 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
April |
|
|
|
Ray Parker These paintings were completed in the late 60s and early 70s and represent what the artist describes as a liberation from the �inborn American distaste for shape consciousness and the fear that drawing could be corny, which caused us to use anything but the traditional means to paint a canvas�. From this perspective they represent somewhat of a reaction to the artist�s �Simple Paintings� seventeen years earlier that were featured in this gallery (and reviewed here) in late 2000. The Simple Paintings were made by applying paint with rags and possessed a deft sense of touch even as the forms projected a solid quality of weight and rich depth of color. All of this was helped along in that the shapes were presented on primarily white backgrounds. The paintings from the 70s, as this show is titled, do represent the freedom that Parker mentions in regard to his earlier work without taking anything away from it. For one thing the forms are cut loose and allowed to flit about the picture plane like birds or leaves of exotic plant life billowing in the wind. Take a look at Untitled (For Caroline) from 1975 which consists of mostly primary colors. The shapes, all close in size, appear to dance to around the ground like Matisse�s cutouts, albeit without such direct figurative references. The yellow ground is broken up enough to allow it to compete with the figures for your attention. It gets it too; especially where the yellow is encircled and otherwise trapped by the red, blue and green shapes. Relative to the Simple Paintings these pieces are less minimal and further extend the sensuality of Parker�s esthetic from the 50s. Another difference is how much more color is evident in this work when compared to the paintings from the late 50s. Look at the Untitled from 1968 where the hues are not only multitudinous but also bright and charming. There is a pleasing sweetness to this painting that never dissolves into pure design (a real potential danger given the flat graphic quality of the forms and color). For one thing the space is carved up in all sorts of interesting ways. A sort of mad, chaotic logic is at work that is only possible in painting and no visual designer could truly pull off the juxtaposition and proportions of color and shape that are present here. Now contrast this with the relatively minimal Untitled from 1970 where the forms (birds? flowers?) seem to float in an expanse of blue sky. Both canvases are approximately the same size and although they clearly differ from each other, they nevertheless belong to one another in that they are of the same sensibility. Indeed this is true of all the work from this period in Parker�s career. As with the Simple Paintings this body of work comprises a single unified esthetic. But as individual pieces they careen all over the place and, though caught up in the fabric of a particular esthetic, also manage to challenge it. From this perspective the content of Parker�s art has remained consistent throughout his career. Whatever you might read into or out of his forms his preoccupation was a pure painterly abstract distillation of form, color, surface and ground. Each of these elements is imbued with equal weight as to significance in the work. But variation is also vitally important and hence the hues, whether several or few, fluctuate as to proportion and range. The same is true of the forms where size and shape vary from painting to painting as well as within individual paintings. As is typical with Washburn gallery exhibitions, this show was extremely well presented. This is highly dynamic work and so proximity is of the utmost importance. But each piece was given its fair share of space. This allowed the viewer to take in a single painting while also comprehending the overall effect. A side benefit of this gallery space is that the lighting is both natural (via a large skylight) as well as artificial. The combination of the two provides an optimum viewing experience for these paintings which is important given their preoccupation with color that is often intense. Angelo Ippolito was one of the founding members of the Tanager gallery, the first artists� cooperative on 10 street in the 50s. This wonderful retrospective presents a range of the artist�s work from the early 50s to the late 80s. Angelo Ippolito passed away in 2001. Although a painting like Jon�s Christmas, with its emotional paint slinging, establishes Ippolito�s credentials as a member of the New York School there is something else in this work. Throughout his career he was consistently involved with the grid in one way or another. He also flirted with recognizable elements in his paintings and so compromised pure abstraction. The grid is evident in the rectilinear shapes that often appear in the paintings. Look at Yellow Landscape for example, where the forms are spread out evenly across the picture plane casually demark x and y coordinates. What distracts your attention from the grid is the variation of the color, contrast and proportion of the central forms. The latter dissipate into the darker greenish-golden forms that surround the edges. Now contrast this with Lover�s Landscape created nearly 30 years later. The forms acknowledge some semblance of the grid but the proportions are most notably askew. Three vertical lines come down from the top of canvas but are cut short by an untidy heap of forms in the middle. The jumbling throws a chaotic monkey wrench in the neat order integral to the grid. It is this that provides the primary tension for these paintings with a secondary tension stirred up by the color. Then there is that other element, figuration that works its way into these paintings. Look again at Jon�s Christmas and notice how the pink forms and those defined by dark lines bear a strong resemblance to human figures. Compare this 1962 painting with Provincetown from 1985 where clearly there are landscape references. This too plays into a notion of the grid but additionally with clear reference to architecture. Still abstraction is never abandoned and so it was that Ippolito occasionally walked a tight-rope in his paintings between representational and non-representational references. This was most successfully accomplished with paintings like Palestrina and Kusadasi Bazaar where the outside references and the abstraction nicely balance each other. This was not quite the case with Ephesus which tilts toward a more direct, albeit highly stylized, landscape reading. This show represents a fine array of work by one of the lesser known movers and shakers of the New York School generation. Angelo Ippolito was more then one of the founders of the Tanager; he also had a lot to do with the gallery�s look and organization which was a major influence on the cooperative galleries to subsequently follow. William Scott is one of those artists from the New York School generation that are lesser known then luminaries such as Pollock and Rothko whom Scott met in 1953 and subsequently became friends with. Nevertheless, Scott has an impressive exhibition resume that includes associations with the Martha Jackson and Andre Emmerich Galleries, The Museum of Modern Art in New York, The Guggenheim Museum and the Brooklyn Museum of Art. Scott�s last exhibition was in 2001 at The New Tate Modern in London where a room was devoted to his work for a year. A large part of his tangential relationship to the New York School can be explained by his background. According to the gallery press release, he was born in Scotland, brought up in Northern Ireland and played an important role in British art during the post-war decades. But another part of this is found in his paintings which hearken, to some degree, to the American abstraction just prior to the Abstract Expressionism. Compare Scott�s paintings to Milton Avery�s art, for example. Both artists offer a gentle lyricism with color relationships that are primarily temperate. Both establish a personal visual language that is at once familiar while also provide a unique view of the world. Where they differ is that Scott abandons direct figurative references and so represents (knowingly or not) somewhat of a bridge between the artists of Avery�s generation and the New York School. This exhibition represents paintings by Scott from the 1950s to the 1970s. What is interesting about this range is that there are no major changes in his work over this span. Scott remains relatively consistent in his approach to forms and paint handling. This is no criticism but rather recognition of true style. Scott carved out a personal sensibility for himself and ran with it quite effectively for a long time. Compare Composition III from 1954 with Still Life Painting from 1974. Both of these pieces easily co-exist in that neither dates the other. Composition III is more painterly and loose as to defining forms. Still Life Painting tightens up the paint handling and the forms. Therein lie the major differences, but this is hardly enough to place them in different time periods and you could easily reverse the dates without attracting notice. What binds them together; indeed all the work is that Scott includes a bold stroke of drama within a calm �landscape� of paint handling. In Composition III the drama is created by the bold vertical slash of yellow and the black lines. All of this is set within the overriding context of a warm environment of dark grays which itself becomes dramatic when bumping up against the band of white at the bottom. In Still Life Painting the primary drama is established by the large black oval just left of center. This is set within an opalescence of white that provides a background for the black oval but also sets up a high level of contrast within the sienna ground. Scott�s content is wrapped up within this very basic and abstract interplay of drama and context. Free of any sort of narrative, these paintings are simply constructed of forms, color and their various interactions. But Scott made a very effective case, over a long career, that this was enough. Look at such titles as Blue, Yellow, Brown; Blue, Gray, Blue; and White Painting. What the titles imply is that these pieces do not offer direct narratives but rather it is the formal elements and how they interact with each other that reveal the meaning for this work. From such a perspective Scott might initially be considered a Minimalist with a lower case �m�. What trips up that notion is that his paintings also possess a graceful sensuality. The painting handling and color combinations were not simply formal elements to him but also a means of expressing beauty and emotion as well as contrast. This show offered a wonderful mini-retrospective of William Scott�s paintings. The exhibition was well presented and, though one would like to see even more work given the range presented, there was certainly enough here to get a good sense of Scott�s art. Foon Sham�s sculpture has much in common with the work of Gyongy Laky, Barbara Zusman and Keith Long, all of whom use natural materials as a primary driver for their work. As with Sham, the other artists are also sculptors. Laky utilizes vessel-like forms in her work which are constructed discarded prunings. Zusman uses muslin stained with coffee or tea, wood and foam to create anthropomorphic wall sculpture. Long treats natural elements as found objects and reconstructs them into wall sculpture. The point is that for all of these artists the natural quality of their materials is as important as the forms they create. A distinguishing aspect of Sham�s work is that, in addition to functioning as free-standing sculpture, it is environmental and sometimes includes characteristics of installation art. This is best represented by Squeeze, which might be described as the signature piece for this show. As a piece of sculpture and given how it was created, the esthetic suggests is akin to a child�s Lego construction. The interlocking blocks of wood with their flat planes and hard angles imbue the piece with a wonderful rough elegance. The tall form dominates the space to suggest a huge tree trunk without compromising the materials (as individual components) that define it. In a sense, Sham puts forth a twofold esthetic in which the sum is not greater than but equal to its parts. Now, given its size Squeeze is also an environmental piece; again as a twofold proposition. The form itself extends just beyond human proportions so that the viewer is forced to engage it from several angles but without seeing it from above. It dominates the space it inhabits as well as the space that surrounds it. There is also that roughly triangular opening at the bottom that extends upward into a rough and open seam. The break opens the form to reveal its hollowness. This also creates a whole other quality of defined space; yet another environment only now surrounded and defined by the form. In effect, Sham has turned the notion of environment inside-out with this dual aspect of space. The other thing about this piece is that the rings of wood lying flat on the floor provide the piece with an installation quality that extends the range of the central form. Adding to this is the small pathway leading directly to the opening established where the rings are absent. Wave represents another interesting juxtaposition of form and space. Seen from one angle (View 1) the form as created by the construction of slatted wood projects solid density. But a walk around to the other side (View 2) reveals that the piece is suddenly transformed into a lyrical, animated, even delicate, form. The transformation seems magical with how quickly it takes place. Which is the correct view? �Both� it would seem, along with any other view of the piece, which in large part is what this work is about. Sham�s content is defined by the concept that sculptural space and environment constantly shift as they interact yet are completely interdependent. Neither is permitted to dominate and both support as well as contradict each other. Add to this that the artist is also focused on obsession as a medium by obsessing on his medium. If spatial concerns were all that Sham was interested in these works could have been more quickly and easily produced via other materials and methods. But the interest in small bits of material constructing the whole contributes to the meaning of this work as much as how the forms relate to space. It makes perfect sense that the materials are left in their natural condition because to paint them, for example, might otherwise distract from what they are and how they are used. Hatch and Twist also bear out this latter aspect as represented in simple forms. Twist is constructed of nothing more than a piece of juniper compulsively bound by rings of walnut. Immediately it suggests some sort of generic metaphysical narrative; an arm with an amulet just below an elbow for example. It is also the only work in the show that utilizes a single piece of wood as major part of the sculpture. A walk through this virtual forest of ideas raises all sorts of associations that span primitive to contemporary art. This is perhaps the greatest aspect of Foon Sham�s art - the ability to effectively cover so much ground so simply and elegantly. And let�s not forget that these pieces are beautiful to look at; both up close and from a distance. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||
| |
||||||||||||
Copyright 2003, Abstract Art Online. All rights reserved. |
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
