In the middle of the 19th century, painters thought of Victor Hugo as a writer, and writers called him a painter.
Now that few who are not forced read his famous novels (thick in every sense), his 1998 exhibit at the Drawing Center was decisive. Writers don’t claim him, but painters need to, as his connection in the visual realm is decisive. His semi-abstractions freely range from the specific to the general,
zeroing in and fading out, suggesting vast amounts of time crawling by
and smoke hanging amid ruins.
The link between him and certain painters of the present moment is the use of fine lines that cut through vapor to shovel smoke.
In Seattle, there’s Mary Ann Peters, now on view at the James Harris Gallery. (Images below from 2006 exhibit. Review of current one to follow.)
In San Francisco, Darren Waterston.
In New York, Christopher Lowry Johnson.
In LA, Tony De Los Reyes, at Howard House through Oct. 31.
In LA and New York, Gary Simmons:
In New York and London, Cecily Brown.
And two more from Seattle, Barbara Earl Thomas
…and Kenneth Callahan, a drawing from 1972.
Ellen says
The only painter on this list who deserves to be compared to Victor Hugo is Cecily Brown. Her painting is about something. Sex. His was about something. Ruins. The other painters you celebrate, Regina, are a waste of time. They make art about art. Art has to be about something other than itself. Give me substance!
Another Bouncing Ball says
Hi Ellen. The meaning and, your word, substance in art is not the same as its subject matter. Art is a how not a what.