Maureen Gallace Self-Portrait 2003 11 x 12 inches
This spring I saw a show of Maureen Gallace’s work at the Kohn Gallery in LA.
I wasn’t familiar with her work and quickly walked through the show being unimpressed overall but stopping for a few paintings that were likable enough, but puzzled me at how these small simplified scenes of summer New England beach cottages ended up in this high-end West Hollywood gallery. What stopped me in my tracks and caused me to turn around for a second look was the price list. Many of these 9″ x 12″ oil on panel paintings which seemingly done quickly in one sitting had price tags of 40 – 50 Thousand dollars. I suppose that wasn’t so unusual but what really threw me was that even in this recession almost all were covered with red dots.
September Sunset 2008 Oil on Panel 9 x 12 inches
I then went back and looked at everything closer with a completely different eye. I could appreciate her broad paint handling, simplified forms and space like buildings absent of windows or doors. But I also felt they of seemed generic and frankly boring – rather than some pure universal truth about beach cottages representing rectangles of tone. The color is pleasant enough, considered and harmonious. But her drawing and brushwork seemed easily satisfied and the sometimes the painting felt rushed and tentative. There are some wonderful underlying designs and balance of tonal shapes – in a formal sense many of these paintings are quite sophisticated. But no more so than many other landscape painters with far less attention paid to by the art world. These are likable paintings but I couldn’t see what elevated them so astronomically higher than many other painters in the barn and beach cottage genre. She works from photos but seems to try to give the affectation of painting done in plein air. There were a few paintings I warmed up to more like the September Sunset and the Sandpiper.
Sandpiper 2008 Oil on Panel 9 x 12 inches
I didn’t see anything exceptional about how they were painted and couldn’t help worrying if this wasn’t some sort of Mark Kostobi like sham but with far more arty paintings that could appeal to conservative and liberal tastes alike, decorating their beach home as well as glibly demonstrating how sophisticated their taste in art is. Or maybe she really is the new Morandi with flip flops. But I must confess, I probably wouldn’t think twice about her painting if I hadn’t seen her price list and that she shows in places like the high end Chelsea 303 Gallery.
Marfa 2007 Oil on Panel 11 x 14 inches
But maybe I am missing the boat house here and I need to work on fixing my post-modern antennae so I too can tune into this channel. So in fairness I will try to defend her work with this quote from a review of her 2006 show at the Art Institute of Chicago by Michelle Grabner says: “Small, bucolic paintings slowly give way to perfidious abstractions that have relatively little to do with the vernacular structures of the New England landscape that they depict. Maureen Gallace’s paintings are welcomingly complex if you give them time. As I returned to her exhibition at The Art Institute of Chicago several times throughout the course of last summer, the 21 paintings that comprised the show stubbornly unfolded their knotty relationship to ideas of psychological and geographical distance and the formal vocabulary of picture-making. Although they appear to be content simply to be charming works that could quietly co-exist among the quaint barn and seagull pictures hanging in an upscale souvenir gallery in Cape Cod, they require slow analysis, structural dissection and a historical dialogue with American landscape painting.”
Late October Frost 2009 Oil on Panel 11 x 12 inches
So, if you believe the critics, these are highly sophisticated abstract paintings masquerading as quaint beach and barn scenes. These painting’s simplifications of form and compositional arrangements are supposed to suggest such painters as Alex Katz, Milton Avery, Giorgio Morandi, and perhaps Fairfield Porter or even Edward Hopper. Some like the Art Institute of Chicago’s curator James Rondeau reverently speak of her work as with this quote by him “Gallace’s modest objects seem old fashioned and maybe even anachronistic in today’s world of contemporary figurative painting,” said curator James Rondeau. “But that’s exactly what sets her apart. The strength and importance of her work come from its self-conscious simplicity, confident technical discipline, and theoretical orientation. The focus of her subject matter is so narrow because her conceptual contribution is so broad; she is the rare artist who can find infinite creative potential within a restricted idiom.”
July 2008 Oil on Panel 9 x 12 inches
The best source online for seeing her work is at her 303 Gallery as there is a wider range of work and the images are bigger in size.
Summer Farmhouse 2007 Oil on Panel 12 x 12 inches
Maureen Gallace is an instructor of painting at New York University, and has taught in the Art Department of UCLA. Gallace’s paintings are in the permanent collection of the Art Institute of Chicago, the Dallas Museum of Art, the Wadsworth Atheneum, and the Whitney Museum of American Art. Her work has be reviewed in the Art News, Art in America, The New York Times and numerous other major publications. She got her BFA The Hartford Art School in 1981 and MFA at Rutgers University. I read somewhere that she may have studied with David Salle but I couldn’t find anything to verify that and I seemed to have lost where I read that.
I need some help understanding this work and I would be curious to hear others opinions. so I turn to people here to contribute your thoughts on what is going on with these paintings.
Painting Perceptions was started in 2009 by Larry Groff to promote the ideas, practice and experience of painters working from observation in a modernist vein from around the world through interviews, essays, videos and community. It later evolved to include imagination-based and abstract painting as well.
They’re pretty innocuous pictures which is probably part of the attraction for the art-world types that champion her work. They’re vague enough to project all manner of portentous meaning, yet not overtly inept in the way so much of contemporary figurative painting is (Elizabeth Peyton, Karen Kilimnick, and a cast of many, many more fated to be forgotten within a decade’s time…)
So the advantage with Gallace is that her fans can have it both ways, that is to seem both contemporary and at least paying lip service to some sort of tradition. By hedging in this way, the pictures that result are pleasant, but seen en masse hard to distinguish or remember. There’s much worse out there that fetches even more obscene prices but this work just doesn’t deserve much more than faint praise…
Come on now….. this is just shit!
To use a fairly recent expression, it’s just lipstick on a pig!
If I had a student who had painted Sept. Sunset I might think to suggest they go to art school, as it does show some beginnings of an understanding, but that’s it, and no more!
This is the trap of todays critical discussion (excluding this blog of course)…. you can appear to be “modern” and that covers a variety of things that are words only… they don’t need to be on the canvas! Everybody already agree’s with an unstated bunch of principals that include the foregone knowledge that this must be good! And that’s what’s wrong!
I may not have said that last very well, I hope people get my meaning.
But this is also just one step beyond several of the last painters we’ve been discussing…. and for me at least, brings up the problem of where (or when) do you draw the line. How do you draw the line (no pun intended)….. Larry mentions Post Modernism, and that in itself states there are no lines any longer, which tells me there can’t be any discourse any longer.
The fact that there are people willing to pay 40 or 50K for this tells me the art world con is still alive and functioning… GREAT! I only wish I could figure whatever it takes to grab on to a piece of it myself!
Larry, I don’t think your gut failed you in your initial assesment of the work. If the only things that attracted you to investigate her work further was sticker shock then her work has failed you the viewer.
This work is sold by really good marketing and not much else. Having spent several years as a gallerina I’ve watched careers unjustly ‘made’ and trends set, while others with real skill, and clear voice aren’t celebrated with nearly as much enthusiasim (or $). I think a huge part of the problem is an overwhelming lack of art education. The general (American) public has about a 6th grade art education. Art is no longer a mandatory subject for students after that (if even that long). Then collectors must listen to the ‘experts’, who apparently have more of an art education, use Art Speak to justify the market and tell them what is good art/ investment. I agree with Dimitry, that there are worse offenders out there.
I think though that trying to understand how to get a piece of this market for myself, would be self destructive. Then my work would merely be a ‘product’ with out the rewards I value greater than money.
I have to agree with Wm. Dubin. These are not particularly interesting as paintings, abstract or otherwise. The proximity to the more competent work of Horowitz, Shils and Remenick serves to point up Gallace’s weaknesses. We live in an age of profound disconnect. People like Anne Appleby can effect huge careers out of truly mundane efforts consisting of little more than glorified paint samples. Gallace offers a token of “refined taste” rather than the real thing, which probably explains her success.
The art world has many examples of under-recognized excellent artists and over-recognized lesser ones. I know I have been confidently predicting the impending demise of Andy Warhol’s reputation every year since the mid 1960’s (as the decades march past though I’m saying less about it in public). It is tough as anyone who has stayed in the trenches actively painting for any length of time obviously has a passion for what they are doing.
I try to put my main energy into celebrating work I admire. Can’t always manage that, but I try.
Philip said:
Good policy! Which is why I wanted this blog to primarily be about painters I feel are truly exceptional (like your work, for instance!) But every now and again it’s good to peak at what the crazy art world is up to. I agree about how overrated Warhol is, his influence and position in the art world shows how shallow, commercial and truly ignorant of the art of painting the “art world of critics, curators, and many teachers and galleries”can be.
William Elston said:
great comment William, this token of refined taste is exactly what many art collectors are after and Gallace is ready and willing to give them all the refined sugar she’s got. or as Alia puts it:
Alia, I wish I could honestly say I had your integrity here but I suspect if I had someone promoting my work far, far beyond it’s true worth – I would probably just keep my mouth shut! (I’m pretty sure if I didn’t, my wife would for me!)
Bill – (Wm. Dubin) you sure don’t mince words! Good for you. I am far more wishy-washy about her work as there is probably a part of me that doesn’t trust my initial reactions as much as I should (which would be closer to what you first said) reading all the highfalutin art talk about her work sometimes starts the jello-fication process of my brain!
Excellent point Dmitry!
I’m just happy to see I’m not alone in wondering if the Emporer has new clothes. But I have also stopped asking why some work gets recognized and other overlooked. I just try to focus on the work I have to do.
It seems I am odd man out today, 🙁 Winter farm – sure got to me, I followed the link you provided, so in that picture alone she is a success in my mind for sure. But as you can see, she doesn’t need my help to applaud her exquisite tastes and peculiar vision. Love her work for sure. Clean and breezy comes to mind and a depth to her work that’s appealing to me, but still, just my first viewing.
Man I do love it when an artists finds their own unique way. THEIR WAY. Good for her.
I believe she has the power to screw this up and add a hell of a lot more techy to the point of killing the desired effect. That’s the power of knowing limitations and following your intuition.
There is something to be said for simplicity and the message not being constipated and today once again I take something from these works to help me.
After viewing her work some more I now feel she is looking at that first glimpse just before the details start to flood in and the textures come to tell us what is what. The more I look the more I like…sure I would buy one of these, especially Winter Farm. What the hell is wrong with me …I really love that Winter Farm. What is she doing that captures my imagination like that? Good artist in my books.
You are not alone. I find some Hopper, some Milton Avery in her work. Overall her work is fresh and light- meaning “light” touch on canvas not overworked.
I would like to have a book on her work but hard to find.
She seems rather Fairfield Porter to me. And I mean that in the nicest possible way.
As to her price list, well, if that’s really her situation, then more power to her. But I do think a great deal of what we see in galleries is smoke and mirrors. Red dots are not bank deposit receipts, they’re just red dots and they don’t necessarily mean the pieces sold for their asking prices. If they sold at all.
A third of the galleries in Chelsea appear to be tax write-offs. Another third appear to be headed for closure.
Milton Avery lives.
I actually really like the painting “Marfa,” something about the predominance of purply cools with a hint of orange and the full brushstroke of wet paint makes a very nice start of a scene. I would venture to say it was painted in about a half hour (just guessing, thinking about how long it takes me to cover a panel of that size). Perhaps after this initial start, Gallace finds that she effs it up with clumsy attempts at details, like in the sandpiper, the water reflections or the grass (working from photos makes this attempt even more disastrous). Her littler marks look childish and unconvincing, and she wishes she could go back to the initial reaction, that first half hour lay-in, and skip on forcing the perfect lines in the rooftops in “Summer Farmhouse” and the goofy, seemingly photoshopped shadows of blue and yellow. What the people who are marketing her work do not know is that this is how the majority of painters begin a painting, massing in the abstracts. Nothing new or remarkable about it. I was just doing it yesterday, and during the process I was telling myself “Please get through this fun wild part and turn into that stage that I want and can build on, and not into an utter, depressing mess.” I understand the value of the original start, and how it could be interesting visually (I sometimes leave a sketchy painting as is when it works), but geez, it is actually super easy to do. And takes no time at all. And usually does not involve the demons of muddiness or finesse. Sometimes a start can show a remarkable artistic response, but here the generally unremarkable is selling for 40 thousand upwards. Call me traditional, but the challenging part of painting comes after, when you start to zoom in, notice other changes while preserving the work as a whole, and thinking about illusions of textures, luminosity and color flashes. Sure, there might be clarity and freshness in the initial lay-in, but anyone who works from direct observation knows just how much your vision can alter during the process, how what looked perfectly blue the first day is actually an amber gray of lavender. But hey, most painters move beyond the start, so here the artist is doing something “different” and it has captured the minds of high brow art critics and their convinced clients.
If Gallace apparently has won the hearts of so many American buyers, it does not surprise me; the Painter of Light, Thomas Kinkade/Kinkaid (he spells his name both ways on his website to make sure you find him) has been raking in the dough for years. If you don’t like the normalcy of a real painting, then prints, mugs, aprons, bible covers, and lampshades are available. I personally was hoping his website sold sponges; I would love to see the power of Kinkade light do wonders on the soap scum in the bathtub.
You know that old saying – “If it walks like a duck…”
One should not pay attention to the price tag, but evaluate a work led by his/her own (hopefully) elevated taste, knowledge and discerning eye. The price (or signature) should not prompt one to turn a blind eye to the obvious. Anyone willing to pay for these colored canvases more than a couple of hundred dollars is just an investor, not a connosieur.
B. Diddley, I agree with you. (There are paint appliers that really should be forgotten, and IMO Milt Avery tops that huge list.)
Valentino,
I think that B. Diddley is, in his reponse, actually IN FAVOR of both Gallace’s work, as well as Milton Avery. Diddley is comparing Gallace to Avery, in a favorable way……..I believe…..
as far as Gallace’s work: I wonder what some people that are commenting above, especially negatively, think about the work of a painter like Louisa Matthiasdottir? Matthiasdottir has a website. If you look at her Icelandic Landscapes (which are painted from memory, imagination) there is some correlation with Gallace’s paintings, with houses. It can be possible to look at someone like Matthiasdottir (whose work never sold at the prices that Gallace is getting/asking)…to look at Matthiasdottir (her landscapes, still lifes, self portraits) with the same eye that someone would look at someone like a tight Portrait Painter, for example, someone like Nelson Shanks, Daniel Greene or Harvey Dinnerstein (Arts Students League), and IN THAT CONTEXT, and with that understanding of looking at Painting, then Matthiasdottir fails. If one looks at Matisse with the eyes of Gerome, then one IS going to see a simpler childish statement. The question is: what is that painter trying to accomplish? What are they getting in their work, or not getting?
I don’t think that Gallace is a great painter, and I am not sure what I think about her work. But I do think it is important to look at her work within the context of her concerns.
What do we think about artists like…Louisa Matthiasdottir, Piet Mondrian, Albert York, Alex Katz, Wolf Kahn, Josef Albers, Matisse (for example: Matisse’s collage ‘Snail’)..??
The work of these above artists, in the right (or should I say wrong?) context, can look like easily-imitable, child-like statements. But what is the difference then, between these works, and the work of the beginning student or child? the answer has nothing to do with hype, fame, history, money
Wealthy people want exclusivity. It’s one kind of exclusivity to be able to spend massive amounts on art work. Fashioning and flaunting a taste incomprehensible to the plebes is another. And with delusions of superior artistic understanding comes delusions of entitlement. A handy thing for the immoderately wealthy in a world of very limited resources. Demand always creates a market.
Some of the landscapes are nice sketches. That’s obviously all they are.
And wonderful blog. Thank you for exposing me to so many wonderful painters.
That’s funny I love Miltin Avery as well as Rembrandt to the Group of Seven,,, a very long list but whatever. Elevated taste, my god we can all hide behind that old saw that only leads to a deadening spirit of our own artistic ideas because we want something feed by our so called elevated tastes instead of what we already have built in and now shamefully it can not be seen anymore or its becomes very blurry because of our enraptured appetite for someone else’s excellence in art. I like fine wine too and have elevated tastes but I didn’t make the damn wine I just enjoy the wine like I enjoy many artists but that’s where it ends. Great wine MAKERS follow their muse as do all great artists to ultimately produce that something special, as if it has never been seen before.
I mean or I can imagine she probably had dreams like all the rest of us to be the next Rembrandt but somewhere down the line realized that could be a long and delusional journey ending in death and what some say, the music died within them, but hey, by God at least they had elevated tastes,,,,. But by whatever stroke of luck or genius this artist has found innocence and thus found herself. Another SUCCESS story, Cézanne did the same, Picasso did……. HONESTY.
To the artist in case she lands here by search. //// Let the rest elevate their tastes my dear and you just keep being you …its working. I know its not like I am saying anything profound because you already posses the truth and that is the very essence of being an intelligent artist. You are your own person thus your own imagined art, so I know you don’t need me to tell you anything…your there and who knows where you will go from here but since you posses a gift that God/soul intended you to have and you paid attention to, then I have no doubt it will be an exciting journey for you.
Regarding Mr.Lee’s comparison of Gallace with Matthiasdottir:
While I’m not her biggest fan, Matthiasdottir’s pictures are infinitely smarter than Gallace’s. The difference is that the former’s reductions are in the service of finding some sort of essence, while the latter’s efforts seem merely underworked and indifferently composed. As to the others mentioned, while it’s true that by the standards of the academy many worthy painters would be laughed out of town, we live in as very different age. The question is why Gallace would employ her superficial knowledge of the ‘painterly’ brushstroke for whatever ends she intends. It’s telling that she works from photography, as her compostions have much in common with random snapshots; I get the feeling that if the view shifted a couple inches to the left or right there wouldn’t be much difference, whereas someone like Matthiasdottir considers every millimeter of her canvas… It’s with mixed feelings that I criticize this work, because all in all I’d much rather look at an anemic little landscape than most of what passes muster in the Art World, nevertheless she’s playing in my neighborhood so it’s fair game. There’s such a long history of great painters who depict their world through pared-down, simplified marks, I wish she’d spent more time studying them rather than her collection of Polaroids…
Painters with more experience in the field of representation would see a certain stumbling ineptitude in this work. I’m not saying that the intent is necessarily bad. It’s a vein that has been more fruitfully mined by painters like William John Leech, or my friend and contemporary Kurt Solmssen : http://www.kurtsolmssen.com/pages/2009/2009aws3.html . Is Gallace’s work valid? Yes. Is it innocent? Perhaps. Weak? Most certainly.
Anyone who has been to art school has seen this stuff by the boatload. It is completely unexceptional. The fact that this particular instance sells for such a high sticker price is not germane, except that it points to the utter failure of our gate-keeping institutions in the visual arts to effectively mediate value re. contemporary figurative painting.
Claiming that her work is important because it foregrounds abstract qualities is like saying Progresso soup is better because it comes in a can. We’re more aware of her paintings’ abstract qualities because their clumsiness of color, brushwork and drawing makes it impossible to savor much of anything else. Check out the work that I’ve mentioned above and you will see what I mean.
mr. Samarov, Dmitry,
YES, i agree with you in that Matthiasdottir is much stronger/smarter than Gallace. YES. Matthiasdottir is a great painter, I am a fan. And I have seen your website before, possibly through this blog, but more likely through another (midwest, laderman, ???). YET…while I dont see a strong, felt, movement with Gallace’s work, I don’t see her compositions as being indifferent either. IF they were indifferent, THEN they WOULD be part of the beach gallery scene.
also, YES, we do live in a different age. but then, what do we mean by “WE”. How many painters out there that we may be aware of, that live and survive under this academy/atelier umbrella? florence academy, waterstreet, john pence gallery…
I don’t think that one could move Gallace’s compositions to the left or the right, a few inches, as you are suggesting, with no effect. those houses that are more or less centered, are positioned there with some purpose. No, they are not an Albers, but neither are they a random snapshot.
so, in the long run, i am completely agreeing with you. my question is with critics here that are NOT aware of a painter like Matthiasdottir, or her circle. Of course, Matthiasdottir is the stronger painter, that goes unsaid. I am only saying that, criticize as one may, but don’t look at Gallace through the lens of….ok, Bo Bartlett….
some of the landscapes are nice sketches……the same was said of Corot.
and YES YES YES Gallace is so far away from Corot that she shouldnt be included in the same sentence as….!!!
Hello Mr. Elston,
I am not sure what you really mean with the soup/can comparison.
I do know Kurt Solmssen a bit, he is friends with a teacher I had named Doug Martenson, from PAFA, and I have met Kurt a couple of times, briefly. I am aware of his work, very influenced by Goodman, Diebenkorn, Thiebaud (as we all are influenced by past masters).
Gallace…what art school? where do you see art school work like this (houses on the beach)??? cape cod, that sorta thing.
sure, there is something completely ‘fake’ about her work….
if you see her above painting “Summer Farmhouse” (2007) as being naive on the level of a beginning painter…..then you yourself are missing the boat. No, it’s not a Titian,..but she is aware of an interlock between the two wedges, the planes of the rooftops, and the way those planes push against the softer moves of the treetops (left and right), and the cloud mass above and to the right.
yes, if you want to weigh Gallace against an Italian Rennaissance Painter, she will lose. But if you look at her as a naive “beginning” student, You are doing her a great disservice.
take Gallace out of the picture.
Is f. Porter clumsy? Are Corot’s figures, are Pissarro’s figures, clumsy? (they have been claimed as such).
Where is the line? Fairfield Porter, FOR EXAMPLE, is not trying to be Ingres. Is Puvis de Chavannes inept? Ingres might say so, while Picasso calls Puvis a master.
what is your diversity? who do you accept, who do you not accept? and, correct me if I am wrong, but isnt this a blog geared toward painting that is based on perception, looking, working from life, ….as opposed to working from photographs…capital P?
Wow, so many excellent comments – both pro and con. TDK and John you make convincing arguments and make me want to yet again reconsider her work more carefully.
I don’t have the time to really dig into the conversation just now but I did want to respond to John Lee’s comment about this blog being geared to perceptual based painting. You are right that is certainly the primary emphasis here but I also want to occasionally include painting that has either the appearance of observation based painting or painting that might inspire a lively discussion (which was the biggest reason I made this particular post) This blog is also a bit about perceptions about painting in general – which means anything goes if it’s interesting enough.
The head on the portrait is nicely drawn with simple paint. The sunset is a nice study. The others feel forced or merely picturesque perhaps ironically so.
I think its been worthwhile contemplating this painter’s worth.
Its always illuminating if you strip off the fancy frame, the swanky gallery and any a priori knowledge one has about the artist and see what you really think. How confident can we be in our assessments? What are they based on? I will freely admit that I’ve struggled to understand Louisa Matthiasdottir and Lois Dodd . I’d love it if some of that work went up on this site and those of you that understand it can really help me appreciate what they are doing. Why do I love Fairfield Porter but not them? Do they flatten form too much for my liking? Is it his familiar (to me) subject matter? Use of color? Its all these things.
I commend Larry for laying his doubts out there. An exercise of this sort is good every now and then.
Being an artist is all about taking a stand Each time we set out to paint we are trying to establish how we think it should be done. It may be inspired but other art we’ve seen and loved or a reaction against some art. So we all speak with our art. But when it comes to saying things about other painters (esp those that are alive and surfing the web) it’s somewhat risky to make a statement like “so and so sucks” lest the critic should be the next painter whose work is up on the block for everyone to write about. Its easy to throw harsh words at a painting, but the next thing I do is go look at your web site and see if it’s backed up with paintings that awe me.
I think she neither sucks nor is she wonderful. If I was walking along the sidewalk and one was in a window, one might catch the corner of my eye and I’d stop and go take a closer look probably to be disappointed that they don’t have a lot more to offer.
Perhaps saying that her compositions are practically random was overstating it, but in the end I can’t believe that capturing any sort of specific place, light, or even mood is the goal here. They’re certainly not student-level or unfinished, but paint here is probably being used ironically. Why photographs are transformed into these nondescript little paintings is confounding, but the critics’ embrace of them isn’t, because this is the type of work that invites interpretation and conjecture; manna from heaven to the professional taste-maker…
Note to Larry:
What all of this says to me, is that there needs to be some sort of understanding, or guide-lines as to what is meant by “perceptual based painting”. Every time I think I see what you are talking about, you throw in a contradiction, like the Chinese painter in SF who paints totally from photo’s…. so I guess photo’s are OK? (From my own position, I’m fine with them).
It’s the ART we’re talking about, isn’t it? Isn’t that what’s important? Or is the process what’s important?
If we’re talking about direct perception of nature, then how far from actual seeing are we going? Please don’t mistake I’m in favor of photo realism, my previous comments on many artists presented here should avoid that, but if this current painter is an example of someone who is working from reality, then any one and anything is also…… I can close my eye’s and see better than this.
You commented that with this artist, I certainly didn’t “mince words” …. well, actually Larry, I did. Had I said what I really think about this persons work, I doubt it would have cleared your spam filter! I find it hard to understand that people who are spending their lives making art don’t have very strong opinions on what they see and feel is good or bad art… that we’ve become so democratic that we allow anything just in case we might be wrong. David Marshall says it all: “being an artist is about taking a stand” …… and I’m confused by those who don’t seem able to do so. Either this stuff is valid, or it’s not, there’s no half-way here, if there is confusion, then it’s because the art itself is so unclear. If the painter is in an early stage of developing something, well great, but then it doesn’t belong in galleries and it doesn’t belong on a blog that considers serious artists. (I realize that last is a bit optimistic on my part).
While no other artist you’ve presented has brought out as many comments… some of them from people who haven’t commented before, and which I suspect may have something to do with why you’ve presented her in the first place, I’m rather sad to see it required something like this in order to achieve it.
William E. Elston: “We’re more aware of her paintings’ abstract qualities because their clumsiness of color, brushwork and drawing makes it impossible to savor much of anything else.”
You nailed it 1000 %.
I wish I had more complete mastery of English, so that I could express myself better and more precise.
William statement above could be applied to many famed 20th century paint appliers. Avery, for instance and the likes of him. This, and some other pieces of Matisse as well (which is a complete failure, IMO)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Matissedance.jpg
I do not wish to talk about my preferences in art here, but I have to clear up my standpoint: John, it goes without saying that we should look at the works of paint appliers within the context of their concerns. If Munier had created The Scream, the painting would probably have lost some of its power. Of course, some artists talk, other sing, some whisper and other scream.
In any cases I think I am able to recognize the mastery (or the absence of it); that is – a master painter who chose to work in a certain seemingly carefree, relaxed (more or less loose – for lack of better word) manner and inept wanna be painter who obviously can not do better.
There ARE examples of brilliant yet “simple” painting, but many gallerists and their protegés are hiding behind that term.
Back on John’s statement : the problem is that in many contemporary cases (particularly when it comes to non-rep painters, but not only them) we can only hope we have discerned their concerns and aims. IF – and only if – we really did it, then we can proceed with evaluation of their works, judging how effectively they achieve their supposed goal. Even if they did achieve what they tried to, then their art might be banal, shallow, innocuous (or pretentious, pompous, shocking for publicity’s sake etc) in their content and form and don’t worth second look, despite the price tag and hype.
“She is aware of an interlock between the two wedges, the planes of the rooftops, and the way those planes push against the softer moves of the treetops (left and right), and the cloud mass above and to the right.”
Well, she SHOULD be, she is painter, right? I mean, that alone is not evidence of particular mastery on her side. You learn that kind of stuff at painting workshops.
If one favours small beach paintings, then look for a works of master like Ken Auster.
John Lee: “The work of these above artists, in the right (or should I say wrong?) context, can look like easily-imitable, child-like statements. But what is the difference then, between these works, and the work of the beginning student or child?”
I am not sure I understood your point, since this sentence seem to contradict with the rest of that post of yours. That is the sort of question I would ask here. Could one tell the difference on a blind test? If there is no difference (except in signature), then one should not pay particular attention to the painting. There are many such examples (highly priced mediocre or bad artworks) in the 20th century art. On the other side, very few children or beginning students could do works in the manner or, say, Puvis (a genius), Felix Valotton or Peter Kelly.
Caveat: just for the record – if one does not favour painters like Gallace, Remenick, C.Lafuente or Avery, it does not necessarily mean that he/she must be advocate of, say, atelier art, 19th century Academicism, photo realism and hater of loose paint handling.
A couple of comments in response to Wm Dubin (who’s general arguments I tend to agree with)
The photograph is a tool that painters like Degas and Sargent and many others used. They are wonderful painters. Why exclude someone because they use photographs? The thing is they knew how to use their eyes and had all the experience necessary from looking at nature to know the limits of how a photograph could serve their needs.
So I wouldn’t want to exclude photograph users from our survey of artists.
PhotoRealists are a different ilk. They are making paintings with fidelity to a photograph. I think they don’t belong in a blog with the title “Perceptual Painting”. But then there is a painter like Scott Prior whose work seems to be 95% based on whats in a photograph and the other 5% comes from elsewhere (a perceptual memory?). This 5% is what gives his works a magical quality that a lot of people like
I know successful painters who base careers on painting from a stopped frame in a home movie on their TV sets. I’ve looked at some frames of a David Lynch film and have been tempted.
Digital photography opens up other avenues. One can work from an image on a computer monitor. With a good software package an artist can photograph his own work, play with it in software, and get some ideas about ways to modify it with paint.
Personally, I find that working from photographs is not satisfying. Its just plain boring and tedious. Portrait painters who work on commission have to deal with this element of their job because no one wants to “sit” for a portrait anymore. I think everyone is too busy with their Twitters and iPhones nowadays. Their interaction with the world is fast and furiuos and seems to be filtered by all these gagets. Who has time to sit for 3 hours and do nothing when there is so much tweeting to do 🙂 ?
Painting for me is in the interaction with nature. I like being out in the sun and wind or rain, etc. Does this enhance a deep contemplation of visual phenomena? Maybe not. But maybe all that other kinesthetic stimulation feeds the work through another channel. Degas put down landscape painting of this sort as “some kind of sport”. It does seem crazy to be out clinging to an easel that is about to blow over in a wind gust but thats part of the “sport” of painting that I enjoy.
Finally, I think you said something about work being either valid or invalid – no half-ways. I think that the beauty of art is that it lives on a continuum. I wouldn’t label each end-point of that continuum “valid” or “invalid”. While I find myself wanting to sort artists and their art into categories (at times, maybe even two: stuff I like/ stuff I don’t) I do that for my own purposes and its not that useful to others.
THis painter, Gallace, evokes no strong feelings in me one way or another. It lives deep within the half-way which, for some, may be adequate reason for taking a strong stand against it.
dm
I think that by including this post, a can of worms have opened. Is Gallace a perceptual painter or a conceptual one? Or a mix of both? Is this okay? Who judges? I don’t think anyone will ever know for sure until the artist herself chooses to describe it, but this is often left for the critics to do, both the high brow and all of us. And in the case of Gallace, given her gift for playing in the abstraction reductivist realm with a foot planted also in pretty plein-air barns, I am not sure she would ever give a direct answer. I think perhaps this discussion could lead to understanding a bit more how to define/separate perceptual painting from conceptual. Being there and experiencing/receiving versus not being there and facing yourself and your ideas. Both are equally hard. I suppose I do a bit of both, from having an artistic concept and starting from there and other times being held against my will by the beauty of nature. Using photography can overlap into both perceptual and conceptual, and in both cases I think it works only if the painter still uses painterly knowledge and does not use them as a crutch.
I once heard Martha Erlebacher say that artists fall into two camps. For one camp Art is a race, a competition where artists try to outdo each other. The other camp is a party where they seek to entertain each other and themselves. Not sure where I fall in this but Martha was sure she was in a race. I’d say Gallace falls in the party camp. Judging from the jpegs, I see a bunch of whimsical sketches. They certainly are fresh- which is something. They remind me a little of Albert York, who I like very much. He could be a bit clumsy but profound at the same time. I do not find her work profound.
David,
I find myself agreeing with you once again… the camera IS a wonderful tool. It becomes, for me, a question of degree’s and a question of necessity.
I didn’t always feel this way about the camera, in fact, I felt the exact opposite, that somehow it was cheating… this based on my expierence of the Photo Realists and others who simply copied the photo, although to be fair, Bechtel talks about a synthysis of many photo’s, not just using one that he copies. I had painted only from direct observation since 1955, and I was firmly locked into the belief that it was the only way. Then circumstances forced me about 3 years ago, to give up painting “outside”, and I either had to stop painting altogether, or choose to work in the studio from photo’s, I’m just NOT a still-life sort.
I’ve learned the following since I decided to at least try this: By taking my own photo’s (I find I can’t work from someone else’s), I’m forced to concentrate on the original “scene” and to choose a composition from everything available, just like being “outside”. This, I believe, adds to my MEMORY the reality of which the photo then SUGGESTS when I choose it to paint from. If I add the fact that I’ve been looking at reality all my life, and hopefully as an artist for the better part of that, then I can say that my memory contains a life times worth of both images and all the various aspects those images contain. When I think “clouds” I don’t just see the one’s in front of me, I see a lifetimes worth of them.
Prior to the advent of the camera, memory and memory training were a major part of an artists bag…… we seem to have either forgotten, or we have down played this in our time of digital stuff…..
Now, I love the digital stuff…. I take my photo’s from a “shoot” and do all sorts of things including re-forming the compositions and the clarity, brightness and colors in Photo shop, and today I consider this part of what I do a very CREATIVE ELEMENT in the whole evolution of the painting…. no different from hiking up a mountain and seeing just the right spot. Do I still have the wind in my hair? No… but then I don’t have much hair left either!
Once I’ve played with the photo, which I keep “up” on my lap top, the computer goes over to my side… NOT in front of me… it’s a reference for when I feel the need to “look up”, just as I would “look up” from my board when out painting. After all, I believe that past a certain point, the painting tells you what it needs far more than the scene in front of you does.
My last thought on this: …. I prefer industrial scenes. Almost by definition, these include the movement of heavy machinery, which in my last series of paintings, includes the antique Trolley’s we have running in Tucson (AZ)…. No matter how I wish for it, they just won’t hold still and pose for me, nor will the cars that whizz around them, so when I walk into the street to photograph them, I’m in more than a bit of danger. Setting up an easel would be fool hardy and I’m sure, illegal.
I’m also drawn to visual effects the camera seems to be perfect for, maybe even a companion too …. the high-beams of a car coming directly towards you at twilight in the rain, their lights bouncing off the wet pavement. I’m sure memory could provide a great deal of this for me, but I can stand on my street and get a half dozen cars/trucks photographed anytime it rains.
I’ve begun to think more about compositions that might be so reliant on a camera, as to be nearly impossible other wise, a kind of symbiotic relationship for things that happen with a camera, like light-bounce or lens flares….. the strange after-image glow of neon lights at night that a camera catches so well, questions of motion ……. I am far from original in this, I can easily supply images of other artists who are doing it now.
To reply to your point about my comment on the extremes of valid VS invalid. For whatever reason, I’m that sort of person…. if I like your stuff, I like it a lot, and, conversely, the opposite is true.
At one point Rebecca Hart mentioned (gleefully I hope) the possibility of a Thomas Kinkade bath sponge…. please, please, please Rebecca, let me know if you ever get one!!!!!!!
And Matthew, I sure hope there are more than those two camps available, as I can’t seem to fall into either one.
As an adjunct to what I’ve just written, I’d very much like to discuss the relationship between the camera and the painting of today. I’ve come to feel it has a very specific role in our times, and perhaps the better we understand this, the more we can take advantage of it. For example, a friend of mine has taken this to the level where he used a video camera to record the wind blowing through the tree’s, then created an endless loop to play in the studio, adding motion and atmosphere to the visuals.
It may be this this takes the discourse past the place where Larry feels the blog should go, in which case, if anyone cares to discuss this further, Larry has my e-mail address, and I’d love to hear from you.
One of the many reasons why I’d eventually like start a forum/message board, as another part of this site, is so that we can have many categories with sub-topics and threads on topics of people’s choosing. Anyone could start their own topic as long as it was remotely relevant to the overall category. Moderators can help keep the conversations focused when need be – when the conversation strays wildly off topic.
I am encouraged by the number of people participating with the comments here and if we can sustain interest over the next several posts/weeks I will want to move forward with this idea. FYI, I have some very interesting posts on artists (including a couple of interviews with couple of very prominent perceptual painters) coming very soon.
By the way, as common to most blogs – on each person’s comments is a link to their email address as well as a url if they have one – or choose to make it public.
This reminds me that I was thinking of having a links/whose-who type section in this blog where people who post regularly would have an image of their work, brief blurb if they want and a link to their site. This could be a way to encourage more people to participate in the discussion and a good way for more people to see your work (of course it would all be optional) I’m not totally sure it is a good idea so I want to think about it a bit more.
Wm. Dubin – In regard to your comment that was directed to me…
I don’t want to go further away from the topic of Gallace’s work here than I already have. I think I’ve made my feelings clear in regard to what type of artists I want to feature here but I will say again that I am most interested in work that has the look of perception. I am most interested in work made directly from observation but strict definitions can be tricky as some artists dramatically alter things through the filter of their personality during the time it takes to look at something to when you actually see the final “transcription” on the canvas. You say we need understanding or guide lines here about what defines perceptual painting sorry, but I don’t get that. It’s just a blog not a manifesto! I’d say the vast majority of painters I feature work from life in some manner – some might be a hybrid perceptual which working from life, photo reference, drawings and memory. You mentioned, Mr. Kim Cogan – the Korean painter from SF, he used photos for his cityscape paintings but it didn’t look photographic, as he wasn’t copying the photo he was using it as a tool to supplement his artistic vision.
But sometimes it simply comes down to this: since I can do what ever the hell I want – from time to time I will want to talk about painters who I think might make for interesting conversation – like our current Ms Gallace.
I think it was David who made the very good point that it is very important to remember that we are talking about living artists who surf the web and use Google just like the rest of us. I recently saw where Cindy Tower posted a link on her website to this blog’s article on her. Maureen Gallace will most likely read what we have all said about her work. I’m sure she can handle whatever we throw at her in terms of criticism. I tend to think that even if you hate the work, it’s good karma to keep the tone civil, which for the most part is what we all have done.
Larry,
my first inclination after looking here again is to say: nice wrap up! Who is next?
still, I feel the desire to touch on some of the above comments (But I don’t want to pry the lid back off of this Can 0′ Worms!)
Mr. Dubin: Reading your second to last post reminds me of interviews with photo-realists like Estes or Ralph Goings. The way they looked at/justified working from photographs. The difficulties involved with working from the motif directly, out in the field, etc. And for someone like Estes, whose work looks Rather tight and photo-realistic, he would take these liberties with the photo information, removing buildings, pushing things around, etc….as the painting required.
Still, I have to agree more so with David Marshall and his feeling that working from photography is “boring”, etc. I don’t think that you can get the real color from a photograph, or the sensation, etc.
Also, Photos are finite, while reality is infinite. What is interesting about painting is the translation of nature, and/or the response to a construction. What to include, what to exclude, how far does one take the description of the subject? (for perceptual painting?)
This leads into the interesting point made by Rebecca Harp: Perceptual Painting vs. Conceptual Painting. But which ‘Conceptual’ do we mean? Conceptual as in ‘Ironic’ (which I can see via Dmitry Samarov’s comment above)? Conceptual ala post-Warhol, etc? OR OR Conceptual as in….all painting has a sense of the conceptual? Perceptual Painting may aim for this ‘pure’ response, painting as one Sees (I am not in any way trying to sully that notion!)…but if we think about Monet and Giacometti as BOTH desiring to paint it as they see it, we get 2 different concepts. Monet wants to see in terms of color patch/color spot/brushmark/juxtaposed flat notes of color….while Giacometti wants to understand form as a complexity of planes in space, realized through LINE. Line is a concept for the one, Color Patch for the other. Is it really possible to be ‘pure’ in painting?
Finally , I want to add that, though I generally agree with David Marshall’s response above (and I do want to thank David Marshall: your website has been quite valuable to me for some years, seeing your work, the links, and the insite into the work/teaching of Lennart Anderson, a favorite painter of mine)…I do feel that while a painter like Degas, or Cezanne, or Picasso, did use photography in making their paintings…it was, of course, on occasion. a rarity. I like to think of someone like Degas using the photograph as being like a master chef who now and again uses a microwave to heat up his soup, his own personal dinner..
John Lee you asked who is next? I just finished a long interview with George Nick (recorded phone conversation) I am in the process of transcribing the audio files now and hope to have the post up by the end of the next week. I may also upload it into a podcast for people to listen to. I am also interviewing Eric Aho, the landscape painter, who is currently having a show at the DC Moore Gallery in Manhattan. Hopefully, I should have his interview done in a couple of weeks. I also have a few ideas for some quicker posts to get up right away so we can keep the conversation going. If anyone feels ambitious and wants to donate/write a guest post, please contact me and we can see about getting it up.
“I was thinking of having a links/whose-who type section in this blog where people who post regularly would have an image of their work, brief blurb if they want and a link to their site. This could be a way to encourage more people to participate in the discussion and a good way for more people to see your work (of course it would all be optional) I’m not totally sure it is a good idea so I want to think about it a bit more.”
Larry, I think it is not a bad idea. That way, IMO, somebody’s criticism (positive or negative) would have more weight – or lack of it.
John Lee: Thanks for your words on my site and Lennart Anderson’s http://www.lennartanderson.com . Lennart has mixed feelings about having his work on the web so its been tough sledding to keep this project going. One day soon, I hope to add some more images to it.
I would like to recommend a book that is all about perceptual painting and it isn’t easy to get. “Alla Prima: Everything I Know About Painting” by Richard Schmid. He’s thought hard about the problems we face and has some interesting insights about the use of photography as a last-resort. I don’t own many how-to books, but this one has been of some use.
David, thanks for the book recommendation. I have that book and read most of it. Worth reading and is one of the few books on perceptual painting that is actually useful in some ways. However, I do hold some reservations. I lent this book to someone awhile back and hopefully he will get it back to me soon as I was thinking of writing a post about Richard Schmid, his work, book and dvds. I won’t get into now but I will say that while I respect his work and he is a very good perceptual painter, I think he is overrated. His work tends to be too mannered for my taste. You will be surprised if you watch and listen to his dvd’s closely and compare what he is saying to what he actually does. You can buy this book from his websitefor around 50.00 for the soft cover.
Of the many things I plan to add to this site is a reading list with descriptions and possibly little reviews (with the ability for people to write reviews/comments) – this is actually one way I have thought might be a way to generate some funds to help maintain and expand this site. If people buy the books that link here to Amazon, we can get a small percentage of the sale.
Rebecca Did you ever get to talk with Shalom Flash? I hope you gave him my regards. What show and reunion are you referring to? I missed that one…
David: The Schmid book is an excellent one I should agree, I got a long glance from a friend, but hope to change that the next time I am stateside and can order books on Amazon that don’t get caught up in customs duties. I did find an excellent art collector/rare books dealer in Tel Aviv in the most random of ways. He is a wealth of knowledge and has a few copies of the Lopez Garcia book: willing to sell for good money, but only in exchange also for an artist’s book he does not have yet and admires. Maybe I could ask him if he could find the Schmid book here.
I was pleasantly surprised to look at the Lennart Anderson’s site and find his portrait of Richard Serrin (as a much younger man 🙂 ) I know Richard from Florence, a sweet soul, and he championed me on the art school I created in Florence as “filling in a needed niche.” I much appreciated his comment! As for Lennart Anderson himself, I am learning more about him thanks to your site and to Israel Hershberg (having lived in Europe for so long I really am out of touch with the great American artists and teachers, which is not at all to say that there are not some really wonderful gems of artists in Europe!) Israel recently shared a beautiful photo of Lennart gazing at one of Israel’s beautiful landscapes at his opening last month in NY. Must have been a touching moment. I look forward to hearing all about the show and the reunion of artists next week. I can imagine that Lennart must have mixed feelings about it all, so cheers to you for your efforts.
Larry: it was Israel’s solo show in Marlborough Chelsea. Opened September 10th, up until the 15th I think. I so wished I could have gone! I meant reunion because Lennart Anderson was there, but also Diana Horowitz and Stuart Shils amongst many others, teachers, fans. Israel was very touched.
I did see Shalom, and I mentioned your site, but I think he knew of it already, or had seen it. His opening line was (not quite opening, but close): “I am interested in perception.” Really made me smile.
Thank you for the introduction to this artist. I appreciate what she brings to the language system of art.
“Every child is an artist. The problem is how to remain an artist once he grows up.” Picasso
First, to answer a question, I think Maureen Gallace studied with David Salle when he taught briefly at the Hartford Art School. Gallace was a student there at roughly the same time, so it seems possible.
I love this work. To me, it floats in between certain tastes in art, the perceptual/conceptual political divide. You’ll notice that the more abstract-leaning PaintersNYC blog also debated her work: http://painternyc.blogspot.com/2006/11/maureen-gallace.html
…but on that post, commenters criticized her work because she was too representational and didn’t seem contemporary enough to hang with the other artists affiliated with Chelsea’s 303 Gallery. So, the opposite of this blog’s criticism, but discomfort and condescension among viewers nevertheless. (You’ll also see that both blogs discuss her works’ high prices.)
I suspect that its this persistent in-between position which attracts high-minded curators and collectors. Its the casualness and lack of irony which makes her attitude so appealing in contemporary art. She definitely has cool gesture, but still makes real emotional investments into her pictures. She has an exceptional talent for restraint.
I see a lot of Alex Katz or Fairfield Porter in her work, but mostly I see Helene Schjerfbeck, an early European modernist into reductive figuration.
I love this work. Gallace has tapped into something unique. Not sure about the 50 Grand price tag, (that aspect always seemed to have no rhyme or reason). The paintings do speak abstractly in a way that landscapes rarely do. Further, I might add, Fairfield Porter is extremely underrated. He was a first class talent.
Very interesting thread, this. To me her work seems simple but isn’t, seems direct but isn’t and seems artless and almost naive but in fact is very knowing and aware. In that sense, she reminds me of Alex Katz (but not in a formal sense, I think she paints better than he does). Some posters mention Fairfield Porter but his work is always exploratory and open ended; he doesn’t have a formula for making art and he’s always looking and learning. That’s why, along with masterpieces, Porter can still paint some real stinkeroos – just because you ask a question doesn’t mean you’ll get the right answer and just because you’re looking doesn’t mean you’ll find anything.
Alex Katz, by contrast, is always the same. Nothing he does is that different to or better / worse than anything else he does because he has a recipe which he follows; I’d say Maureen Gallace is the same kind of recipe painter. That’s only a criticism if you don’t care for what she uses her recipe to make; which I do, kind of. Small format, pleasant subject, nice paint handling – what'(within limits) not to like?
She’s an incredible painter.
I attended Hartford Art School with Maureen Gallace. She attended one or two classes of David Salle’s, but was not in regular attendance. She also made some amazingly beautiful films in Jack Goldstein’s class. I thought her art was beautiful then, but I think it is even more beautiful now. The longer you look at her pieces, the more you fall in love with them. I wish I could afford one for myself.
full disclosure: i have zero expertise in this area
still: I love gallace’s work