Mentor Visit w/ Peter Rostovsky + Some Time in Chelsea (Part 2)

[here's a link to Peter Rostovsky's site: www.peterrostovsky.com]

Fortunately, I was able to back right up to the freight elevator to get my work into Peter's studio building (which, by the way, appears on your right as you're avoiding potholes and swerving rigs while Manhattan-bound on the elevated BQE; "KALMAN DOLGIN" is inscribed across its brick facade.). It was far too windy to take the 40" x 60" piece out and try and walk it to the door, though it was maybe only 10 yards away. I would have parasailed right out over the Newtown Waterway in a heartbeat.

I brought what I felt was the most successful work from the program thus far: "Sublimation" (the crashed Porsche); "Atelier 2010" (the nude S.P. w/sheep); "Pteronychus" (seagulls); "All Natural" (ice cream); "Tao of Flux" (the big wave on frosted polyester); and a new work on polyester, "Catastrophe Paradox" - pictured below. [It's actually oil on polyester, as I had trouble with surface scratching on this slightly different brand of poly. Plus, the architecture proved difficult to manage in vine charcoal. I used Gamsol with Ivory Black for the monochromatic passages and full color (for fire, anyway) with Galkyd Lite for the flames.]

"Catastrophe Paradox" oil on frosted polyester,  36" x 24"
[Sorry for the lousy phone pic. Plus, it's still taped to the board here. Better shot forthcoming.]

Peter got right to it, identifying his preferences and his reasons for them. Most attractive to him were the monochromatic works, the seagulls being particularly successful in his estimation.  He broke it down to a very simple construct: the less number of "moves" one has to make in terms of concept/execution, the more open the work becomes. So, "Pteronychus" is one move, according to this playbook: I made a formal optical shift - that is - I merely changed the palette and tweaked the contrast. "All Natural" is two moves: an optical change plus the conflation of the two elements of sky and ice cream as an odd juxtaposition. "Sublimation" is three moves: The idealized car crash; the idealized sublime landscape; and the meshing of the two to create an open, but distinct, narrative. Now, this is not to say that the latter is an abject failure - it's more truthful to say that, the more moves one has to make, the more you can run into trouble; the "trouble" being that the work becomes too didactic. This is also not to say that a rote formula can take any image and make it a perfect painting. The image itself and its reception need to be taken into account.

I was made aware of even more representational/real painters that are engaging in this practice. Besides Peter himself, there's Michael Borremans, Eberhard Havekost, Wilhelm Sasnal, Vija Celmins, Johannes Kahrs, Anna Conway, Michael de Kok, and Cameron Martin - to name a few. Their kind of operation within the tenets of the "traditionally trained painter" is far different than what John Currin and Lisa Yuskavage do. The latter two have developed a more cynical irony about how they present their subjects, which gives them a certain leeway to paint in a more formally classical manner. It's a little negative at worst, but at best, it is a kind of game they're playing with critique. Either way, I'm less attracted to working in such a sardonic milieu. Peter is in accord, believing more in a visual/optical game with an engaged viewer rather than an expository gambit with a likely pundit.

So, then - it came to the point: what will be the underlying theme that I can get behind for the thesis work this semester? We had talked through the pros and cons of working with (and against) certain tropes and historical mechanisms in painting, especially as it pertained to my work and my engagement (critical or practiced) with those things. In as much as I enjoy the practice of "epic" painting, my visual language has not yet developed over the kind of Baroque lines necessary to pull that off. There just isn't time to experiment with that, so I will leave it as something for the future. But, what I have already done successfully is a re-presentation of the quotidian - it just needs a more streamlined visual course over a series of works. This is my plan. I have already run a number of concepts by Peter, and it became abundantly clear how some work better than others within this framework. 

The board is set. The pieces are moving. We come to it at last…

Mentor Visit w/ Peter Rostovsky + Some Time in Chelsea (Part 1)

The former part of this post's title is the most important thing here, but I did the latter part first - so, for the sake of chronology….

As much as I wanted to attend Kamrooz Aram's show opening at Perry Rubenstein, I had to teach my landscape class at MECA that Friday until 4, so getting to Chelsea by 6 was clearly out of the question. I didn't make it to Long Island until 10:30 PM, actually.The next morning, I drove to Brooklyn and parked in front of Peter's studio. It's in a warehouse kind of building right on the edge of the BQE - fairly industrial, so the parking was easy on a Saturday. It was a short walk to the L train at Lorimer, so I hopped that to the end stop at 8th Ave & transferred to the C for 23rd. The wind out by 10th Ave was unreal. I had designs on walking the HighLine, but not in that gale.

Perry Rubenstein had just opened (10 AM) and I went in to see Kamrooz' work. I should mention here that he was a speaker in one of AIB's "Art Talks" at the last residency and I was not alone in feeling that it was a terrific explication of his work. As a result, I had a good line on the chronological evolution of his work, both visually and conceptually.  And the new work was superb: he definitely went up a level. The growth that he's achieved - so organic and fluid within his oeuvre - is certainly something from which any artist can learn. His Fana'  works are my personal favorites, so I've posted some here. Sorry about the lousy phone cam pics.

One of Kamrooz' "Fana'" paintings. Not sure of dimensions - around 50" x 40" 

Another "Fana'" piece. "Untitled #6," I think.

A detail of one of the "Flag" paintings. It's a good size overall, maybe 70" x 80"  or so.

I put my head down against the blast coming in off the Hudson and went around and up to 25th, stopping in at Henoch near the corner. Yes, I know: the usual suspects doing the usual things. Still, many of these people have amazing skills - some I couldn't even begin to touch. But, with such common and/or didactic concepts, well… it's a lot of pretty pictures is all I'm going to say about that.

Marlborough Chelsea is just a few doors up, so I walked into their huge space to find the large paintings of Juan Navarro Baldeweg, the show entitled, "Pintar, Pintar." Baldeweg is one of the foremost modern architects in Spain, so I was interested to see how he incorporated his love of spatial structure inside a flat plane of canvas. Now, I don't mean to sound flip, but I don't think I'm going out on a limb too far when I say that if Matisse were alive and an architect, his paintings would look like Baldeweg's. Even the prodigious use of red was apparent. And instead of print patterns, the patterning used here was derived from fencing, corrugated steel and other building materials. Should I dismiss his love of this very specific formalism? I don't know. Much of it was aesthetically pleasing, but it is definitely hard to get past his pastiche of Matisse's favorite formal moves.

Juan Navarro Baldeweg - "Pintor II" 2010, o/c 79" x 98" (approx.)

Next was a new gallery, though I had been in the space before: Axelle is now Bertrand Delacroix Gallery. Apparently, this is the same owner, but a different venture. And, strangely, I was approached by one of the gallery reps in exactly the same manner as I had when I'd last visited in the space's Axelle incarnation - that being, the young woman thought I was a dealer. I enjoy playing the part, and I suppose I look it in the way I study the works, but I dislike being disingenuous, even if it's harmless, so I excused myself to look at more work in the back. From a contemporary critical standpoint, the work was uneven, but I did think that much of Beth Carter's drawings were really fun and engaging, and Beate Bilkenroth's paintings were very strong. The latter works were of large utilitarian (modernist) apartments/condo-type buildings, and they really "moved" on the canvas. I'd seen the same subject dealt with in a representational fashion at Steven Zevitas' in Boston and it was not as strong as Bilkenroth.

Painting by Beate Bilkenroth in the window of BDG. Didn't get the title, sorry.

Last, but not at all least is Donald Judd at Pace. I have a strange affinity for this kind of "minimalism" (Judd hated that term), mostly because I appreciate the economy of form engendered in the work. I also enjoy it because, despite his best-laid intentions, I still can derive representation in those minimal forms. The piece, "Untitled" (1989, Cor-Ten steel) was my favorite in this grouping of wood, steel concrete and aluminum structures. It was just a big rectangular, rust-colored steel box on the floor with a thin beam inside the lower quarter and a thin, taller beam running along the top about a foot distant from the first one. At certain angles, this created a bi-level canyon-like effect which reminded me of natural forms in the Utah landscape; natural bridges and the like. Even the oxidized material underscored that relationship. I doubt very much that Judd would have agreed with me. But I wonder if his good friend Rackstraw Downes might…? Downes did spend a lot of time at Chinati. I'll bet there was a bit of this kind of discussion going on between them all the time - you know, non-signification versus representation and the like. Hopefully, Rackstraw might write about that one day.

Donald Judd - "Untitled" (1989) Cor-Ten steel.  39" x 78" x 78" (approx)

Anyway, I made my way across town to a Greek diner on 1st across from Stuyvesant Town. Good souvlaki and dolmades. The L is right there at 14th, so I could make the quick trip back to Brooklyn.

(cont'd in Part 2)

Downes Show Debate!

Here we have a response (in yellow) from Daniel Kany to my rebuttal, and my response (in blue) to Mr. Kany's letter in kind. Make of it what you will:

I read your comment about the Downes review with interest and appreciation - it's nice to be taken seriously.

Have you ever read my criticism? I stand by painting and even people like Robert Solotaire. I love landscapes and plein air painting every bit as much as contemporary art.

I think most people don't understand how incredibly radical the Impressionists were. Not just for their technique, but even their painting of contemporary life and even industrial landscapes. That was radical. And it was absolutely noticed at the time.

Downes writes and talks about them and Cezanne and other 19th century greats. They are his target and I believe they are his context now.

Downes used to hire people, for example, to walk back and forth as models for his city scenes - just like Monet used his wife even multiple times in a scene. For example, there is a 1873 painting of his wife and daughter seen twice in the same poppy field in Argenteuil.

I think what you might be missing is that I think Impressionism was THE most radical moment in Modernism. Following Manet's lead, they set the process of modernism to chipping away at the very foundations of painting as a cultural practice.

I believe Downes and I agree on that point and that he has been trying to get past them but doesn't feel he has quite done so. Some of his defining points underscore this - including his long, labored time at the canvas and his arbitrary swoop.

Who else introduced subtle shifts of the time of day other than Monet? Think of his haystacks and the Cathedral at Rouen. Monet also invented the series and when you think in this light, the 6 sided barn and the 4 razor panels make sense more than anything else as a direct response to Monet.

The issues of perspective have been used by many artists for interesting personal effect - I even referenced Van Eyck's Arnolfini Marriage of 1434 that makes an incredible deviation from perspective. But for artists from de Chirico to Gregory Gillespie and so many others, this is hardly an issue that belongs to Downes along.

I make it clear Downes is brilliant, intellectually engaged and can paint incredibly well.

I appreciate your comments but I stand in this case by what I wrote.

And my response:

Thank you for responding in kind. I have not ever openly questioned a published critique, so if my tone was anything other than academic, I apologize. My reasons are far from personal. I have no personal connection to Downes, nor does an artist of his stature need any defense from me. After all, he is a well-established critic himself. 

I don't doubt that you stand by painting. I find your emphatic fascination with the importance of Impressionism to be well-warranted; it was indeed a huge leap for painting as a herald for Modernism. And I don't underestimate this movement, either. If you read my comparative essay regarding Vincent Desiderio and John Currin (click to read), you'll see that I give Manet full marks as the progenitor of modern painting.

Believe me, I know well all of what Downes does in order to achieve his pictures. I've seen his journals and sketchbooks at the Aldrich alongside "Under the West Side Highway." It's quite an undertaking. And I wouldn't call the perspectival tropes that Downes employs an "arbitrary swoop." His essay, "Turning the Head In Empirical Space," shows that this is anything but arbitrary. He's explicated his processes regarding this topic in numerous lectures.

I think this is where I need to cite the more important reasons for my response. I don't wish to bandy our art history knowledge about like a tennis ball. I am not an historian, anyway - I am a painter, so that is not really my purview. A contention of mine is that I found your review was, on the whole, sorely negative -- unnecessarily so. I understand that you felt beleaguered by a "cold intellectualism" that you derived from his work. Your opinion is your own, of course. However, your opinion remained rather unexamined and far too empirical in tone. Many of your compliments were backhanded and/or tempered by dismissiveness. You tell me Downes is an incredible painter, yet also "workaday"? What's more important to me - in fact, MOST important - is that this is a major show of an important painter here at our little PMA. Anyone who reads your article will be left with the impression that if they decide to see this show, it will leave them cold, unimpressed and perhaps depressed by intimations of apparent bleakness. Consider this: At a wine tasting, a server pours someone a red and says, "This medium-bodied Tempranillo is redolent of black cherries and earth, with a hint of mild vanilla in the finish." If the taster knows little about wine, they will think they are tasting those basic descriptors (whether the pourer knows what they're saying or not). The power of suggestion is very strong. Why saddle a very worthy show with such joyless opinion?

For that's all I could read in your article. And I have to take issue with that - especially since you heralded the publication with a Tweet that you were "taking a great one to task." Really? And did you? As I'd said earlier, your opinion is your own, and you can certainly stand by it, good or bad. But that can't be all there is in a critical essay; there is no critical rigor to be found there. And those who can't tell the difference will read your review and think that Downes is not worth their time. This is a great disservice to the reader, the Museum and the artist.

You have written what you have written, and I understand that. However, I hope you might come around to enjoy what Downes is REALLY trying to do in his work. I highly recommend his essays in "In Relation to the Whole" (it's in the MLA of my essay on Downes). I found it very edifying as a painter, but also historically fascinating, as each of the three essays encompass three distinct decades of Downes' career. I'm more than hopeful that you will eventually come around, for I can cite your very essay: You found Downes' work to be "gritty and workaday," and so, too did the French public initially find the work of the Impressionists "gritty and ugly." 

And they came around, didn't they?

There may be more to come - who knows?


[edit: 2/15/11 - Mr. Kany and I came to an agreement to disagree via private emails. Frankly, he was fairly intractable and "didn't care" about Downes' acceptance within the contemporary. I find it fascinating and heartening on the other hand. Should that color one's view? I think it's case-by-case. In the case of, say, Damien Hirst, it's clear that the art is more about gaming contemporary critical systems. With Downes, it's much more about effort and diligence, making it far more sincere and, in my eyes, far more laudable.]

Rebuttal to Daniel Kany

Panel 4 of "Four Spots Along A Razor Wire Fence/ ASOTSPRIE"
by Rackstraw Downes

Here is the article in question: http://www.pressherald.com/life/audience/downes-paints-brilliantly-but-misses-on-visceral-connections_2011-02-06.html

You may recall the review that I wrote about this show when I saw it in Southampton, posted in this blog in October of last year (click here to read). I knew virtually nothing of the man when I wrote this essay, and in immersing myself in his life and work, I became a huge admirer. I have no personal connection, nor ulterior motive in defending him. In fact, he needs no defense from me; he could far better handle a poorly conceived article than I ever could, as he is also a distinguished critic and critical thinker. Nevertheless, I cannot let a review such as Kany's stand without question. If you read my review and his back-to-back, you can see how informed research stacks up against unexamined opinion, respectively.

Here is my rebuttal:

I feel like this review is the thing that's missing connections - numerous ones, in fact.

For one, Downes as a "child of impressionism" is a bit dodgy considering he was actually an artistic product of mid-60s Yale along with Richard Serra, Chuck Close, Janet Fish, Nancy Graves, Brice Marden, etc. --- not exactly a bastion of impressionistic painters, let alone thought.

And if by "impressionism" you mean that Downes is primarily concerned with the optical effects of on-site painting - well, that's shortchanging his work by a long shot. The idea of turning one's head in empirical space using plein air painting as a format is solely Downes' province. You did mention that, but you left out the most significant part. Downes' practice is perhaps the first "humanistic" usage of perspective in painting in a long, long time. It is perhaps the only instance of this ever seen in plein air painting. Representational art hasn't seen a change in this arena since the purely mathematical treatises by Ficino on Brunelleschi, which have been the standard since the 13th century. This is important, because the viewer is truly experiencing the "painter's view" with Downes' works as opposed to a classical, math-based rendering.

And what of narrative? What is the "cold, unappealing message" about which you write? My most recent visit to the show (my 4th, counting the Parrish Museum's exhibition in Southampton) was on a Friday, when the PMA waives its fee (a wonderful thing). This brings in a broader viewership - one that is maybe not so "intellectually elitist" as it were. I overheard numerous conversations in front of such works as "U.S. Scrap Metal Gets Shipped for Reprocessing in Southeast Asia, Jersey City" and noted many mentions of words like "environmentalism" and "ecology." This may not hit the nail on the head, but so what? There is indeed narrativity within Downes' work, and for some reason, you either failed to see it or failed to mention it. Don't even get me started on the time-based elements of his work (see: "Four Spots Along a Razor-Wire Fence"), which in and of itself implies narrative.

The most uncritical part of all this is the very fact of Downes even maintaining a presence in the contemporary discourse. If his work were as disconnected and intellectually anxious as you claim, how is he a MacArthur Foundation Genius Award winner? Those don't get handed out to artists who speak in intellectual monotone only. Not just that - but he's a painter! A plein air painter! A representational, realist, dyed-in-the-wool, outdoor painter! Contemporary critics have - for decades - relegated this kind of art and artist to the realm of the "Sunday Painter" with all of the pejoratives that entails. Have you not given thought to the fact that Downes' rising far above this must resonate with some kind of historical significance? Perhaps he's doing something not only right, but bringing something new to what had been (maybe unjustly) dismissed as hackery. And in terms of criticism, there is none more critical of representational realist art than Peter Schjeldahl; in fact, he's on record as "having scant use for it" ['True Views.' New Yorker, Oct. '04. p 208]. Yet, even this respected (albeit ruthless) critic reserved praise for Downes, which speaks volumes.

You can't dismiss these things in the name of uncritical opinion. It does a disservice to the artist, the museum and the reader. If you are to "take on the great ones" (as you Tweeted), you may need to research the greatness of your subject more thoroughly. I've already done that (with citations to back my claims), should you care to take a look: http://robsullivanartnotes.blogspot.com/2010/10/show-review-rackstraw-downes-onsite.html

Not sure what to expect in return, but I stand by my words as something that's far more fair than slapdash opinion.

Gonna Need a Bigger Easel

[Sorry, blog's getting too serious - time for a bit of fun]

Y'all know me. Know how I earn a livin'. I'll paint this masterpiece for you, but it ain't gonna be easy. Bad muse. Not like going down the Met chasin' Degas and Tiepolo. This art, swallow you whole. Little recontextualizin', little mimesis, an' down you go. And we gotta do it quick, that'll bring back your patrons, put all your galleries on a payin' basis. But it's not gonna be pleasant. I value my process a lot more than 20 thousand bucks, chief. I'll conceptualize it for 20, but I'll paint it, and frame it, for 150. But you've gotta make up your minds. If you want to stay cultured, then ante up. If you want to play it cheap, you'll be lookin' at giclees of Monet's "Water-lilies" the whole winter. I don't want no installation types, I don't want no curators, there's just too many artists on this island. One hundred fifty thousand dollars for me by myself. For that you get the canvas, the frame, the whole damn thing.

Residency 3 (Jan, 2011) Summary

"Synchretism" oil on panel, 18"x24"

"Sublimation" oil on canvas 60" x 40"

"Fossil Record" tar and household enamel on canvas, 24" sq.

"All Natural" oil on panel, 36" x 24"

"Alcyone" oil on panel, 18 " sq.

"Tao of Flux" charcoal on Mylar, 20" x 30"

AIB MFA Group 3
Residency Summary – January, 2011

I am now one full year into the Graduate Program at the Art Institute of Boston, and it has been a hugely edifying experience thus far. A few weeks ago, I returned to a snow-laden Boston for my third residency as a Group 3 student. I brought the six new works that I had completed over the semester and hung them in my new crit group space with a little bit of jury-rigging in the lighting department (it turned out fine). Again, I openly welcomed any and all kinds of critique with an objective attitude, knowing full well that the crits from this residency would inform this new semester's work – a vital period in which I will be executing the bulk of my thesis artwork.

As noted in the semester summary, I had experimented quite a bit with concepts, materials, size and paint facture. This no doubt made for a little confusion with regard to formal critique; it still read on the whole as a “sampler” rather than a cohesive body of work. Nevertheless, I knew this beforehand, so an initial incertitude on behalf of the critic was expected. My ultimate hope was in finding out which piece(s) worked best so that I might move in that direction for the Group 3 semester. This is not to say that I was conducting some kind of democratic “vote for this painting” kind of study, but rather, I was trying to gauge the visceral responses of the faculty and students across the breadth of work displayed.

Rather than engage in a dramatized soliloquy of the critiques, I will instead list each faculty member and bullet-point the vital considerations they offered:

Nuit Banai:

• Explore cinematic tropes of screen and rupture
• Push formal qualities of realism: foreground vs. background and their respective clarity
• The “heroism” of quotidian objects
• Read: Roland Barthes – The Reality Effect

Hannah Barrett:

• Effects of displaying as group and/or grid
• Push burgeoning idea of synthetic vs. naturalistic
• Exaggerate illusionistic space
• Push textural interest
• Look more at Van Ruisdael (appropriation?)
• Look at filmic/photographic idealizations of landscape

Kamrooz Aram:
Look at painters:

• Peter Rostovsky* (post-Richter photographic realism)
• Inka Essenhigh
• Verne Dawson
• Anna Conway
• Ed Ruscha

Oliver Wasow:

• Broaden thematics of the narrative works
• Play with photographic effects (replicate in paint)
• Cameron Martin
• Don't get too hermetic; mix it up
• Explore Baroque in narratives
• look at: Neo Rauch, Peter Doig

Stuart Steck:

• Make more work! [“The artists that make the most work make the best work” - John Cage]
• Explore cinematic scenes, swap out the dramatic elements with something unexpected
• Keep it simple: employ single structural device in the work
• Revisit Matthew Barney's “Cremaster Cycle” - look at stills
• Increase tactility/ enhance visual pleasure
• Employ collage into concepting process (look at Ellsworth Kelly's Tablet – postcards)

Tony Apesos (my academic advisor SP/11):

• Work with “overlapping mythologies”
• Q: What are the essences of painting?
• Q: What painting do I want to see? What is vital to me?
• look at: Damon Lehrer, Paul Rahilly
• Try surrealist “automatic” drawing in concepting process
• Find ways to use “illustration” in own idiom
• Be open and directed simultaneously
• Connect imagery from one work to the next
• Tolkien: Bible/LOTR | William Blake: Bible/Book of Job illustrations
• Use collage in concepting process

*[Peter Rostovsky has agreed to be my mentor for this Spring semester]

There are clearly a number of overlapping critiques here, and those are always the ones not to be cast aside lightly. Some ideas dovetail nicely with themes that I was already trying to establish, such as playing with cinematic/photographic tropes. I think the motivating factor behind those suggestions was that I hadn't been pushing those ideas hard enough. Hannah's recommendation regarding an amplification of the synthetic/real binary struck a chord. I've always been operating in that zone, but haven't given it full rein. This gibes well with Nuit's allusion to the “heroism of quotidian objects.” Most interesting is the notion of collage as a way to find my way into a concept. The fact that Tony and Stuart suggested this same thing on separate occasions is notable; I think they both know me in very different ways (Tony, through my painting; Stuart, through my writing and camaraderie), so there is something that they are seeing that clearly necessitates using collage in some way.

As my advisor this semester, I was hoping Tony would challenge me during the crits, and he did. He made some formal painting suggestions, as is his wont; he is an accomplished painter, so such things are welcome. But, beyond that, he handed me some tough self-reflective questions. The “What painting do I want to see? (then paint it)” question seems rhetorical at first, but he assured me it was not. This is still something to wrestle with. My feeling on it right now is that I'm not particularly beholden to any image, but perhaps a series of images dealing with a specific problem. That may well be conceptual or implied, I don't know. The idea of narrative is still within me, but one image may not be enough to hold the narratives I have in mind, whatever they may be. Also, “What is vital to me?” is an equally difficult matter. I tend to enjoy the “clever” aspects of painting: mastery of the technical, leading the viewer to question what they see, using representation in a funny or surprising way. There is no one thematic that specifically lends itself to this way of thinking, though – and I need to decipher what that is in order to create a cohesive body of work. This resonates with Tony's advice to “connect one piece to the next.”

In addition to the critiques was the Critical Theory 3 seminar led by the estimable Sunanda Sanyal. The crux of our (lively!) discussion was around awareness of Western mythologies regarding cultural norms, especially as it pertains to art and art history. As artists, our awareness and empathy with a world that is becoming increasingly more connected on the global level can only begin to take root in our work if we work to understand cultures on their terms. We also worked to dispel the unfortunate conflation of “universal” and “global,” as the former term is merely a facade for a passive-aggressive form of colonization. Knowing how the Other has been repressed throughout history can help us better recognize injustices at the local as well as the global level. Even a venerated institution such as the Museum, as we learned, has not been immune to the Western myth of monoculture.

Also very fruitful was Laurel Sparks' seminar on Professional Development for the Artist. She supplied us with a fantastically helpful document that tracks everything from how art dealers operate through comporting yourself properly when the drinks are flowing too freely at an opening. She explicated this packet step-by-step, and took questions as they arose. The specifics of how the professional art world works has far more depth than I'd imagined – yet – the art world itself is far smaller than one could ever believe. “One or two degrees of separation at the most” is how Laurel put it.

And once again, the faculty put together another enlightening panel discussion. Sunanda and Hannah were the duo on this particular occasion, and the subject was irony. Sunanda's half of the talk dealt with historical aspects of the ironic in visual culture, and cited such significant works like Velazquez' Las Meninas as an example of the artist using the ideals of representation in an ironic way. Hannah dealt with irony in its contemporary context, noting a dramatic shift in its intended use and how it is now rife with cynicism and sarcasm for the most part. But, in the question portion of the program, it came to light that perhaps the perception is that the art/artist seems cynical – however, they may just want to be indulgent. Nevertheless, it remains, as Sunanda concluded, a useful pictorial device in these times of doubt.

So here I am on the cusp of doing some of the most important work of my artistic life. In no way am I indulging in hyperbole here – the program dictates this, and I want to step up to that level at long last. Rather than succumb to the perceived pressure over this new reality, I will take my friend Stuart's advice and just generate a lot of work in the studio. It was enough to be hesitant with my “pulled from the Matrix” shock of the first semester, and then indulge in time-consuming and/or technically strange experiments in the second one. Now is the time to pull it all together in a cohesive, coherent series of works. My definitive intent is to not only have these works serve as the linchpin of my thesis, but also as the foundation upon which I can build a successful oeuvre.

Artists:

• Paul Rahilly
• Damon Lehrer
• William Blake
• Matthew Barney
• Peter Doig
• Neo Rauch
• Cameron Martin
• Peter Rostovsky
• Inka Essenhigh
• Verne Dawson
• Anna Conway
• Ed Ruscha
• Van Ruisdael
• Ulrich Lamsfuss

Research/Reading:

Barthes, Roland. "The Reality Effect." The Rustle of Language. Trans. Richard Howard.
Oxford: Blackwell, 1986. 141-148. Print.

Cremaster 3. Dir. Matthew Barney. Perf. Richard Serra, Aimee Mullins and Matthew Barney. Palm Pictures, 2002. DVD

Elkins, James. Six Stories From the End of Representation. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2008. Print

Godfrey, Tony. Painting Today. London: Phaidon, 2009. Print

Pethö, Ágnes. “(Re)Mediating the Real. Paradoxes of an Intermedial Cinema of Immediacy.” Acta Universitatis Sapientiae, Film and Media Studies, 1 (2009) 47-66. Print

Storr, Robert. Gerhard Richter: Doubt and Belief in Painting. New York, MOMA Press, 2003 Print