WHERE'S GEORGE?
VIERNES, EL DIECIOCHO DE SEPTIEMBRE, DOS MIL NUEVE
ROB MCLEOD HAS AN EXHIBITION ON AT PRESENT OVER IN SYDNEY AT BEATTY GALLERY.
THERE'S SOME GREAT TITLES IN THE EXHIBITION THAT WORK AGAINST THE INGRAINED MYTH THAT HIS PAINTING IS ABOUT FORMALISM: PAINT SURFACE, SKIN AND THAT THERE IS NO MEANING (RECENT TILES ARE : SWIMMING AGAINST THE TIDE, WALKING AWAY, LOOKING FOR A BOSS, FIGHTING THE PAST, BREAKING FREE). THAT WAS THE LATE 70S AND EARLY 80'S, YET THERE HAS BEEN VERY LITTLE DISCUSSION OF HIS HEFTY TRANSITION BACK TO FIGURATION IN THE EARLY 2000'S. I'M GUESSING MOSTLY BECAUSE PEOPLE STILL SEE PAINT ON THE SURFACE, SO PRESUME THAT WHAT WAS WRITTEN IN THE LATE 70'S BY JIM BARR AND MARY BARR IN THEIR A-M BOOK MUST STILL STAND.
HIS WORK IS OFTEN REFERRED TO AS UGLY, WHICH IS AN ATTRIBUTE THAT DOESN'T SEEM TO BE TOLERATED IN THE NZ ART, ESPECIALLY IN THE PAINTING FIELD. THE STATES HAD THE KIENHOLZ'S, WHOSE VITRIOLIC LIFE-SIZE DIORAMAS OF POLITICAL AND PERSONAL THEMES I FIND SIMILAR TO MCLEOD'S GROTESQUES. NOT ONLY IN THEIR SIMILAR MESSAGES BUT IN THEIR RELATIVE SCALE AND INTEREST IN SCIENCE FICTION, HORROR AND HOW WE RELATE THOSE ATTRIBUTES TO OUR EVERYDAY LIVES AND SOCIETY. THE TYPE OF ARTWORK THAT WAS BEING PRODUCED IN THE STATES AT THAT TIME SEEMED TO BE A REACTION AGAINST THE POST-WAR, CLEAN-CUT OZZIE AND HARRIET WORLD THAT WAS BEING PROMOTED TO SOCIETY THROUGH THE TV. I GUESS I'M LEFT WONDERING: IF THE FACT THAT IF SOMETHING HAS BRIGHT COLOURED PAINT ON IT, IS SUPPOSED TO BE PLEASANT AND PRETTY?
HOW DO YOU ALTER THE PERCEPTIONS OF SUCH AN INTEGRAL SIGNIFIER OF PAINTING SO THAT IT'S COMPLETELY TURNED ON ITS HEAD?
ROB MCLEOD HAS AN EXHIBITION ON AT PRESENT OVER IN SYDNEY AT BEATTY GALLERY.
THERE'S SOME GREAT TITLES IN THE EXHIBITION THAT WORK AGAINST THE INGRAINED MYTH THAT HIS PAINTING IS ABOUT FORMALISM: PAINT SURFACE, SKIN AND THAT THERE IS NO MEANING (RECENT TILES ARE : SWIMMING AGAINST THE TIDE, WALKING AWAY, LOOKING FOR A BOSS, FIGHTING THE PAST, BREAKING FREE). THAT WAS THE LATE 70S AND EARLY 80'S, YET THERE HAS BEEN VERY LITTLE DISCUSSION OF HIS HEFTY TRANSITION BACK TO FIGURATION IN THE EARLY 2000'S. I'M GUESSING MOSTLY BECAUSE PEOPLE STILL SEE PAINT ON THE SURFACE, SO PRESUME THAT WHAT WAS WRITTEN IN THE LATE 70'S BY JIM BARR AND MARY BARR IN THEIR A-M BOOK MUST STILL STAND.
HIS WORK IS OFTEN REFERRED TO AS UGLY, WHICH IS AN ATTRIBUTE THAT DOESN'T SEEM TO BE TOLERATED IN THE NZ ART, ESPECIALLY IN THE PAINTING FIELD. THE STATES HAD THE KIENHOLZ'S, WHOSE VITRIOLIC LIFE-SIZE DIORAMAS OF POLITICAL AND PERSONAL THEMES I FIND SIMILAR TO MCLEOD'S GROTESQUES. NOT ONLY IN THEIR SIMILAR MESSAGES BUT IN THEIR RELATIVE SCALE AND INTEREST IN SCIENCE FICTION, HORROR AND HOW WE RELATE THOSE ATTRIBUTES TO OUR EVERYDAY LIVES AND SOCIETY. THE TYPE OF ARTWORK THAT WAS BEING PRODUCED IN THE STATES AT THAT TIME SEEMED TO BE A REACTION AGAINST THE POST-WAR, CLEAN-CUT OZZIE AND HARRIET WORLD THAT WAS BEING PROMOTED TO SOCIETY THROUGH THE TV. I GUESS I'M LEFT WONDERING: IF THE FACT THAT IF SOMETHING HAS BRIGHT COLOURED PAINT ON IT, IS SUPPOSED TO BE PLEASANT AND PRETTY?
HOW DO YOU ALTER THE PERCEPTIONS OF SUCH AN INTEGRAL SIGNIFIER OF PAINTING SO THAT IT'S COMPLETELY TURNED ON ITS HEAD?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
