-all gimmickry. But it’s foolish for me not to recognize that all of this bother and blather hasn’t “moved” her work, and maybe that’s why it’s sometimes alright to “bestow” credence to buzzwords like “transitive painting” to works that have earned their blessings:

“The problem with the term ‘reification’ is that it connotes the permanent arrest of an object’s circulation within a network: it is halted, paid for, put on a wall, or sent to storage, therefore permanently crystallizing a particular social relation. Transitive painting, on the other hand, invents forms and structures whose purpose is to demonstrate that once an object enters a network, it can never be fully stilled, but only subjected to different material states and speeds of circulation ranging from the geologically slow (cold storage) to the infinitely fast.” (Joselit)

Jesse P. Martin May 5, 2010 at 1:30 am

The closing page of Sillman’s zine’s liner notes suggest that she isn’t advocating a hierarchy of object over subject (husk over cob), but rather that we consider them as one and the same:

“The O-G stands for OBJECT-GEGENSTAND… ‘Gegenstand’ is the German word for OBJECT but also means SUBJECT — which blows my mind!” (Sillman)

The Salle painting she includes in “The O-G” appears to have been selected for the same reason that most of the other images were: it features light bulbs in its composition. That Salle’s work is emphatically anti-feminist is all the better for Sillman, since she’s absorbed his deadpan, “reified” phalli into the matrices of her “transformer” to be redistributed, remixed, and re-membered through manifold conduits. The back (and cover?) of “The O-G” sports a tweaked, shopped, and otherwise recontextualized Salle bulb represented as the “idea” pictogram. Sillman pwned Salle (or grabbed his source-imagery).

For those who are still enjoying kicking this dead horse, Joselit’s essay does offer insight, and not only because he mentions Sillman. I didn’t like her paintings, and her scattershot approach comes close to feeling like catch-all gimmickry. But it’s foolish for me not to recognize that all of this bother and blather hasn’t “moved” her work, and maybe that’s why it’s sometimes alright to “bestow” credence to buzzwords like “transitive painting” to works that have earned their blessings:

“The problem with the term ‘reification’ is that it connotes the permanent arrest of an object’s circulation within a network: it is halted, paid for, put on a wall, or sent to storage, therefore permanently crystallizing a particular social relation. Transitive painting, on the other hand, invents forms and structures whose purpose is to demonstrate that once an object enters a network, it can never be fully stilled, but only subjected to different material states and speeds of circulation ranging from the geologically slow (cold storage) to the infinitely fast.” (Joselit)

Adam May 5, 2010 at 6:59 am

Could you explain how you find the concept of “expensive husks” sound? Because as a painter I find it to be incredibly reductive and dismissive.
Don’t artists like Koons or Hirst really make the “expensive husks”, capitalist status symbols given intellectual credentials from the art world for their particular concepts? With Sillman, as with any good painter, there is still craft involved and there are those of us who don’t believe that craft is meaningless or at odds with the intellect…Isn’t that part of what this show is about?
Its not like once a good painting is done it is just some piece of expensive wallpaper. Why do people go to art museums to look at them? Why do people study painting?
Sorry maybe I am still a lot hot-headed from that previous thread….

Adam May 5, 2010 at 2:59 am

Could you explain how you find the concept of “expensive husks” sound? Because as a painter I find it to be incredibly reductive and dismissive.
Don’t artists like Koons or Hirst really make the “expensive husks”, capitalist status symbols given intellectual credentials from the art world for their particular concepts? With Sillman, as with any good painter, there is still craft involved and there are those of us who don’t believe that craft is meaningless or at odds with the intellect…Isn’t that part of what this show is about?
Its not like once a good painting is done it is just some piece of expensive wallpaper. Why do people go to art museums to look at them? Why do people study painting?
Sorry maybe I am still a lot hot-headed from that previous thread….

Colin Roe Ledbetter May 5, 2010 at 8:59 am

Paddy, come to utah (or send some one) this May and i would like to hear your opinion about what i have put together.

this is some great incite

Colin Roe Ledbetter May 5, 2010 at 8:59 am

Paddy, come to utah (or send some one) this May and i would like to hear your opinion about what i have put together.

this is some great incite

Colin Roe Ledbetter May 5, 2010 at 8:59 am

Paddy, come to utah (or send some one) this May and i would like to hear your opinion about what i have put together.

this is some great incite

Colin Roe Ledbetter May 5, 2010 at 4:59 am

Paddy, come to utah (or send some one) this May and i would like to hear your opinion about what i have put together.

this is some great incite

Rob Myers May 5, 2010 at 1:36 pm

Artworks are members of the artworld and are therefore nodes in its social network.

I think Tom’s work is a good example of how the content of painting can not only survive cyber-everything but create serious headaches for it (in a good way).

More painters needs to look at digital media and embrace, extend…

Rob Myers May 5, 2010 at 1:36 pm

Artworks are members of the artworld and are therefore nodes in its social network.

I think Tom’s work is a good example of how the content of painting can not only survive cyber-everything but create serious headaches for it (in a good way).

More painters needs to look at digital media and embrace, extend…

Rob Myers May 5, 2010 at 9:36 am

Artworks are members of the artworld and are therefore nodes in its social network.

I think Tom’s work is a good example of how the content of painting can not only survive cyber-everything but create serious headaches for it (in a good way).

More painters needs to look at digital media and embrace, extend…

Art Fag City May 5, 2010 at 3:29 pm

@Jesse P Martin: I meant to make more clear that she’s not advocating subject over husk. I’d add that she also writes “Think & Feel! Speak & Act!” at the end of her “Train of Thought” in the zine. I actually added that to the post as an example just now, as I realized the statement was unsupported.

Unfortunately I wasn’t able to find a link to the Salle image Sillman cites, but again, as you note, the primary reason she included it was the image of the lightbulb. Judging by the form the paintings take, Salle’s paintings, far more than Guernica, (which is also pictured in the zine), was an influence.

Good call on the reification citation.

Art Fag City May 5, 2010 at 11:29 am

@Jesse P Martin: I meant to make more clear that she’s not advocating subject over husk. I’d add that she also writes “Think & Feel! Speak & Act!” at the end of her “Train of Thought” in the zine. I actually added that to the post as an example just now, as I realized the statement was unsupported.

Unfortunately I wasn’t able to find a link to the Salle image Sillman cites, but again, as you note, the primary reason she included it was the image of the lightbulb. Judging by the form the paintings take, Salle’s paintings, far more than Guernica, (which is also pictured in the zine), was an influence.

Good call on the reification citation.

Art Fag City May 5, 2010 at 4:33 pm

Adam: I may have been over stating it with “sound”. There’s two camps here:

1. Sillman’s working her ideas out through the paintings and the process is a means to an end. It doesn’t matter if the paintings don’t work formally, so long as they help clarify the ideas.

2. If Sillman’s objective is to create paintings that are both tactile and thoughtful, she hasn’t succeeded. The paintings aren’t good enough.

Everyone seems to agree that the paintings have their flaws. What we don’t all agree on is the degree to which that matters. I fall more on the “it does matter” side of things, but I get the argument against it.

The thing is, when you do a tally of the truly outstanding stuff in the show it doesn’t add up to as much as it should:

Awesome: Train of Thought, Some Problems in Philosophy, Shade, and the charcoal drawings (editing problems noted).

Accomplished, but unmoving: The majority of the show’s paintings.

Serves a purpose, but a little dopey:
The CD.

I know it’s asking a lot, but even if the paintings are simply a means of working through the ideas, I still wish I got more from them.

Art Fag City May 5, 2010 at 4:33 pm

Adam: I may have been over stating it with “sound”. There’s two camps here:

1. Sillman’s working her ideas out through the paintings and the process is a means to an end. It doesn’t matter if the paintings don’t work formally, so long as they help clarify the ideas.

2. If Sillman’s objective is to create paintings that are both tactile and thoughtful, she hasn’t succeeded. The paintings aren’t good enough.

Everyone seems to agree that the paintings have their flaws. What we don’t all agree on is the degree to which that matters. I fall more on the “it does matter” side of things, but I get the argument against it.

The thing is, when you do a tally of the truly outstanding stuff in the show it doesn’t add up to as much as it should:

Awesome: Train of Thought, Some Problems in Philosophy, Shade, and the charcoal drawings (editing problems noted).

Accomplished, but unmoving: The majority of the show’s paintings.

Serves a purpose, but a little dopey:
The CD.

I know it’s asking a lot, but even if the paintings are simply a means of working through the ideas, I still wish I got more from them.

Art Fag City May 5, 2010 at 4:33 pm

Adam: I may have been over stating it with “sound”. There’s two camps here:

1. Sillman’s working her ideas out through the paintings and the process is a means to an end. It doesn’t matter if the paintings don’t work formally, so long as they help clarify the ideas.

2. If Sillman’s objective is to create paintings that are both tactile and thoughtful, she hasn’t succeeded. The paintings aren’t good enough.

Everyone seems to agree that the paintings have their flaws. What we don’t all agree on is the degree to which that matters. I fall more on the “it does matter” side of things, but I get the argument against it.

The thing is, when you do a tally of the truly outstanding stuff in the show it doesn’t add up to as much as it should:

Awesome: Train of Thought, Some Problems in Philosophy, Shade, and the charcoal drawings (editing problems noted).

Accomplished, but unmoving: The majority of the show’s paintings.

Serves a purpose, but a little dopey:
The CD.

I know it’s asking a lot, but even if the paintings are simply a means of working through the ideas, I still wish I got more from them.

Art Fag City May 5, 2010 at 4:33 pm

Adam: I may have been over stating it with “sound”. There’s two camps here:

1. Sillman’s working her ideas out through the paintings and the process is a means to an end. It doesn’t matter if the paintings don’t work formally, so long as they help clarify the ideas.

2. If Sillman’s objective is to create paintings that are both tactile and thoughtful, she hasn’t succeeded. The paintings aren’t good enough.

Everyone seems to agree that the paintings have their flaws. What we don’t all agree on is the degree to which that matters. I fall more on the “it does matter” side of things, but I get the argument against it.

The thing is, when you do a tally of the truly outstanding stuff in the show it doesn’t add up to as much as it should:

Awesome: Train of Thought, Some Problems in Philosophy, Shade, and the charcoal drawings (editing problems noted).

Accomplished, but unmoving: The majority of the show’s paintings.

Serves a purpose, but a little dopey:
The CD.

I know it’s asking a lot, but even if the paintings are simply a means of working through the ideas, I still wish I got more from them.

Art Fag City May 5, 2010 at 12:33 pm

Adam: I may have been over stating it with “sound”. There’s two camps here:

1. Sillman’s working her ideas out through the paintings and the process is a means to an end. It doesn’t matter if the paintings don’t work formally, so long as they help clarify the ideas.

2. If Sillman’s objective is to create paintings that are both tactile and thoughtful, she hasn’t succeeded. The paintings aren’t good enough.

Everyone seems to agree that the paintings have their flaws. What we don’t all agree on is the degree to which that matters. I fall more on the “it does matter” side of things, but I get the argument against it.

The thing is, when you do a tally of the truly outstanding stuff in the show it doesn’t add up to as much as it should:

Awesome: Train of Thought, Some Problems in Philosophy, Shade, and the charcoal drawings (editing problems noted).

Accomplished, but unmoving: The majority of the show’s paintings.

Serves a purpose, but a little dopey:
The CD.

I know it’s asking a lot, but even if the paintings are simply a means of working through the ideas, I still wish I got more from them.

Jesse P. Martin May 5, 2010 at 5:06 pm

@Adam: Following the idea that Sillman’s show and all of its attendant parts (her zine, CD, this conversation, etc.) constitutes a system, and that perhaps her paintings weren’t the most interesting aspect of this system or even necessary for it to keep moving (i.e., her zine conveyed more engaging ideas than her paintings), one could view her paintings as mere “expensive husks” since their functions had been accomplished, their meaning drained. Such a verdict is another way of saying that the paintings are dead, reified, their auras lost, blah-di-blah-blah.

But if we choose to revisit & revivify her paintings (i.e. accepting them as “transitive paintings”), then we rescue them from such fatalistic ends. Whether the paintings warrant or *deserve* to be treated as such, well…

Of course, we could just be fetishizing another commodity, deluding ourselves with romanticism, academicism, etc….

Jesse P. Martin May 5, 2010 at 5:06 pm

@Adam: Following the idea that Sillman’s show and all of its attendant parts (her zine, CD, this conversation, etc.) constitutes a system, and that perhaps her paintings weren’t the most interesting aspect of this system or even necessary for it to keep moving (i.e., her zine conveyed more engaging ideas than her paintings), one could view her paintings as mere “expensive husks” since their functions had been accomplished, their meaning drained. Such a verdict is another way of saying that the paintings are dead, reified, their auras lost, blah-di-blah-blah.

But if we choose to revisit & revivify her paintings (i.e. accepting them as “transitive paintings”), then we rescue them from such fatalistic ends. Whether the paintings warrant or *deserve* to be treated as such, well…

Of course, we could just be fetishizing another commodity, deluding ourselves with romanticism, academicism, etc….

Jesse P. Martin May 5, 2010 at 1:06 pm

@Adam: Following the idea that Sillman’s show and all of its attendant parts (her zine, CD, this conversation, etc.) constitutes a system, and that perhaps her paintings weren’t the most interesting aspect of this system or even necessary for it to keep moving (i.e., her zine conveyed more engaging ideas than her paintings), one could view her paintings as mere “expensive husks” since their functions had been accomplished, their meaning drained. Such a verdict is another way of saying that the paintings are dead, reified, their auras lost, blah-di-blah-blah.

But if we choose to revisit & revivify her paintings (i.e. accepting them as “transitive paintings”), then we rescue them from such fatalistic ends. Whether the paintings warrant or *deserve* to be treated as such, well…

Of course, we could just be fetishizing another commodity, deluding ourselves with romanticism, academicism, etc….

Jesse P. Martin May 5, 2010 at 6:03 pm

@AFC: I agree completely with your tally, but I’d add “Nose” as an “Awesome” painting (and all its associations with having been cut off to spite some unknown face, Van Gogh’s ear, Kentridge’s recent animation for Shostakovich’s “The Nose,” Matisse’s “La Raie Verte,” rhinoplasty, etc.). It also has that same nipple/knob that’s being “turned” by the “hand” in “Shade.”

Jesse P. Martin May 5, 2010 at 6:03 pm

@AFC: I agree completely with your tally, but I’d add “Nose” as an “Awesome” painting (and all its associations with having been cut off to spite some unknown face, Van Gogh’s ear, Kentridge’s recent animation for Shostakovich’s “The Nose,” Matisse’s “La Raie Verte,” rhinoplasty, etc.). It also has that same nipple/knob that’s being “turned” by the “hand” in “Shade.”

Jesse P. Martin May 5, 2010 at 6:03 pm

@AFC: I agree completely with your tally, but I’d add “Nose” as an “Awesome” painting (and all its associations with having been cut off to spite some unknown face, Van Gogh’s ear, Kentridge’s recent animation for Shostakovich’s “The Nose,” Matisse’s “La Raie Verte,” rhinoplasty, etc.). It also has that same nipple/knob that’s being “turned” by the “hand” in “Shade.”

Jesse P. Martin May 5, 2010 at 2:03 pm

@AFC: I agree completely with your tally, but I’d add “Nose” as an “Awesome” painting (and all its associations with having been cut off to spite some unknown face, Van Gogh’s ear, Kentridge’s recent animation for Shostakovich’s “The Nose,” Matisse’s “La Raie Verte,” rhinoplasty, etc.). It also has that same nipple/knob that’s being “turned” by the “hand” in “Shade.”

tom moody May 5, 2010 at 7:05 pm

More on the David Joselit essay that a commenter considered timely on the topic of “painting vs cyber-everything-culture.” ( http://www.reenaspaulings.com/images3/0911djoselit.pdf ) The essay starts with obligatory reference to the crazy world of cyber-networks in which we increasingly spend our time but then drops the subject. Other than saying you can look up “internet maps” on Google and not learn very much (well, duh) there is no comparison of current painting to Internet architecture and no comparison of painting to new media practices such as GPS art that attempt to make sense (or nonsense) of the web. Instead, Joselit leaps back into the timeworn discourse of postmodern challenges to the autonomous Modernist object. Paintings that refer to information outside themselves are given a new, clunky title, “transitive painting.” Joselit assumes as given that we can’t completely abandon the ancient practice of smearing pigment on a support but must find ways to make it intellectually and morally justifiable. He acknowledges painting’s role in the market (somewhat tepidly–the truth is painting sales keep the art world on life support and allow shows of “immaterial” art) but can’t or won’t think outside the frame presented by his chosen artists and what are probably his own preferences. His article heaps one shaky assumption on another and concludes by lumping Amy Sillman (who sells stand-alone paintings) into his transitive canon because she has overlapping images in her paintings. (As AFC commenter vc noted.) This was before her current show where she offered a zine and CD in addition to the paintings, as if to fill in something Joselit left out.

tom moody May 5, 2010 at 7:05 pm

More on the David Joselit essay that a commenter considered timely on the topic of “painting vs cyber-everything-culture.” ( http://www.reenaspaulings.com/images3/0911djoselit.pdf ) The essay starts with obligatory reference to the crazy world of cyber-networks in which we increasingly spend our time but then drops the subject. Other than saying you can look up “internet maps” on Google and not learn very much (well, duh) there is no comparison of current painting to Internet architecture and no comparison of painting to new media practices such as GPS art that attempt to make sense (or nonsense) of the web. Instead, Joselit leaps back into the timeworn discourse of postmodern challenges to the autonomous Modernist object. Paintings that refer to information outside themselves are given a new, clunky title, “transitive painting.” Joselit assumes as given that we can’t completely abandon the ancient practice of smearing pigment on a support but must find ways to make it intellectually and morally justifiable. He acknowledges painting’s role in the market (somewhat tepidly–the truth is painting sales keep the art world on life support and allow shows of “immaterial” art) but can’t or won’t think outside the frame presented by his chosen artists and what are probably his own preferences. His article heaps one shaky assumption on another and concludes by lumping Amy Sillman (who sells stand-alone paintings) into his transitive canon because she has overlapping images in her paintings. (As AFC commenter vc noted.) This was before her current show where she offered a zine and CD in addition to the paintings, as if to fill in something Joselit left out.

tom moody May 5, 2010 at 7:05 pm

More on the David Joselit essay that a commenter considered timely on the topic of “painting vs cyber-everything-culture.” ( http://www.reenaspaulings.com/images3/0911djoselit.pdf ) The essay starts with obligatory reference to the crazy world of cyber-networks in which we increasingly spend our time but then drops the subject. Other than saying you can look up “internet maps” on Google and not learn very much (well, duh) there is no comparison of current painting to Internet architecture and no comparison of painting to new media practices such as GPS art that attempt to make sense (or nonsense) of the web. Instead, Joselit leaps back into the timeworn discourse of postmodern challenges to the autonomous Modernist object. Paintings that refer to information outside themselves are given a new, clunky title, “transitive painting.” Joselit assumes as given that we can’t completely abandon the ancient practice of smearing pigment on a support but must find ways to make it intellectually and morally justifiable. He acknowledges painting’s role in the market (somewhat tepidly–the truth is painting sales keep the art world on life support and allow shows of “immaterial” art) but can’t or won’t think outside the frame presented by his chosen artists and what are probably his own preferences. His article heaps one shaky assumption on another and concludes by lumping Amy Sillman (who sells stand-alone paintings) into his transitive canon because she has overlapping images in her paintings. (As AFC commenter vc noted.) This was before her current show where she offered a zine and CD in addition to the paintings, as if to fill in something Joselit left out.

tom moody May 5, 2010 at 3:05 pm

More on the David Joselit essay that a commenter considered timely on the topic of “painting vs cyber-everything-culture.” ( http://www.reenaspaulings.com/images3/0911djoselit.pdf ) The essay starts with obligatory reference to the crazy world of cyber-networks in which we increasingly spend our time but then drops the subject. Other than saying you can look up “internet maps” on Google and not learn very much (well, duh) there is no comparison of current painting to Internet architecture and no comparison of painting to new media practices such as GPS art that attempt to make sense (or nonsense) of the web. Instead, Joselit leaps back into the timeworn discourse of postmodern challenges to the autonomous Modernist object. Paintings that refer to information outside themselves are given a new, clunky title, “transitive painting.” Joselit assumes as given that we can’t completely abandon the ancient practice of smearing pigment on a support but must find ways to make it intellectually and morally justifiable. He acknowledges painting’s role in the market (somewhat tepidly–the truth is painting sales keep the art world on life support and allow shows of “immaterial” art) but can’t or won’t think outside the frame presented by his chosen artists and what are probably his own preferences. His article heaps one shaky assumption on another and concludes by lumping Amy Sillman (who sells stand-alone paintings) into his transitive canon because she has overlapping images in her paintings. (As AFC commenter vc noted.) This was before her current show where she offered a zine and CD in addition to the paintings, as if to fill in something Joselit left out.

Jesse P. Martin May 5, 2010 at 7:07 pm

Not to over post, but here’s the Salle Sillman cited, “Yellow Bread”: http://www.christies.com/LotFinder/lot_details.aspx?from=searchresults&intObjectID=4491090&sid=914d7bc6-9f8b-497e-8ebf-12f1016ceaa0

He used these same light-bulb-bearers in his “American Glass” series: http://www.mutualart.com/Artwork/American-Glass–14/381DEAAA4379C94A

Jesse P. Martin May 5, 2010 at 7:07 pm

Not to over post, but here’s the Salle Sillman cited, “Yellow Bread”: http://www.christies.com/LotFinder/lot_details.aspx?from=searchresults&intObjectID=4491090&sid=914d7bc6-9f8b-497e-8ebf-12f1016ceaa0

He used these same light-bulb-bearers in his “American Glass” series: http://www.mutualart.com/Artwork/American-Glass–14/381DEAAA4379C94A

Jesse P. Martin May 5, 2010 at 7:07 pm

Not to over post, but here’s the Salle Sillman cited, “Yellow Bread”: http://www.christies.com/LotFinder/lot_details.aspx?from=searchresults&intObjectID=4491090&sid=914d7bc6-9f8b-497e-8ebf-12f1016ceaa0

He used these same light-bulb-bearers in his “American Glass” series: http://www.mutualart.com/Artwork/American-Glass–14/381DEAAA4379C94A

Jesse P. Martin May 5, 2010 at 3:07 pm

Not to over post, but here’s the Salle Sillman cited, “Yellow Bread”: http://www.christies.com/LotFinder/lot_details.aspx?from=searchresults&intObjectID=4491090&sid=914d7bc6-9f8b-497e-8ebf-12f1016ceaa0

He used these same light-bulb-bearers in his “American Glass” series: http://www.mutualart.com/Artwork/American-Glass–14/381DEAAA4379C94A

Adam May 5, 2010 at 7:36 pm

@ Rob Myers:
Painters can just as likely respond to the challenges of new media via painting. The idea that we all have to give up painting just because some new technology has come along or because Tim Moody says so is silly. Painting has weathered new technology and it’s critics before and came out the better for it. There is no reason it can’t continue to do so.
@Art Fag City
OK, I get that some may see these paintings as coming up short and think your criticism is totally fair…
I just don’t like the “expensive husk” label or see how its more pertinent to painting in general then any other media, new or old.
For me, paintings are more then just depositories for conceptual ideas even when the painter isn’t totally successful. Personally I’d rather look at a painter stumbling and falling as that can occasionally bring up new areas for growth in the media, which is one reason why I admire Albert Oehlen. I don’t think Sillman has taken on the level of the kind of risks Oehlen has which is part of the problem right now with her work. But the label of “empty husks” is a little too harsh for me.
@Jesse P. Martin
OK. I see how one isn’t particularly convinced of the paintings could come to that conclusion with this particular work even if I disagree.
At this point I’d argue any media or conceptual practice is open to being corrupted by romanticism, academicism, or commodity fetishization. I am really tired of this critique being seen as only relevant to painting.

Adam May 5, 2010 at 7:36 pm

@ Rob Myers:
Painters can just as likely respond to the challenges of new media via painting. The idea that we all have to give up painting just because some new technology has come along or because Tim Moody says so is silly. Painting has weathered new technology and it’s critics before and came out the better for it. There is no reason it can’t continue to do so.
@Art Fag City
OK, I get that some may see these paintings as coming up short and think your criticism is totally fair…
I just don’t like the “expensive husk” label or see how its more pertinent to painting in general then any other media, new or old.
For me, paintings are more then just depositories for conceptual ideas even when the painter isn’t totally successful. Personally I’d rather look at a painter stumbling and falling as that can occasionally bring up new areas for growth in the media, which is one reason why I admire Albert Oehlen. I don’t think Sillman has taken on the level of the kind of risks Oehlen has which is part of the problem right now with her work. But the label of “empty husks” is a little too harsh for me.
@Jesse P. Martin
OK. I see how one isn’t particularly convinced of the paintings could come to that conclusion with this particular work even if I disagree.
At this point I’d argue any media or conceptual practice is open to being corrupted by romanticism, academicism, or commodity fetishization. I am really tired of this critique being seen as only relevant to painting.

Adam May 5, 2010 at 3:36 pm

@ Rob Myers:
Painters can just as likely respond to the challenges of new media via painting. The idea that we all have to give up painting just because some new technology has come along or because Tim Moody says so is silly. Painting has weathered new technology and it’s critics before and came out the better for it. There is no reason it can’t continue to do so.
@Art Fag City
OK, I get that some may see these paintings as coming up short and think your criticism is totally fair…
I just don’t like the “expensive husk” label or see how its more pertinent to painting in general then any other media, new or old.
For me, paintings are more then just depositories for conceptual ideas even when the painter isn’t totally successful. Personally I’d rather look at a painter stumbling and falling as that can occasionally bring up new areas for growth in the media, which is one reason why I admire Albert Oehlen. I don’t think Sillman has taken on the level of the kind of risks Oehlen has which is part of the problem right now with her work. But the label of “empty husks” is a little too harsh for me.
@Jesse P. Martin
OK. I see how one isn’t particularly convinced of the paintings could come to that conclusion with this particular work even if I disagree.
At this point I’d argue any media or conceptual practice is open to being corrupted by romanticism, academicism, or commodity fetishization. I am really tired of this critique being seen as only relevant to painting.

Art Fag City May 5, 2010 at 7:51 pm

@Jesse P Martin. I think the Nose inclusion in the awesome category is fair. It’s a little overworked, but clearly the best of the bunch worked in that style. Shade is handled very differently IMO. Adding the Salle image to the post now…

@Tom I agree that there are some issues with the Joselt essay. Prina makes his work sound way better than it is. It’s essentially an exercise in information aesthetics, and not a very interesting one at that. He could have found better work to discuss.

I didn’t see the Sillman citation as particularly strong so I didn’t bother to mention it.

Art Fag City May 5, 2010 at 7:51 pm

@Jesse P Martin. I think the Nose inclusion in the awesome category is fair. It’s a little overworked, but clearly the best of the bunch worked in that style. Shade is handled very differently IMO. Adding the Salle image to the post now…

@Tom I agree that there are some issues with the Joselt essay. Prina makes his work sound way better than it is. It’s essentially an exercise in information aesthetics, and not a very interesting one at that. He could have found better work to discuss.

I didn’t see the Sillman citation as particularly strong so I didn’t bother to mention it.

Art Fag City May 5, 2010 at 3:51 pm

@Jesse P Martin. I think the Nose inclusion in the awesome category is fair. It’s a little overworked, but clearly the best of the bunch worked in that style. Shade is handled very differently IMO. Adding the Salle image to the post now…

@Tom I agree that there are some issues with the Joselt essay. Prina makes his work sound way better than it is. It’s essentially an exercise in information aesthetics, and not a very interesting one at that. He could have found better work to discuss.

I didn’t see the Sillman citation as particularly strong so I didn’t bother to mention it.

Matt Goerzen May 6, 2010 at 4:37 am

Interesting to note —

Joselit’s essay seems a fairly obvious attempt to translate the speculative realist / actor-network theory / object oriented ontology currently very trendy in the philosophy world into a working aesthetic theory.

Frieze has was writing much about this at the tail end of last year and it seems to have done the trick.

A good direct introduction to the root of these concepts can be found in Graham Harman’s recent book about Bruno Latour (free download of the pdf through the link).

http://www.re-press.org/content/view/63/38/

All this is to say that if you take these theories back far enough, and remove the explicit aesthetic element, then really, of course, everything is a node in a network, all objects are relating to one another to produce everything. When you reduce it to that point then value really emerges from the number of connections any art object creates. Which is to say, it all comes down to discourse and the action resulting from that discourse.

Which is to say, this thread and the last seem to suggest Sillman has done pretty good, at least in art fag city.

Matt Goerzen May 6, 2010 at 4:37 am

Interesting to note —

Joselit’s essay seems a fairly obvious attempt to translate the speculative realist / actor-network theory / object oriented ontology currently very trendy in the philosophy world into a working aesthetic theory.

Frieze has was writing much about this at the tail end of last year and it seems to have done the trick.

A good direct introduction to the root of these concepts can be found in Graham Harman’s recent book about Bruno Latour (free download of the pdf through the link).

http://www.re-press.org/content/view/63/38/

All this is to say that if you take these theories back far enough, and remove the explicit aesthetic element, then really, of course, everything is a node in a network, all objects are relating to one another to produce everything. When you reduce it to that point then value really emerges from the number of connections any art object creates. Which is to say, it all comes down to discourse and the action resulting from that discourse.

Which is to say, this thread and the last seem to suggest Sillman has done pretty good, at least in art fag city.

Matt Goerzen May 6, 2010 at 12:37 am

Interesting to note —

Joselit’s essay seems a fairly obvious attempt to translate the speculative realist / actor-network theory / object oriented ontology currently very trendy in the philosophy world into a working aesthetic theory.

Frieze has was writing much about this at the tail end of last year and it seems to have done the trick.

A good direct introduction to the root of these concepts can be found in Graham Harman’s recent book about Bruno Latour (free download of the pdf through the link).

http://www.re-press.org/content/view/63/38/

All this is to say that if you take these theories back far enough, and remove the explicit aesthetic element, then really, of course, everything is a node in a network, all objects are relating to one another to produce everything. When you reduce it to that point then value really emerges from the number of connections any art object creates. Which is to say, it all comes down to discourse and the action resulting from that discourse.

Which is to say, this thread and the last seem to suggest Sillman has done pretty good, at least in art fag city.

Matt Goerzen May 6, 2010 at 4:38 am

(Good painting or no)

Matt Goerzen May 6, 2010 at 4:38 am

(Good painting or no)

Matt Goerzen May 6, 2010 at 12:38 am

(Good painting or no)

Howard Halle May 6, 2010 at 10:30 am

Hey Paddy,

I’m not sure what you mean when you keep referring to the pieces here as being “overworked.” Aren’t the layerings and elisions encoded within the surfaces of the paintings consistent with—or rather a physical manifestation of—the very process of thinking itself, which is surely one subject of the show? I remember interviewing Amy once on the topic of working and living in Brooklyn, and she told me that she liked it there (here, actually, it’s where I’m writing from) because it gave her “the space to think”—by which she meant that the scale of street life was less intrusive than in Manhattan. So I’d submit that she is someone for whom the intellectual is inseparable from the physical—which is, of course, exactly what a painter would think.

I agree that Shade (and Nose) are both awesome—they are certainly the pop-iest paintings in the show. Personally, I found myself drawn to Drawer, and wound up referring to it probably because it was more visually reticent—and one might even say depressing. The way everything concentrates down in that painting to the small illusionistic space of the drawer of the title, which is empty. Painting as a dead-end, but a place you gotta keeping looking through.

I definitely agree that all the elements here— paintings, drawings, zine, CD—are meant to work in concert, like an installation, but I’m not as certain as you seem to be that the paintings wouldn’t stand on their own.

Howard Halle May 6, 2010 at 10:30 am

Hey Paddy,

I’m not sure what you mean when you keep referring to the pieces here as being “overworked.” Aren’t the layerings and elisions encoded within the surfaces of the paintings consistent with—or rather a physical manifestation of—the very process of thinking itself, which is surely one subject of the show? I remember interviewing Amy once on the topic of working and living in Brooklyn, and she told me that she liked it there (here, actually, it’s where I’m writing from) because it gave her “the space to think”—by which she meant that the scale of street life was less intrusive than in Manhattan. So I’d submit that she is someone for whom the intellectual is inseparable from the physical—which is, of course, exactly what a painter would think.

I agree that Shade (and Nose) are both awesome—they are certainly the pop-iest paintings in the show. Personally, I found myself drawn to Drawer, and wound up referring to it probably because it was more visually reticent—and one might even say depressing. The way everything concentrates down in that painting to the small illusionistic space of the drawer of the title, which is empty. Painting as a dead-end, but a place you gotta keeping looking through.

I definitely agree that all the elements here— paintings, drawings, zine, CD—are meant to work in concert, like an installation, but I’m not as certain as you seem to be that the paintings wouldn’t stand on their own.

Howard Halle May 6, 2010 at 6:30 am

Hey Paddy,

I’m not sure what you mean when you keep referring to the pieces here as being “overworked.” Aren’t the layerings and elisions encoded within the surfaces of the paintings consistent with—or rather a physical manifestation of—the very process of thinking itself, which is surely one subject of the show? I remember interviewing Amy once on the topic of working and living in Brooklyn, and she told me that she liked it there (here, actually, it’s where I’m writing from) because it gave her “the space to think”—by which she meant that the scale of street life was less intrusive than in Manhattan. So I’d submit that she is someone for whom the intellectual is inseparable from the physical—which is, of course, exactly what a painter would think.

I agree that Shade (and Nose) are both awesome—they are certainly the pop-iest paintings in the show. Personally, I found myself drawn to Drawer, and wound up referring to it probably because it was more visually reticent—and one might even say depressing. The way everything concentrates down in that painting to the small illusionistic space of the drawer of the title, which is empty. Painting as a dead-end, but a place you gotta keeping looking through.

I definitely agree that all the elements here— paintings, drawings, zine, CD—are meant to work in concert, like an installation, but I’m not as certain as you seem to be that the paintings wouldn’t stand on their own.

Art Fag City May 6, 2010 at 2:04 pm

@Howard

“Aren’t the layerings and elisions encoded within the surfaces of the paintings consistent with—or rather a physical manifestation of—the very process of thinking itself, which is surely one subject of the show?”

This statement is true, which is part of why I say I know I’m asking a lot of the paintings. But you know, my first impression was that the surfaces were over worked, and when I went back Tuesday to see the show again, I still felt the same way. I also thought the paintings were larger than they needed to be.

Admittedly I felt a little emboldened in my “overworked” statements when I read that Sillman herself sometimes has doubts. From ArtInfo, “I do get overworker’s remorse sometimes,” she admits. “I am kind of heavy-handed, and I know it. Sometimes I get really good results from it; sometimes I wish I had just stopped.”

I can only assume she’s talking about works not in the show, but it did indicate to me that I at least wasn’t imagining things.

In any event, I should add to all this that these criticisms are being applied to an artist who’s clearly working at a very high level. The paintings stand on their own. They are not however without flaws.

Art Fag City May 6, 2010 at 10:04 am

@Howard

“Aren’t the layerings and elisions encoded within the surfaces of the paintings consistent with—or rather a physical manifestation of—the very process of thinking itself, which is surely one subject of the show?”

This statement is true, which is part of why I say I know I’m asking a lot of the paintings. But you know, my first impression was that the surfaces were over worked, and when I went back Tuesday to see the show again, I still felt the same way. I also thought the paintings were larger than they needed to be.

Admittedly I felt a little emboldened in my “overworked” statements when I read that Sillman herself sometimes has doubts. From ArtInfo, “I do get overworker’s remorse sometimes,” she admits. “I am kind of heavy-handed, and I know it. Sometimes I get really good results from it; sometimes I wish I had just stopped.”

I can only assume she’s talking about works not in the show, but it did indicate to me that I at least wasn’t imagining things.

In any event, I should add to all this that these criticisms are being applied to an artist who’s clearly working at a very high level. The paintings stand on their own. They are not however without flaws.

sally mckay May 6, 2010 at 2:36 pm

@Matt Goerzen
Bruno Latour is good, but Latour without Haraway is like gravy without potatoes. Nodes & networks are all very well as formalist concepts, but situated, on-the-ground experience is what gives the discourse a meaningful aesthetic dimension.

sally mckay May 6, 2010 at 10:36 am

@Matt Goerzen
Bruno Latour is good, but Latour without Haraway is like gravy without potatoes. Nodes & networks are all very well as formalist concepts, but situated, on-the-ground experience is what gives the discourse a meaningful aesthetic dimension.

tom moody May 6, 2010 at 4:07 pm

Sillman works on a large level (as in, big canvases) but that’s not necessarily a high level. The surfaces are chalky and inert: they do not sing. What is the reason for making these long, gestural, muscle-energy brushstrokes at this point in history? Is this action-painting, existential hero stuff? A parody of that? It’s certainly a climbdown from when artists (De Kooning et al) did those moves for real. A commenter in previous thread said “Anyone compared to one of the seminal figures of post-war art is likely to come up a bit short.” Is this a reason to give someone a Chelsea show with all the trimmings 50 years later? Back to being derivative of Guston: if you walk in the gallery and see a grid of drawings that instantly makes you say “Ah, Guston!” except they aren’t as good as Guston, that is a problem.

tom moody May 6, 2010 at 12:07 pm

Sillman works on a large level (as in, big canvases) but that’s not necessarily a high level. The surfaces are chalky and inert: they do not sing. What is the reason for making these long, gestural, muscle-energy brushstrokes at this point in history? Is this action-painting, existential hero stuff? A parody of that? It’s certainly a climbdown from when artists (De Kooning et al) did those moves for real. A commenter in previous thread said “Anyone compared to one of the seminal figures of post-war art is likely to come up a bit short.” Is this a reason to give someone a Chelsea show with all the trimmings 50 years later? Back to being derivative of Guston: if you walk in the gallery and see a grid of drawings that instantly makes you say “Ah, Guston!” except they aren’t as good as Guston, that is a problem.

tom moody May 6, 2010 at 4:20 pm

And to Matt Goerzen: Godwin’s Law says the longer the thread the higher probability someone will make an analogy to Hitler and Nazis. I propose Goerzen’s Law: the longer the thread, the higher the probability someone will say the length of the thread justifies the artwork being discussed.

tom moody May 6, 2010 at 12:20 pm

And to Matt Goerzen: Godwin’s Law says the longer the thread the higher probability someone will make an analogy to Hitler and Nazis. I propose Goerzen’s Law: the longer the thread, the higher the probability someone will say the length of the thread justifies the artwork being discussed.

Art Fag City May 6, 2010 at 4:25 pm

@tom moody I should note that the grid you’re talking about at the entrance is not part of the lightbulb series.

I think the paintings are better than you do. These comments make them seem little better than grad school work, and they’ve got more going for them than that iMO. They’re less cube-y, but I think the surfaces resembled those of Hans Hoffman. There doesn’t have to be a reason for making the long gestural brushstrokes you speak of, but it shouldn’t look forced. That was the case in some of the larger works, which is why I questioned their size.

In any event, the paintings are not tour de force type material, (but for the exception cited).

Art Fag City May 6, 2010 at 12:25 pm

@tom moody I should note that the grid you’re talking about at the entrance is not part of the lightbulb series.

I think the paintings are better than you do. These comments make them seem little better than grad school work, and they’ve got more going for them than that iMO. They’re less cube-y, but I think the surfaces resembled those of Hans Hoffman. There doesn’t have to be a reason for making the long gestural brushstrokes you speak of, but it shouldn’t look forced. That was the case in some of the larger works, which is why I questioned their size.

In any event, the paintings are not tour de force type material, (but for the exception cited).

Jesse P. Martin May 6, 2010 at 4:36 pm

Maybe what makes Sillman’s paintings significant are their clear interdependence on things outside of themselves. They’re not “heroic,” “stand alone” works. Their apparent “weaknesses” — being derivative, reliant on supplemental components & philosophy/theory, this thread, reviews, etc. — have also provided the footholds for them to reenter into the searching, sprawling, thoughtful dialogue (and “systems”) that gave them form. If she or any other artist had delivered a show of entirely awesome, stand-alone paintings, I don’t know if we’d be discussing them in this manner at all (I also can’t imagine what those paintings would look like!). Perhaps the “vulnerabilities” of her show are also its strengths.

Jesse P. Martin May 6, 2010 at 12:36 pm

Maybe what makes Sillman’s paintings significant are their clear interdependence on things outside of themselves. They’re not “heroic,” “stand alone” works. Their apparent “weaknesses” — being derivative, reliant on supplemental components & philosophy/theory, this thread, reviews, etc. — have also provided the footholds for them to reenter into the searching, sprawling, thoughtful dialogue (and “systems”) that gave them form. If she or any other artist had delivered a show of entirely awesome, stand-alone paintings, I don’t know if we’d be discussing them in this manner at all (I also can’t imagine what those paintings would look like!). Perhaps the “vulnerabilities” of her show are also its strengths.

Jesse P. Martin May 6, 2010 at 4:44 pm

Also, the just-opened Diebenkorn show “Paintings & Drawings 1949-1955” @ Greenberg Van Doren rhyme nicely with Sillman’s paintings, even if they’re more “justified & ancient.”

Jesse P. Martin May 6, 2010 at 12:44 pm

Also, the just-opened Diebenkorn show “Paintings & Drawings 1949-1955” @ Greenberg Van Doren rhyme nicely with Sillman’s paintings, even if they’re more “justified & ancient.”

Art Fag City May 6, 2010 at 4:49 pm

Ah! Diebenkorn is the better reference as compared to Hoffman.

Art Fag City May 6, 2010 at 12:49 pm

Ah! Diebenkorn is the better reference as compared to Hoffman.

tom moody May 6, 2010 at 4:55 pm

OK, I just scrapped my Hoffman defense. Diebenkorn, perfect: once-removed abstract expressionism, very tasteful. Great thing to be imitating in 2010. (And if the drawings in the front room aren’t part of the network why are we talking about the thoughtful correlation of all the elements in the show?)

tom moody May 6, 2010 at 12:55 pm

OK, I just scrapped my Hoffman defense. Diebenkorn, perfect: once-removed abstract expressionism, very tasteful. Great thing to be imitating in 2010. (And if the drawings in the front room aren’t part of the network why are we talking about the thoughtful correlation of all the elements in the show?)

Jesse P. Martin May 6, 2010 at 5:48 pm

@Tom: You mean Sillman’s drawings, correct? They’re probably the most intimately connected with the paintings, if not just as source material and a signifier of a material “process” and “system.”

Regarding Diebenkorn: I mean, just look at this work (which is in the current show):
http://www.richarddiebenkorn.net/paintings/diebenkorn_landscape_figurative/untitled_albuquerque.htm

Even though the linked work is smaller and made with gouache, ink, watercolor, and graphite on paper, it has the same muted, fleshy, slate palette as Sillman, that same finger/switch motif, etc. There are series of black & white drawings and large oil paintings being shown as well, and they’re all presented as ostensibly “connected” by virtue of when they were made, their titles, and of course because they were made by the same artist.

Jesse P. Martin May 6, 2010 at 1:48 pm

@Tom: You mean Sillman’s drawings, correct? They’re probably the most intimately connected with the paintings, if not just as source material and a signifier of a material “process” and “system.”

Regarding Diebenkorn: I mean, just look at this work (which is in the current show):
http://www.richarddiebenkorn.net/paintings/diebenkorn_landscape_figurative/untitled_albuquerque.htm

Even though the linked work is smaller and made with gouache, ink, watercolor, and graphite on paper, it has the same muted, fleshy, slate palette as Sillman, that same finger/switch motif, etc. There are series of black & white drawings and large oil paintings being shown as well, and they’re all presented as ostensibly “connected” by virtue of when they were made, their titles, and of course because they were made by the same artist.

Jesse P. Martin May 6, 2010 at 5:59 pm

Sillman’s reproduction of the Feb., 2010 Chelsea “Transformer Blast” newspaper article in her zine rises-up with new significance, too. It’s an article from a newspaper (like a zine) from the not-too-distant past (the time/date is part of the reproduction) that documents a site in Chelsea (location of the exhibit) where a transformer collapsed the street (landscape turned abstract, like Diebenkorn’s paintings). There are actual figures in the photo (oglers, firemen), but also a symbol of a person in the “walk” pictograph lit above the pedestrians heads! It’s also snowing, which “abstracts” the scene even more beyond the usual poor-reproduction effects.

Now this is my favorite piece of the show: it collapses so many systems, modes of representation, and points outside of itself in so many directions at once that I can barely handle it!

Jesse P. Martin May 6, 2010 at 1:59 pm

Sillman’s reproduction of the Feb., 2010 Chelsea “Transformer Blast” newspaper article in her zine rises-up with new significance, too. It’s an article from a newspaper (like a zine) from the not-too-distant past (the time/date is part of the reproduction) that documents a site in Chelsea (location of the exhibit) where a transformer collapsed the street (landscape turned abstract, like Diebenkorn’s paintings). There are actual figures in the photo (oglers, firemen), but also a symbol of a person in the “walk” pictograph lit above the pedestrians heads! It’s also snowing, which “abstracts” the scene even more beyond the usual poor-reproduction effects.

Now this is my favorite piece of the show: it collapses so many systems, modes of representation, and points outside of itself in so many directions at once that I can barely handle it!

tom moody May 6, 2010 at 6:01 pm

Paddy said the drawings in the front room are not part of the lightbulb series. Why are they in the show if it’s such a seamless web of intelligent interconnection? Jesse, you are doing intellectual backflips to justify this show. Everything can be connected if you work at it enough.

tom moody May 6, 2010 at 2:01 pm

Paddy said the drawings in the front room are not part of the lightbulb series. Why are they in the show if it’s such a seamless web of intelligent interconnection? Jesse, you are doing intellectual backflips to justify this show. Everything can be connected if you work at it enough.

Jesse P. Martin May 6, 2010 at 6:14 pm

I would argue that they are a part of the show, agree w/you that they do constitute a web (though it is absolutely, pointedly *not* seamless), and that Sillman’s interconnections are quite intelligent. Not all of my back-flips are intellectual — that’s why I’m constantly trying to reground them in the actual imagery presented by Sillman herself.

But I am starting to feel like I’ve reached Schiller-esque proportions in my fan-boy-ing of Sillman’s work, and I’m *definitely* not getting paid for any of this 🙂

Jesse P. Martin May 6, 2010 at 2:14 pm

I would argue that they are a part of the show, agree w/you that they do constitute a web (though it is absolutely, pointedly *not* seamless), and that Sillman’s interconnections are quite intelligent. Not all of my back-flips are intellectual — that’s why I’m constantly trying to reground them in the actual imagery presented by Sillman herself.

But I am starting to feel like I’ve reached Schiller-esque proportions in my fan-boy-ing of Sillman’s work, and I’m *definitely* not getting paid for any of this 🙂

Comments on this entry are closed.

Previous post:

Next post: