 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
September |
|
|
|
Mario Naves September 11, 2003 This understated, intelligently hung show marks the second solo exhibition by Mario Naves reviewed on these pages. The first was in March of 2001 (coincidentally, Bill Jensen, our September Artist Profile, had a show at Mary Boone that was reviewed at the same time). In between, Mario�s work was profiled on this site (December 2001) and a two part conversation with him (March and April 2003) is still available on our Forum page. With all that water over the dam, what has changed and what has remained the same? Let�s begin with the latter. Paper remains the primary medium; as painted with acrylic paint, shredded and then reconstructed on the picture plane. The forms pleasantly violate the (expected) straight edges of the parameters. Naves� new collages still contain the rich mixture of bright and subtle color and textures presented in varying proportions. The placement of the forms appears casual and easy yet results in completely solid compositions. In piece after piece the artist combines his magical contrasts of gesture and composition so seamlessly that you�re only aware of it after spending some time with the work. This understated yin and yang is manifested in other ways as well. On one hand there is the visual tension created between various forms and the multitude of colors. On the other is how they manage to comprehensively harmonize. Another side of this is the elegant visual beauty of work that is also intelligently engaging. And what has changed? The first thing most noticeable is the treatment of space. With the old work, to a varying degree, there is a subtle interplay of forms on a ground. The result is that a fore, middle and background are implied. Forms often seem ephemeral; to be floating in space. Not so in the new work. Now space is shredded and reconstructed to create a far more shallow depth of space. This suggests a subtle relationship to Cubism or even Cézanne, albeit via a completely abstract sensibility. As a result the subject matter of the work seems to reference maps, high altitude birds-eye landscapes, sections of reconstructed mosaics, solidified masses of rock or a very generic sense of landscape. Pick any, a combination of or all of these; the point is that there is no one way to see the work and this keeps all interpretations open. None of these pieces are large, which is primarily attributable to the materials from which they are constructed. Yet each has been given plenty of space in the gallery. It�s a good thing too because they require a great deal gallery wall real-estate for their individual subtleties to be truly appreciated. Given their rather diminutive dimensions, they seem to beckon you in for an intimate inspection. This is significant in further understanding the content of this work. Each piece is a unique little world unto itself. To truly appreciate this requires moving in close to note the sublime details and relationships between color and surface and then backing away to see the whole. It�s like knowing a person; how the whole constitutes something greater than the parts. To that end these pieces demand a certain measure of time from the viewer (as mentioned above). But its pleasurable time spent because these pieces are pure satisfaction for the eyes. Although it might be interesting to see them scaled up larger and as paintings, its worth considering what would be lost given that their very intimacy is at the core of their meaning. September 17, 2003 John Opper is one of those terrific abstract painters from the 40s and 50s that slipped under the �familiarity radar� of artists from that era. Because of that, viewing this show is akin to finding a treasure trove in abstract color and paint. Like many others from that period, Opper studied with Hans Hoffman in the mid 30s. In the early 60s he showed with the Stable gallery and then with Grace Borgenicht for the following decades. He died in 1994. This show focuses on his paintings from the 50s and to see them, some dating back to 1952 (when the author of this review was a year shy of birth), is to experience the magic of what painting offers. The work retains a vitality that makes it seem as though it might have just been created over the past year. Opper was a very physical painter as exemplified by his raw surfaces. But this is also found in his majestic and generous use of color. Although a member of the Abstract Expressionists, the term �abstract impressionism� might better describe some of his paintings. Opper was an artist who found his way to form completely through the medium. And where did he arrive? In some of the pieces there is a comprehensive filling up of the space. Some of this work is reminiscent of the period in Pollock�s career just prior to creating his drip paintings. Think, for example of the large, commissioned painting Pollock did for Peggy Guggenheim (currently in the Museum of Modern Art�s permanent collection). In others Opper engages a loose figure/ground relationship. And, as this show demonstrates, he could work from minutely small to medium-large with equal skill and apparent ease. The quick take is to see the aforementioned connection between Opper and Pollock or other contemporaries such as De Kooning or Resnick (for the paint handling at least). This makes a great deal sense given the work and when it was created. But consider an additional comparison to Monet�s last paintings at Giverny. Such a perspective establishes a different historical relationship; one that extends an understanding of Opper�s painting beyond specific definitions of, and familiarity with, abstract art from the 50s. In other words this work engages a wider historical continuum and understanding regarding painting. It may also help to explain why Opper is not better known among his contemporaries - that and the fact that he eventually left New York to live in North Carolina. Such historical viewpoints are interesting enough but are nothing to experiencing the work directly. Here enters the magic where these paintings appear timeless and fresh beyond their 40+ years. Opper�s subject matter, indeed the content, of this work from the 50s was, in two words: paint and color. If his forms suggest something outside of those general parameters you suspect it is by coincidence. A rough sense of landscape is probably as close a reference to anything beyond the direct physicality of the medium as it gets with this work. This is an artist who was able to turn out magnificently beautiful work without becoming complacent about it. You continually see the evidence of his struggle to paint where it should be - in the work itself. The color is radiantly beautiful; gorgeous to draw in. But the physicality of the paint is unrelentingly tough. The two elements battle it out for dominance, at least in the larger paintings and this provides vigor for the work. Take a good close look at the detailed views offered here and notice how the color is heavily blocked out and otherwise �woven� within the paint. From a distance however, the comprehensive view is a vibrant combination of overt and subtle relationships. Finally, the work holds itself quite well in the gallery space. There is a pleasant range of proportions where the largest paintings, although engaging and colorful, nevertheless do not dominate the show. The Washburn gallery allocates a correct balance of white wall space and the art. The paintings are permitted to make their own individual expressions and yet the show itself makes a cohesive statement regarding a decade of work. September 27, 2003 Gudrun Mertes-Frady�s art was featured as the second Artist Profile written for Abstract Art Online (June, 1999). Additionally her work has been reviewed twice before on these pages (her last solo exhibition was in May 2002 and before that in November 2000). Since 1999 her work has gradually evolved from an exceptional painterly treatment of the grid to the current systematic and hard-edged approach. Structure and form have gradually come to the forefront and Mertes-Frady�s signature painterliness has been pushed to the background. To see just how dramatic this change is compare the transition from Red Line in Blue (1998) to Time Out (2001) to the current paintings. However, a number of things remain consistent throughout the body of work. It begins with how the structural order of the grid is dealt with. In the earlier work the forms maintained the relative uniformity of the grid. The paint handling confronted the imposed order of the forms and created an engaging tension within the paintings. The result was to produce a rhythmic push and pull of the forms to otherwise animate them and counter the static qualities of the grid. The new paintings achieve the same thing; albeit through a reversal of emphasis. The paint handling is now more uniform and consistent and it is the forms themselves that establish variety to address the fixed nature of the grid. Color is another factor that remains consistent, although it is far more delineated in the new work. But this is an artist who does and always has loved color in a wide variety of combinations from the very bright to the more subdued. Here the contrast is more stark and obvious and the forms are painted in flatter colors. This leads right into another consistency with the earlier paintings in how depth of space is preserved. The forms retain the same animated quality of seeming to move in and out and the figure/ground relationships vary as to which is which. In Shift to Blue, for example, that relationship is far more ambiguous than it is in piece like Blue Surround where the red linear forms definitely come forward. This is all the more reinforced by the lighter blue on blue forms that edge up against the red ones like visual alter-egos. Even as the content remains consistent throughout Mertes-Frady�s art the subject matter of the new paintings suggests something abstractly systematic. In other words, order is related to the uniform confines of the grid but nevertheless contains its own sense of logic. This is a new factor not present in the earlier paintings. These pieces also bring two other artists to mind, particularly as to subject matter. The first is Peter Busa and his Indian Space paintings (his exhibition at David Findlay Jr. last January was reviewed here). The second is the quilt work of Rosie Lee Tompkins an African-American quilt maker who last year had a solo exhibition at the Peter Blum gallery (reviewed here in November 2002). It is starkness of the repeated, though not duplicated forms, that brings about the comparison. September 27, 2003 This sweet little show, in the back gallery of the Painting Center is reductive, sensuous and gestural all at the same time. At first glance the color appears to be uniform within each piece: there is the yellow one, the red one, the gray one, etc. But a closer look reveals how the color is carefully and subtly constructed; it�s like looking into rich deep pools or environments of color. This segues right into their sensuous qualities beginning with the color but also in the understated paint handling as well as the gentle curves of the forms. Look at the detail of Conversation to see how the forms are set within the ground. Gesture is reserved for the linear elements which loop and otherwise pirouette across the picture plane in arabesques of painted and graphite lines. In short, English sets up a stage with her color and depth of background and dramatically dances her forms across it. A counterpoint to the paintings, at least in terms of approach and materials, is several smaller pieces that combine watercolor and graphite on paper. Here the color finds wider range and a less ambiguous, though greater, depth of space is established. The looped forms float to the front of the picture plane to retain focus while the background is made up of blurred forms that vary in color. The feel is very different from the paintings as the artist allows more contrast and variety of color in. Additionally these pieces are far more transparent as compared to the more opaque handling of the paintings. Also included are two small graphite pieces on paper in which straight-forward gesture is the focal point. English�s art and its content is much very concerned with spatial relationships as the forms move in, out, and across the picture plan. On one hand the work is completely abstract; there is no recognizable imagery here. On the other, it engages similar territory as representational painting in deceiving the eye as regards depth of space. The difference is that, in the absence of a narrative it is pure spatial depth itself that receives the emphasis. At the same time her art is much like an expression of animated, visual music passing through the spaces she creates. This is much in the vein of Serena Bocchino�s art in which graphite is also incorporated into paintings and works on paper. The show is nicely presented and the work is sized well to the rather cramped gallery space. Even so, the paintings do edge up closely to looking serialized. The similarity of their proportions, paint handling and the repetition of the lopped forms contribute to this. They hold their own as they are; but you sense that the artist may be a bit too comfortable with the paintings (not as evident with the works on paper). It might be interesting to see what would happen if all of these elements were varied more. For example, what might happen if the overt transparency of the paper pieces were applied to the denser oil paintings and vice-versa? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||
| |
||||||||||||
Copyright 2003, Abstract Art Online. All rights reserved. |
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
