Tom Moody
Since 2002
Works in New York, New York United States of America

Discussions (244) Opportunities (0) Events (0) Jobs (0)
DISCUSSION

Brush-off


Rob, you're being a bit selective in reducing my timeline from Nesbitt --> Proops. I did mention some other artists in there. Nesbitt isn't a very good photorealist but that was the dialog around his work in the 70s. He went on to paint giant flowers that looked like seed catalog photos but slightly more clumsy/expressive.
I'm not too concerned if "computer envy" doesn't float your boat via Proops. It is a real trend in the New York painting world at least.

DISCUSSION

Brush-off


Some afterthoughts from my blog (http://www.tommoody.us/archives/2008/04/15/dan-proops/):

Based on the jpegs (http://www.samsdesktop2.com) it looks like another case of "computer envy" where a contemporary artist working in the tried-and-true medium of paint on canvas adopts digital imagery as subject matter (a trend that arguably began with Lowell Nesbitt painting photoreal pictures of IBM mainframes (http://www.tommoody.us/archives/2007/07/17/lowell-nesbitt/) and was more recently seen in Miltos Manetas's still lifes of Playstation equipment or Wayne Gonzales's airbrushed renderings of basic Photoshop effects).

The intended tension here is between a slow, contemplative medium and a fast, disposable medium. For example, painting the browser window and scroll bars as well as the porno imagery inside that frame. Or rendering every facet of a wireframe Nefertiti model. As Ed Halter says [...] this appears, from the jpegs at least, to be "quick-glance commentary on medias new and old through easy-to-get juxtapositions." That is likely the case but you can never say for sure until you see the work--there is always the possibility of a formal wow factor or something surprisingly wonderfully trashy happening in a person-to-painting encounter.


DISCUSSION

Brush-off


Another typo, darn: "I think criticism helps us understand artists' work, even Dan Proops'. "

is what was intended.

And speaking of Proops, some thoughts:

It's hard to argue about paintings without the paintings present. It's quite possible that if Proops could paint as well as Caravaggio (or even John Currin, who's worked hard to get the old master depth and sensitivity in his rendering, making collectors go gaga), the viewer would have to deal with the fact of those painted pixels in a way that you might not seeing them at 72 dpi on a browser.

As in, "my God look at the amount of time and finesse that went into this art just to make this point about censorship or whatever." Your rational mind would be pulling you in one direction ("this is a bad idea") while your senses were pulling you in another.

It seems unlikely that the work has its ducks in a row to that degree but we could at least entertain the possibility.


DISCUSSION

Brush-off


I don't agree that "the critic may hinder the artist's purpose." I think criticism helps us understand artist's work, even Dan Proops'.
Readers can decide who is the troll here, T. Whid.

DISCUSSION

Brush-off


Meaning, from artists individual POV a negative public crit of a current show could be worse for the artist, on a whole, than whatever enlightenment they might get from the crit"

But you specifically tied this to the market, not just what the artist does or doesn't get out of the criticism on a personal level.

You said that criticism "hinders an artist's purpose." I don't agree and I'm not mischaracterizing it.