Fischl?
zi...@interport.net
I dislike discussing things with pseudonymous posters.
Fischl was a post pop artist who never knew anything about forming and
whose figures and paintings were only superficially viable as
representations. I represent the now 40 year old tradition in the USA
of artist who have been trying to reconnect to the great traditions of
representation without denying the value of modernism or pre
modernism. So his paintings for me and for all the others of my kind
of artist, running from Lennart Anderson and his students over to
Leland Bell and his, found Fischl's work just awful on a purely
pictorial and formal basis from the beginning.
When you make a painting which is is supposed to tickle the palate of
your audience with such things as incest, pedophilia, sex with
animals[women with German shepherds] etc. AND this is not done, with
any poetic conception in mind, but only with notoriety, success and
money in mind it is awful. The subject cannot point towards
personalities, because the people are depersonalized and it cannot
point towards artistic metaphor because the skill at both
representation and pictorial metaphor are nil. This is not a new
opinion or an opinion of mine only. Read, for example the critic Jed
Perl. His book on the New York scene is called Gallery Gping and is
probably still in print. Or talk to anyone who is truly knowledgable
and has been painting the figure for a while.
Look at some great paintings somewhere. I hope you are near a good
museum. So much of the USA and Canada is nowhere near one. Ther are no
worthwhile traditional paintings anywhere west of Toronto. And there
are just 4 or 5 in their museum. Ottawa has about the same number.
The best places to see a lot are Washington DC. NY and Boston. The
finest Titian in America is in the Gardner. There is nothing in
Louisiana, or at least 20 American states. What you need is a good
dose of great art to show you how worthless Fischl is.
Lately he has been trying to paint better. But he doesn't know what
that means. All he knows is to try to be tighter, more careful, more
realistic. His paintings get more and more out of control [if that
is possible].
Gabriel
PS I will not continue writing to you unless you at least end your
letters with a first name-and I hope it is yours! The name you use is
not a person! There-you see, an example of what is wrong with Fischl.
Could he paint a portrait? Have you seen the portrait of Miro and his
daughter by Balthus? They not only have personalities but they are
very much alike. There is a hint of the Elektra complex and its
response, but as a part of their total perosnalities. The painting is
remarkable, in part because it is composed in relation to Miro's own
compositions ofthat time. By the way without a name you are
depersonalizing yourself.
One more aside, His is another version ofwork which wants to cause
scandal and notoriety and as a result become successul. It fits more
with Damian Hirst than with serious representation. His people are
dead meat.
Marilyn
zi...@interport.net wrote:
Ther are no
worthwhile traditional paintings anywhere west of Toronto. And there
It is a good thing I appear here once and a while.
How can you make such a blanket statement?
You are dismissing the entire collection of the Vancouver Art Gallery
for example, not to mention Canadian cities inbetween Toronto and
Vancouver.
Most blanket statements are wrong anyway, but you seem to make so many of
them.
Marilyn
NSWEISS
Gabriel wrote:
"Fischl was a post pop artist who never knew anything about forming and
whose figures and paintings were only superficially viable as
representations. I represent the now 40 year old tradition in the USA
of artist who have been trying to reconnect to the great traditions of
representation without denying the value of modernism or pre
....................................
Who is it exactly that made you their representative(?) of "the now 40 year old
tradition in the USA of artist who have been trying to reconnect to the great
traditions of representation without denying the value of modernism or pre
perhaps you are some sort of artistic delegate. Just so I can be clear on this
matter: who exactly do you officially represent?
Gabriel further writes:
"When you make a painting which is is supposed to tickle the palate of
your audience with such things as incest, pedophilia, sex with
animals[women with German shepherds] etc. AND this is not done, with
any poetic conception in mind, but only with notoriety, success and
money in mind it is awful. " (end quote)
.................................
Are you refering to Fischl in the above statement? If you are, I beleive you
are making a classic beginner's error of criticism. I must say, I remember
clearly viewing Fischl's work for the first time in NYC in the mid
1980's...his one man shows at Mary Boone. I saw his most recent show at Mary
Boone uptown, the work inspired by a residency at the American Academy in Rome.
I remember vividly his work in the mid-early eighties because I was moved by
it. I thought the paintings were well done and the content was moving and
exciting, oddly fresh in a genre so stifled by tradition. The work spoke to the
moment and did so powerfully. I continue to see Eric's work if I get a chance,
but he is by no means my favorite artist, I simply maintain a curiosity sparked
by those first encounters. I was, however, never again moved by his work as
much as I was when I first came into contact with it.
Now onto your criticism. Again, I am no expert on Fischl, but in my travels and
reading I have had occasion to peruse interviews, etc and get to read some
comments from the artist. I never recall his elucidating as you state: "incest,
pedophilia, sex with animals[women with German shepherds] etc. AND this is not
done, with any poetic conception in mind, but only with notoriety success and
money in mind". In fact, I never had any such response in front of his work. I
felt, if anything, his paintings were rather mediterranean in feel, but
especially American (United States, that is) in the tweaked content. I never
saw beastiality in his work, for example. He is a contemporary "Realist":
little allegory or idealization, brash; no moral platitudes, pretensions, or
preaching. I suspect that part of the controversy at the time was that they had
an impact at all, on myself or others, but they did...part of their power was
the codes, history , and tradition that he was summoning up and poetically
tweaking. And I never saw his work as a product of no "poetic conception in
mind, but only with notoriety, success and money in mind". You are putting
words into his mouth. And what is worse, as a 'critic' you are presenting your
conclusions as causes, and you lack the sophistication to tell the difference.
Now. Disregarding your nothing in "20 American states" and other foolhardy
statements, let us go further to the revealing dialectic that has been set
up....and was set up long before either of us entered the scene.
Over a decade ago when those Fischl's were first making their broad public
debut, there was a critical parallel being voiced: that Fischl was the 'Manet'
of the American Eighties. There are certainly similarities between the paint
handling, and in many other formal issues, as well as the position vis-a-vis
Realsim, the content in the paintings, even the charge of derivation (like
Manet's Goya, Titian, Giorgione, and other borrowings). Le Dejeuner and
Olympia(1863) when first exhibited bore the brunt of similiar attacks as yours
(the following voiced in outrage: "God forbid! no transitional tones!
BARBARIC!! God save us."), almost exactly the same attacks with a similiar
viciousness, including the charges of coarseness and immorality, with every
indecency being read into the painting and the artist.
What is certain is that Fischl's paintings engaged many viewers (and enraged
others) and many found them among the more interesting 'Realism' being
exhibited at the time. And count yourself lucky: you got a little taste of
Paris in 1863, with Manet,...who could have thought?...that those works or ones
similiar, but updated for our contemporary times, could provoke that selfsame
response! But they did! Ahhh...how the poetic mysteries of Realism whisper and
ripple through your tasteful soul!! Lucky you!
-N