20th Century Artists/Jane Freilicher
humbert_...@my-deja.com
Marilyn Welch <wq...@victoria.tc.ca> wrote:
> Here's more information on one of my favourite painters:
>
> Freilicher, Jane
> From the book Jane Freilicher Paintings
> edited by Robert Doty, essays by John Ashbery, Linda L. Cathcart, John
> Yau
> Publisher: Taplinger Publishing Company Inc, NY, NY, 1986
> 132 West 22nd Street, New York , NY 10011
> Interview:
>
> at Hofmann’s... what you really caught was the contagion of art - what
> it meant to be an artist - the seriousness of it and then also
> developing a sensitivity and responsiveness to measure, value and
> proportion, and care for the vitality of the surface
>
> Influences - de Kooning, Pollack, Courbet, Matisse, Bonnard, Vuillard,
> Soutine, Picasso,
>
> Fairfield Porter (in 1952, he had never shown his paintings, she
> introduces him to John Myers gallery director of Tibor de Nagy in NYC.)
>
> Colleagues: Nell Blaine, Larry Rivers, Paul Georges, Paul Resika, Wolf
> Kahn,
>
> Quote:
>
> "Making light in a painting is another mystery. Light is like oxygen in
> a painting; without it a painting is dead,it doesn’t breathe. It isn’t
> the same as brightness or high-key color. Sometimes it’s a function of
> transparency and sometimes of opacity. Sometimes merely repainting the
> same color over again you can give it resonance it didn’t have at first.
> I am referring to the light a painting gives off as distinguished from
> the light of illustration - the glorious universal light, say of a
> Titian or a Bonnard as opposed tothe light that is merely part of the
> scenery in a Wyeth.
>
> ..You see the landscape through the painter’s eyes and it acquires a
> kind of dual identity. "
>
> Her large landscapes of the views from her studio window (studio in Long
> Island,
> I think) are modernist in their lack of detail. The images are spare and
> haunting
> presented in a beautiful form.
>
> Marilyn
>
> Yes, Jane is a realy wonderful painter, someone who has balls. No offence, but she is a ballsy dame.
HUMBERT
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Sharon Barcone
*a painting; without it a painting is dead,it doesn’t breathe. It isn’t
*the same as brightness or high-key color. Sometimes it’s a function of
*transparency and sometimes of opacity. Sometimes merely repainting the
*same color over again you can give it resonance it didn’t have at first.
*I am referring to the light a painting gives off as distinguished from
*the light of illustration - the glorious universal light, say of a
*Titian or a Bonnard as opposed tothe light that is merely part of the
*scenery in a Wyeth.
That sounds so wonderful. Would like to see her work. Don't suppose she has
any on the net? That glorious universal light reminds me of Valasquez. One
who used the reflective qualities of the gesso support to best advantage.
One of my own favorite artists Helen Van Wyk who passed a couple of years
ago due to breast cancer, was an excellent teacher of art and has taught me
much of light in her books and videos. It is an awareness of light and the
qualities of oil paint itself that keep me inspired.
Dik F. Liu
>Freilicher, Jane<
She is the only New Realist who strikes me as, unambiguously, bad. She can't
draw very well; her subject pedestrian; and her sense of light derivative from
Fairfield Porter.
And these are her best qualities.
Regards,
Dik
Dik F. Liu
<wq...@victoria.tc.ca> writes:
>who should we believe you, or John Ashbery one of the best writers of our
generation? From what I have seen of her work, I think I'll side with Ashbery.<
... and Michael Jordan endorses Bill Bradley, Nike sneakers, and his own
Michael Jordan cologne (smell like Mike?). Celebrity endorsements are for the
gullible.
By the way, Charles Pierre Baudelaire, the French writer and poet, hailed
Constantin Guys as among the most important painters of their time. I know,
Constant who? I rest my case.
Dik
Dik F. Liu
Welch <wq...@victoria.tc.ca> writes:
>Not much of a case as John Ashbery is not a celebrity in the populist sense.
Just comparing John Ashbery with Michael Jordan weakens your statement.<
Name five living poets more famous than John Ashbery.
Dik
humbert_...@my-deja.com
(Dik F. Liu) wrote:> In article <38F5EBD0...@victoria.tc.ca>, Marilyn
Welch> <wq...@victoria.tc.ca> writes:> > >Freilicher, Jane<> > She is the
only New Realist who strikes me as, unambiguously, bad. She can't> draw very
well; her subject pedestrian; and her sense of light derivative from>
Fairfield Porter.> > And these are her best qualities.> > Regards,> > Dik>
rude and accademic, you are obviously talking our your ass. When looking at
art you have to keep in mind that drawing is not the only element that is
immportant. Drawing is a small piece of a greater whole. Michelangelo once
said that Drawing is the beginning and the end of all the arts. I feel this
is true but the Italian word for drawing is the same as the word for design.
I see this disturbing element in this group who care about drawing and
nothing else. If you don't know about designing with color then just keep
your mouth shut.Dont take this the wrong way, Im interested in speaking with
people whose ideas are different than my own. I just want more out of the
discussions other than this snobbish and slavish devotion to our own
beleifs.HUMBERT
Dik F. Liu
>Wow.What a blatantly uninformed and close minded reveiw. Not only are you
rude and accademic, you are obviously talking our your ass.<
It is possible to have a reasonable discourse without resorting, as you did, to
vulgarity. It robs the credence of your accusing others of being rude and close
minded.
> When looking at art you have to keep in mind that drawing is not the only
element that is immportant. Drawing is a small piece of a greater whole.<
I dislike others putting words in my mouth. I did not say that drawing is the
only important element. Please reread my post. In realistic painting, drawing
is an element that is more than, as you think, just a small piece of the
greater whole. Your hyperbole is doing your argument a disservice. There are
many genres of painting that does not require drawing; and many artists whom I
admire can not draw in traditional sense of the word. The problem with
Freilicher isn't that she can't draw; but that she can't draw in an art style
that requires it.
Dik
lake
impress me too much. Her work is good, from a journeymans standpoint,
but I have to ask, where has she been, these past 50 years? Did she
miss Bob Dylan and Andy Warhol? Does she think Jasper Johns was just a
flash-in-the-pan? Or did she even bother to take them all seriously?
She's doing very pretty landscapes in quite a competant way, but no
more than that.
- Lake
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
Scarlett
"Gordon Matheson" wrote:
:
: Dik F. Liu <dik...@aol.com> wrote in message The problem with
: > Freilicher isn't that she can't draw; but that she can't draw in an art
: style
: > that requires it.
: I think Jane Freilicher can draw as well as she wants to. Her style of
: painting certainly does not require super realistic drawing. How would
you
: have her draw?
: I don't think you are aware of what her "style" is.
:
I had never heard of this artist so thanks for the URL, Gordon.
Having said that, I understand where Dik is coming from because she
uses some of the same imagery as Dik (having seen it on John Haber's
Website) such as still lives, but they are very inferior. I am surprised
that
she is actually successful. Not one single image caught my interest while
Dik's seem to have a wonderful glow.
I find her work dull and trite. Not even bad. Just nothing there.
--
Scarlett
http://ScarlettDecker.homestead.com
"Do you know what he needs? Two or three shock treatments,"
Mary George said. "Get that artist business right out of his head once
and for all." (from "An Enduring Chill" by Flannery O'Connor)
Gordon Matheson
Dik F. Liu <dik...@aol.com> wrote in message The problem with
> Freilicher isn't that she can't draw; but that she can't draw in an art
style
> that requires it.
I think Jane Freilicher can draw as well as she wants to. Her style of
painting certainly does not require super realistic drawing. How would you
have her draw?
I don't think you are aware of what her "style" is.
I think her paintings look best from 10-15 feet away (like the
impressionists.) In fact in my opinion, her landscape paintings look great
from that distance and there are tons of artists in New York galleries who
draw great and don't appeal (to me) at all. Doesn't mean you or anyone else
has to like them BUT the buyers at her gallery (still Timor de Nay after all
these years) sure like them. I saw her current show Friday and it is almost
sold out at handsome prices. By some standards on this newsgroup, that
makes her a sellout. I hope to sell out so badly some day. In a real
triple play for this thread in one afternoon, I was able to see Jane's show,
Wolf Kahn's show at the Beadleston Gallery in the same building (724 5th
Ave, NYC) and a few blocks away at the Equitable Center (7th Ave @ 52nd St.)
saw a Fairfield Porter exhibition. Fairfield and Jane were obviously
friends and contemporaries but I would never think that her work was
derivative of his. She painted many more landscapes and he mostly painted
his family and wrote. I always liked the composition of the landscapes he
did do, especially the ones done in Maine. His color choices seem rather
pedestrian to me but he repeated them always and they sold, so what do I
know. I know what I like of course. Same as you. There are several of his
paintings in the Parish Art Museum in Southampton as well as several of hers
and several of Sheridan Lord's who hasn't been mentioned here. I see all of
them several times a year as well as frequently referring to their books and
catalogs. I enjoy Jane's coloring much better than Fairfield's. When the
subject matter strays from landscapes, they both lose me. Jane's current
show seems better to me than last year's. The colors are more interesting
with a little more variety than usual (which still isn't much variety).
When I didn't care for a painting it turned out to be from 1998 or 1997. The
flowers actually were not as good as the old ones IMO. They need a
background and seem to be floating on paper or canvas. The Porter exhibit
seemed very dull to me except for 4 very nice works. The show was mostly his
figure paintings.
Compared to both Porter and Freilicher, their Hamptons contemporary Sheridan
Lord seems far superior. I wasn't even aware of him until I saw a landscape
poster from a show the Parrish had on him a few years ago. He also doesn't
do much drawing either goodness!
Do I detect a trend here from the New York School of non realistic drawing.
Now the Wolf Kahn show. He don't seem to want to impress anyone with his
drawing either but he sure did knock my socks off (how's that for artspeak)
with his coloration's. I didn't want to leave the gallery. He adds to his
colorful repertoire every year while keeping some of his best coloration
efforts from before. In my 30 year career as a fabric designer, I frequently
styled Shetland sportcoats from Scotland and similar (but 100 % silk)
fabrics from Japan. Kahn uses his colors like the people who make those
heather yarns. Beautiful! I highly recommend seeing the Kahn show if you
can. It opened 2 weeks ago and is basically sold out. The gentleman
running the gallery Saturday said the show was "amazing". He was talking of
how quickly they sold (up to $70,000). I went back Saturday to talk to him
because they were delivering a lot of paintings when I was there and chaos
was reigning.
If you can get to NY do yourself a favor and see all 3 shows in one day.
Start with Porter, then Freilicher and then Kahn. Do it any other way and
Kahn will spoil the other shows for you. I think my Porter problem Friday
was actually caused by seeing Kahn right before.
Sorry if this rambles a bit. I caught a NY cold and my heads all stuffy.
Sort of like Porter's exhibit actually.
To see some images from Freilicher 1999 show go to
http://www.artincontext.org/new_york/tibor_de_nagy_gallery/selected_exhibiti
ons.htm
There is also a link there to Fairfield Porter but no images
G.
Gordon Matheson
Scarlett <scarl...@theriver.com> wrote in message news:rSSK4.63949> :
> I had never heard of this artist so thanks for the URL, Gordon.
>
> Having said that, I understand where Dik is coming from because she
> uses some of the same imagery as Dik (having seen it on John Haber's
> Website) such as still lives, but they are very inferior. I am surprised
> that
> she is actually successful. Not one single image caught my interest while
> Dik's seem to have a wonderful glow.
>
> I find her work dull and trite. Not even bad. Just nothing there.
Looking at vastly reduced large paintings that have a lot of subtle
interactions of color and form going on is difficult at best. Looking at
the web versions I agree with you. They look much better in life size.
Wolf Kahn whose painting are all about shape and color comes across much
better in web size renditions. Even so if that's all you've seen and you
come across one of his powerful color statements, you will appreciate it 10
times over.
As for your comparison of Dik and Jane's work, I haven't seen his work, but
I assume it is very good. Where can it be seen besides Haber's website? I'll
check it out.
A small sampling of museums that have Jane's work isThe Metropolitan
Museum, Whitney Museum of American Art, MOMA, The Hirshorn Museum, Kansas
City Art Institute, RISD Museum of Art and even though there are no swan
droppings on her painting (we have no elephants in the Hamptons) she is in
the permanent collection of the Brooklyn Museum. Not bad for dull and trite.
I'm sure you would think differently if you saw them in person.
Incidentally, Freilicher's books are out of print but are findable. Any
good book store that carries a lot of art books (and isn't that what makes a
good book store?) should have a current book on Kahn's work. Take a look at
it.
G.
Gordon Matheson
lake <lakeNO...@plateautel.net.invalid> wrote in message
news:12bbfa6f...@usw-ex0107-050.remarq.com...
> I'll have to agree with Dik f. Liu here, because this artist does not
> impress me too much. Her work is good, from a journeymans standpoint,
> but I have to ask, where has she been, these past 50 years? Did she
> miss Bob Dylan and Andy Warhol? Does she think Jasper Johns was just a
> flash-in-the-pan? Or did she even bother to take them all seriously?
> She's doing very pretty landscapes in quite a competant way, but no
> more than that.
By the times they are a changing came out Freilicher had been having yearly
exhibitions for 10 years or so (since 1952 at Tibor de Nagy) She started out
with early abstract expressionism as a lot of the NY School did. Like
Porter, she moved into something kinder and gentler you might say. Maybe
she was too old (in her early 40's at the time) to think Dylan mattered.
Why should she incorporate Jasper John's or anybody else's work into her
style? She had great friends within the New York School (Rivers and my late
neighbor, DeKooning for instance). She made a conscious decision to go a
different way. Now she's definitely too old to change.
Hundreds (maybe thousands) of artists took everything they could from John
and Warhol and a lot of others. Not too many of them are still selling out
shows yearly.
She is. Some people like "very pretty landscapes in quite a competent
(sic.) way,"
G. - loved the 50's, 60's and 70's work but thinks 95% of abstract work
from the 90's sucks. 99.5 if you count the internet and Soho.
humbert_...@my-deja.com
(Dik F. Liu) wrote:> In article <8dfqkm$e6m$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
humbert_...@my-deja.com writes:> DL It is possible to have a reasonable
discourse without resorting, as you did, to> vulgarity. It robs the credence
and noted. My appologies for seeming so rude but its been one of those
weeks. I noticed most of your posts are rather inflamatory however and so
far this is one of the only ones I have seen that was anything more than an
attack on someone.But I am not attempting a to fight here. I think we got
off on the wrong start. I have seen some of your paintings and I was
wondering if you wouldnt mind starting a thread in which we could discuss
them. I like what I see and would like to get a kind of a discourse going
about them. Maybe if you say what you think is important in particular works
of your own we could more easily share ideas.HC: When looking at art you
have to keep in mind that drawing is not the only> element that is
others putting words in my mouth. I did not say that drawing is the> only
important element. Please reread my post. In realistic painting, drawing> is
an element that is more than, as you think, just a small piece of the>
rendering is only a small part. It has to compete with design/composition -
value (light dark not $ ) range - color theory and tention (this alone fills
books upon books )Etc.What I mean is that rendering is only part but never
that it is unimportant. DL: The problem with> Freilicher isn't that she can't
draw; but that she can't draw in an art style> that requires it.> HC: I dont
agree here. You mentioned once that there are many different genres of
painting. I think the "genre" she is painting in does not require vast
Scarlett
"Gordon Matheson" wrote:
(snip)
: A small sampling of museums that have Jane's work isThe
Metropolitan
: Museum, Whitney Museum of American Art, MOMA, The Hirshorn
Museum, Kansas
: City Art Institute, RISD Museum of Art and even though there
are no swan
: droppings on her painting (we have no elephants in the
Hamptons) she is in
: the permanent collection of the Brooklyn Museum. Not bad for
dull and trite.
: I'm sure you would think differently if you saw them in person.
Why would you be sure of that? Jeff Koons is even more
extensively collected and yes, I've seen it in person and funny
thing - I can't develop an appreciation for his work. I agree
that the web takes subtle variations and is a poor representative
for the real thing. I have stated that I didn't like Rothko's
work when I looked at it in the art history books but that seeing
it in person was awesome. Perhaps Freilicher would be one I
would appreciate seeing in person. But I haven't, and I don't.
:
: Incidentally, Freilicher's books are out of print but are
findable. Any
: good book store that carries a lot of art books (and isn't that
what makes a
: good book store?) should have a current book on Kahn's work.
Take a look at
: it.
Sure, Gordon. I'm going to look at a book by an artist I have no
interest in. There are only about 1000 books I'm dying to read
and don't have the funds to buy and another 20-30 here in my
house I haven't begun.
Pass.
--
Scarlett
Website:
http://ScarlettDecker.homestead.com
Art Beyond Borders:
http://www.eurolab.at/art/
"Do you know what he needs?
Two or three shock treatments," Mary George said.
"Get that artist business out of his head once and for all."
(from "The Enduring Chill" by Flannery O'Connor)
lake
to dismiss it lightly. No doubt her work sells like crazy, and she
deserves it. But I still say it's neither adventurous nor beautiful
enough to be really noteworthy. I mean, what could one possibly say
about it? It doesn't REACH far enough to either succeed or fail, on a
significant level.
Gordon Matheson
lake <lakeNO...@plateautel.net.invalid> wrote in message
> to dismiss it lightly. No doubt her work sells like crazy, and she
> deserves it. But I still say it's neither adventurous nor beautiful
> enough to be really noteworthy. I mean, what could one possibly say
> about it? It doesn't REACH far enough to either succeed or fail, on a
> significant level.
>
the beholder.
Most art whose goal is to REACH simply fails unless the painter/ sculpter
etc is of very high merit. I bet all the artists whose lousy work you see
on the internet thought they were "reaching".
G. not good enough to reach very far at this time.
lake
buried..........but theres one more thing I want to say.
We have to keep our eyes on the top G., as best we see it. For every
Vincent Van Gogh, there were maybe a dozen Jane Freilichers. But one
Vincent could not possibly have existed without many Janes, so I'm not
saying she's wasting her time, I'm just saying she's not worth TALKING
about.
- Lake