Some exhibits are so earnest and academic, so overcooked and underfed that when they are taken seriously by excellent curators, dealers and critics, I experience them as if they were tidal waves surging from a sewer. In their stink, I am momentarily but deeply sick of art.
A prime example of this sort of thing is currently at James Harris: Robert Davis and Michael Langlois‘ Into the Void: The Battle of the Martyr as Told by Ingres.
James Harris:
Robert Davis and Michael Langlois are collaborators who make paintings together, redefining the conventional notion that paintings are made by a single artist and embody a singular essence or “hand.” They met while at the School of the Art Institute and have worked together since 1997, each taking an equal role in developing ideas, choosing subjects, and executing the works.
Davis & Langlois:
For us, representational painting always includes a deferred
relationship to the painting’s event. In this sense, we see our
paintings as historical and symmetrical to our own relationship to the
past-defined by an ever-renewing dynamic between memory, its
representation and the synchronicity brought about in the object
itself. Our vocabulary is derived from popular and sub cultures and
while we use the oldest trick in the book (mimesis), we are committed
to making classical techniques viable options in contemporary art.
Both paragraphs are Grade A Prime nonsense, but hey, nobody’s perfect. The exhibit also comes wrapped in a ridiculous narrative: a resurrected Ingres narrates the tale of a 15-year-old Palestinian-American girl thinking of Chief Seattle when he was forced out of his land, text translated into Soundgarden lyrics translated into Arabic. Again, bad but not fatal.
What’s fatal is the work itself, the painting. It’s gutless, with all the gears of its machinery clogged and dry.
The Resurrection, 2009
Oil on canvas
40 ” x 50″
These people are going to make “classical techniques viable options”? Ingres would have laughed them out of his studio. They’re going for the silky sublime, of which the 19th Century French NeoClassicist was master. What they deliver is competent sign painting. From a distance and viewed from a moving car, their mimesis might pass muster.
Iman, 2009
Oil on canvas
66″ x 72″
In a gallery, a good gallery, it’s a disgrace. Painting is not limping along, needing an assist from whatever rotten crutch is on offer. Painting needs Davis & Langlois like a fish needs a bicycle.
Into the Void, 2009
Oil on canvas
96 ” x 104″
The core of this exhibit made a previous appearance at the Museum of Contemporary Art Chicago (September 5 – 28, 2009). That’s a big venue for a trifling product.
How Can You Buy Or Sell the Sky, 2009-10
Watercolor and silver paint on wall
Dimensions site specific
Through June 19.
It is so refreshing to read this. I’ve often felt the same way upon reading artist’s statements and viewing their work. Social studies projects usually come to mind, not art. So many times I’ve gone to the Chelsea galleries and left feeling depressed! So many times I’ve come across the words “memory” and “loss” in these statements and wanted to scream! Where will it all end? What can we do about it?
I usually get kissed before I get fucked that hard. I’m not mad at though, you do your thing girl.
One wonders who is curating this type of hackneyed work that gets into museums/galleries now. I’d almost blame them before blaming the artists….who need to work harder at their craft and less on the meaningless theory.
It’s like the era of Victoriana all over again. Thanks for your critical eye.
Thanks for this. Yes, you do have to blame the curator. These artists are arrogant, hubristic kids who haven’t developed the self-awareness and perspective to notice that they’re creating kitsch with a thin layer of justifying bullshit; they’re normal young artists.
The curator, however, should have the chops to recognize the glaring aesthetic differences between this garbage and actual neoclassical painting. As far as I can tell, they’re skipping aesthetics in whatever passes for curatorial school these days.
ditto. your criticism is too often like a lone voice calling out in the wilderness. this isn’t the saltz-style cheerleading so prevalent today. stay honest. peace out.
So wait, are you saying you didn’t like it? Don’t get me wrong I love the vitrolic review more than most, but this is way too heavy on the hyperbole and way too light on the reasoning. If expect this sort of amatuer hour raving from
Bad at Sports but not from Art Journal.
If you hate it you hate it. Great! Bash away, but I would like to see a more in depth articulation this is very knee jerk and visceral.
Rob, if you are going to get fucked you need to negotiate
for dinner as well, you can do better.
Love to all,
Richard
I think that these artists are would be better off if they were selling these paintings at the mall. Maybe then they could really be “committed to making classical techniques viable options in contemporary art.”
Could you actually explain why you didn’t like these paintings?
Hello Juancho: Clarity can be so confusing. These paintings are background theater sets without the theater. Had the project been cynical, it might have more nerve, say for instance if the artists had paid the inept to execute, or children, a la Glenn Ligon, but those are different projects. This one falls into the gap between the illustrative and the visual without any sign of understanding that territory.
I don’t know, but this review seems very vicious and unfair. The reason I say so is because these guys have been doing this type of work for a long time. They are no amateurs. Maybe you should do some research on them. It’s OK to be negative– don’t get me wrong–but the way you have done it…doesn’t seem to come from a real Pro.
Interesting, Juancho. Your idea of a “real Pro” is religious. To understand all is to forgive all.
if your idea of “religious” is being thoughtful, then, sure, I’m a religious art critic!
Juancho, I can’t speak for Regina, but what I see in these paintings is a complete lack of visual tension, material luminosity, and compositional dynamism. The color palettes are banal, predictable and uninterestingly limited. The portrait is anatomically inaccurate and emotionally vacant.
Neoclassical painting, which the artists claim to reference, has tension, luminosity, dynamism, complexity of palette, anatomical accuracy and emotional weight. Thus this work fails on its own stated terms.
The fact that I had to *explain* these things, and that you will probably continue to argue with me, is in itself a tragedy. Painting used to be about *looking.* Art history used to be about training your eye to understand the language of aesthetics.
And the fact that these artists have been ‘doing this work for a long time’ does not change the visual qualities–or lack thereof–of these paintings one bit. When you make an aesthetic claim, you need to have the technical abilities to back it up.
Thank you, Pretty Lady. Exactly. Juancho: Either you have no religious training or you’re deliberately misunderstanding me. To be religious is to take a leap of faith. That’s the opposite of thoughtful. Critics are more like cops than priests, although really like neither. We don’t forgive or hold accountable. We look at the evidence, reach conclusions and shape them into opinions. This blog is my notebook. It’s full of running commentary, rarely full-tilt boogy reviews. I think I covered this subject, however. If these artists want to hear from a doctor, I’ll take the call. They’re spent too much time in school shoveling smoke. They need to dig a ditch or build a house or wipe the drool from the mouth of the demented. They need something to make it rain on their roots. What they have now is slack and corny.
I’m already kicking myself for taking the bait here, but your educating “Juancho” on the meaning of religion is more than I can bear.
Please explain to me how their art school generated theoretical schlock is any worse than what you have offered thusfar. I see a whole lot of pot-calling-the-kettle-black. Anyone who can think for a moment that the following art jingoism passes as criticism needs to march on back to the maligned educational system for a refresher.
“What’s fatal is the work itself, the painting. It’s gutless, with all the gears of its machinery clogged and dry.” What exactly does this mean? Is this an indictment of the technical? Are you challenging their sincerity? You don’t explain this at all.
“Painting needs Davis & Langlois like a fish needs a bicycle.” Wow, really? Seriously? Naughty editor letting that one by, trite to the point of being cringe worthy.
and the best of all the opening, “In their stink, I am momentarily but deeply sick of art.” Why so mad? Do you need a vacation? A hug?
Then for you to accuse the artists (and I have no dog in this fight, I haven’t even given these paintings a whole lot of thought, and while BAS interviewed them I’ve never met them or seen the work in person) of peddling “Grade A Prime nonsense” seems pretty hypocritical. If that weren’t enough,(in a breathtaking show of arrogance) you reply to someone who very neutrally asked you to clarify your position with;
“Hello Juancho: Clarity can be so confusing.”
What was the point of that? Are you so insecure that someone politely asking a question is an affront to your personally. I’ll be trite myself, sounds like you are happy to dish out biting criticism, but unable to answer polite criticism directed toward you.
I would seriously consider looking into some sort of criticism discussion group to get back to your roots, and maybe an anger management course as you are awfully hateful toward people you’ve never met. It’s art, we can disagree and still respect each other without resorting to raging hyperbole or insulting people. Really.
I still don’t feel like you’ve articulated a stance more sophisticated than “the paintings are fucking stupid” and you’ve been asked more than once and resorted to insulting people so I assume that any sort of explanation is not forthcoming.
You seemingly have professional credentials, is all of your writing like this? I’ll have to read further, I assume Arts Journal thought that you had something to bring to the table. This still smacks of a bully pulpit utilized to be florid and mean spirited.
I actually think that pretty lady is making more sense than you, she should be the critic. And you are totally right, you would make a great cop ( no offense intended)
I will say that its alright to not like someone’s work. Art criticism should comprise of both the positive and the negative. But this seems quite mean for no reason.
First of all, nowhere in the excerpt given for both the curator’s and the artists’ statement, does it say that the work is based around 19th French Neoclassicism. Yes, they do say that “we are committed to making classical techniques viable options in contemporary art.” But you, Regina, say “They’re going for the silky sublime, of which the 19th Century French NeoClassicist was master.” So, they must have done something right with the paintings if the paintings gave off that vibe. Also, the Neoclassicist were referring back in history to the Greeks and Romans in the true classic style. Another reference back in history- artists have been doing this for a long time. Davis & Langlois are just following suit, and giving a nod to their predecessors.
Also, these paintings are quite luminous in real life. At the Chicago Cultural Center, during their show “Hose of the Rising Sun, the painting “Face Of God”, glowed with such an intense light, it was mesmerizing to look at. You can look at the image on their website, and even on the screen it looks like it’s vibrating. I think it’s premature to dismiss Davis & Langlois’s paintings as being poorly executed. The same way it is premature to assume that “mimesis” in painting relates to Neoclassical painting
Way to show your shoes! Gesture, humor don’t mix well with painting and labor for those who’d rather stick to broken ground, möbius strips, etc. No joke!
We would like to thank everyone for being here tonight. It has been great, the best “worst” review we have ever received. We have had a lot of fun watching the comments roll in. We feel like we are on a Comedy Central Roast. Regina, thank you for posting all the images and a link. Hugs and kisses to you,Linda,Victoria,The “Pretty Lady”, Ay and Wes. If everybody liked us we would be doing something wrong.
A big Chicago man hug (and chest bump) to Richard, Patina and Juancho for having our backs. Ruiz we are not quite sure what you meant but hugs to you also. Please feel free to continue the comments without us we are off to Basel and Berlin. Thank you all again.
Love, Rob and Mike
“To all my critics, say what you like just spell my name right…” Method Man from his fist solo album “Tical”1994
Did you see the paintings at the MCA?
lets not forget this is coming out of Seattle..rains everyday there!! it
Richard, it’s anything but mean-spirited to take art seriously, to the point where you actively resent the sullying of high-profile art venues with self-indulgent, clueless twaddle. As a lady who spends her time wiping drool, or at least getting her hands dirty in order to relieve people’s real, physical pain, I take it that seriously. We’re not in kindergarten, here; grown-ups shouldn’t get A’s for effort. A critic’s job is to criticize, and Regina has done a stylish and admirable job of it.
The artist statement bugs me even more than the work. I’d rather not know anything about what all this supposed to mean. If I want to read, I’ll go get a book:)
“Pretty Lady” (seriously?)
If by stylish you mean, ranted and kicked hyperbole around without actually saying anything informed, then yes, you are right.
Clearly you are on her wavelength critically as you are more interested in blindly defending your pal that you are in taking a neutral look at what was written here. Bless your heart.