Dennis Hollingsworth

Dana's stuff is definitely not great but it is not good - and if you linger around it long enough the not great and not good start talking to each other--somehow unexpectedly.

Ouch. I hope to test your theory one day soon.

-Dennis

Just curious, what's not good about the not so good ones?

Also, what so you find great at the whippersnapper level?

I like Dana's painting very much - clever and over the top. It's never 'great painting' because when you flaunt all those doudy elements it is not really working for the great painting legacy. When the not good and the not great face each other, they don't shoot each other (not in my preferred world, anyway). They produce another. It's called 'demanding'.

>>what so you find great at the whippersnapper level?<<

Don't get it so can't respond, Dennis :)

Love your house. I'm looking to purchase here in Tokyo. Don't think I'm gonna find something like what you got, but it's inspiring..

Dennis,
I enjoyed your response. I didn't mean for my response to sound like just a rant, but I think the sucess of someone like Schutz is a problem and continues to show the problems with the art world. The art world constantly convinces itself that it is fresh and in the avant-garde when it is far from that anymore. I do like some of Schutz's work because I like painting with bizarre imagery etc.. and I have seen her work since her college days and I definitley think she should be shown, but not at the level she is now at. She is barely out of grad school still and hailed as the greatest thing since sliced bread which is a joke. The prices her paintings go for are absolutely ridiculous and have been generated by hype which is never good. There are many artists who generate narrative from their work in similar ways too schutz who do not get the same attention (many who went to college with her). Everything I have read says how 'NEW' her ideas are, but none of them are really new at all which I was trying to explain in my last post! IF you know Guston's work, she takes some core ideas of his. In regard to Barnaby Furnace, If you look at Marrianne Boesky site and see his first show a few years ago, schutz blatantly rips off the backgrounds in his paintings. Which is fine, artist always borrow, but don't tell me she is the one generating all these new ideas when he did those paintings a good year before she made hers with very similar subject matter. Rock stars, people in woods, beach scenes, lovers embracing etc.. they are all in Furnaces shows. The art forum article on her goes on to say 'she could be the greatest symbolist of our time' then goes on to not back up that statement at all, but mostly talk about how thick she paints! If you talk to schutz or listen to her comments, her paintings are more about painting than anything else, while her gallery and critic fans attempt to read into the work all kinds of cultural importance which is simply not there. That is the problem really, painting about painting has been done and is not contributing anything new culturally to this world. No one gives a fuck about painting or paintings issues etc.. who isn't in the art world. Can painting really afford to keep making work about itself with very slight references to the world? I dont' think so, but most painters (even though most try to convince us they are culturally important) are treading on the past. When someone who is a fair painter like her gets this much attention and sells at her prices, it basically just reinforces the artworlds inability to grow with the times and move to the future. This whole controversy about painting being dead a few years ago, well, with the success of artists like schutz painting in an ahistorical zone of idiosyncratic nostalgia, yeah, painting is dead! My comments had nothing to do with her being good or not, its how good? Is she really as good as she has been made out to be? I say no! Is is a good thing that she has been this hyped... I would find it hard for you to say that it is. Yeah, that is how it always is etc.. but that is the problem, we just let it happen. Laura Owens didn't even get this kind of success out of grad school and the only reason Schutz is having success is because of what Owens did 10 years ago. The question you asked to me about what is fresh is a hard one for me to answer because I don't believe there are many painters out there who are doing anything fresh. I believe probably the most interesting painters out there or culturally important ones are probably the unknowns or showing but not hyped. They are probably not from nyc or LA either. At the moment I find that Neo Rauch is a much more interesting painter than Schutz and yes, does well, but never generated the kind of hype schutz has gotten and is a much better painter. I will have to think more about other artists that I consider fresh. Thanks.

oh, and if you look at her new show at lfl this month, it illustrates my comments. It looks more like 'her greatest hits' more than a new show of painting. Which always happens to artists who are overly-hyped

Well, Schutz may be hyped, but whether or not that hype is deserved is a different question than how hype backfires. james is clearly paying more attention to hype than art- notice how his beef with prices, the art world, grad school etc is the basis of his discontent and that his need for something new betrays the unexamined, oppressive and dated values, ie avant garde, he brings to the world of painting. The greats- if you're into the major-minor thing- were always referential to other artists - from Cimabue to Carravagio, Picasso to Polke. Even Rauch, who looks like a nostalgic right wing nut nowadays. Also, just to correct some facts- Dana's prices have been consistently lower than Barnaby Furnas (not Furnace) and way lower than other male artists her age- Keegan McHargue, TD Hancock among others. Second, Dana made those sneeze paintings and painted her backgrounds before or at the same time as Barnaby- it would be just as likely that she inspired his ( although I'm sure that's not the case). Also, I saw Dana's work coming into columbia- it was already simular to Furnas, but they had never seen each other's work. Hers was brilliant- obvious to everyone- his was very good. Also, take it from the other painters- everyone from different camps agrees she's the shit and I've never seen that before.

Well, Schutz may be hyped, but whether or not that hype is deserved is a different question than how hype backfires. james is clearly paying more attention to hype than art- notice how his beef with prices, the art world, grad school etc is the basis of his discontent and that his need for something new betrays the unexamined, oppressive and dated values, ie avant garde, he brings to the world of painting. The greats- if you're into the major-minor thing- were always referential to other artists - from Cimabue to Carravagio, Picasso to Polke. Even Rauch, who looks like a nostalgic right wing nut nowadays. Also, just to correct some facts- Dana's prices have been consistently lower than Barnaby Furnas (not Furnace) and way lower than other male artists her age- Keegan McHargue, TD Hancock among others. Second, Dana made those sneeze paintings and painted her backgrounds before or at the same time as Barnaby- it would be just as likely that she inspired his ( although I'm sure that's not the case). Also, I saw Dana's work coming into columbia- it was already simular to Furnas, but they had never seen each other's work. Hers was brilliant- obvious to everyone- his was very good. Also, take it from the other painters- everyone from different camps agrees she's the shit and I've never seen that before.

Tommy, thanks for the comments. Like I said before I have no question that she is good, I just don't think she is as good as everyone seems to justify. I also don't mean when I say 'new' something that has never seen before, just that artists such as schutz are hailed as innovative when (if you really break it down) aren't that innovative at all. I don't think Furnace is innovative or paticularly good either. I don't have a beef with the things you mention, but clearly they are all contributing to the lack of new ideas in painting. I am not sure of the other artists prices you mentioned, but I know her large go for at least $25,000 and smaller for $10,000. And I know she just bought a Building in NYC, so I imagine she isn't exactly a broke artist. I know a lot of artist too from different camps and most I know think she is good but not the great painter of our time like she seems to be portrayed as.

Also,
sorry for the Furnas name confusion. I got it now. Just to talk about facts regarding both artists. Furnas's show with lover, woods, beach scenes, night scenes were made in 2001 and shown in 2002. Schutz's paintings with similar reference were made in 2002.

Dear James,
How does one "contribute" to a "lack" of new ideas in anything?
A fat seventies Elvis once said at a Jaycees press conference "there's the man, and then there's the image. I put it this way; It's very hard for a man to live up to his image." If you think innacurate hype is bad for a good artist, and that being characterized as great is jumping the gun, right on. But once again, you pass the buck when it comes to hype. Yes, Schutz' bigger work goes for around 25, but a medium sized drawing by Keegan McHargue allegedly went for 28 recently. Furnas' smaller watercolors go for 3500, the bigger work goes for 50000. Yes, young artists' prices are getting out of control, but Schutz has kept a lid on it compared to other succesful artists her age.

The building is another example. Dana doesn't own a buiding. She lives with two roomates on the top floor of a way-uptown brownstone they sublet from members of a rock band, kind of like the monkees, only scary. Her studio, where she works an 80 hour week, has no windows or heat. She chooses to be there because she likes the community. Whether or not this lifestyle is still neccesary is beside the point- she is not livin' large. As for Schutz' sneeze and forrest paintings, she made several as early as 2000, and showed them, with Holy Coulis, at LFL in late 2001/early 2002. Furnas' thesis was in the spring 2000, while Schutz was in Cleveland, and his work was not seen in New York between then and his first show two years later. They do admire some of the same artists- Sydney Nolan for example. As for whether she is great yet, who knows? She's still young. She's one of my favorites either way, and the buck stops here with the hype.

Thank for your comments. I have to say that I often write before thinking about what I am saying. So you make a lot of good points. Yeah, as for the building, don't know for sure but I have been told by a few people that she actually bought a building in harlem recently. What i meant by contributing to the lack of new ideas had to do with art schools, and the artworld etc... doing that. I don't mean there are no new ideas happening, just that the artworld (which is schools and artists etc..) sort of convinces itself it is breaking new ground when it isn't a lot of the times. Of course, they need this to justify the pricing. The point isn't about breaking new ground or not, just admit that most times you (the artworld) aren't and you are simply just making pictures of things. ( i know that is a bit basic but hopefully you get what i mean) I actually never heard of Keegan m. and looked up his work, interesting, but those prices are nutZ! I guess in the end, I was simply saying what you said at the end. Is she great yet? We don't know because yeah, she is still young and for me that is the problem, she (and others) are hailed as great, treated like geniuses before they have barely scratched the surface of a career.

Thank you James,
I understand your discontent on three levels- that art reached a visual impasse (some say with Warhol), beyond which all formal and aesthetic innovations have been recycled several times over; that art institutions have largely perpetuated the pastiche of art history under the guise of context shifts; and that art schools and the managerial class of the artworld have failed to provide adequate solutions or somehow ignored the problem. Discontent is fine in this situation. But innovation is rarely a clean break with the past- in fact I can't think of a single avante garde movement that didn't overlook or take for granted some dimension of artmaking that has later served as the basis for its own endgame critique. The achillies heal of Greenbergian formalism, for instance, was that it was still painting even after all that emptying out. I could go into why I feel Schutz is innovative, that her work is not just pictures, nor is it a slave to a more hermetic discourse about painting, but that would tie us all up for a while. What I do know is that no one has ever made the mistake of saying- in writing at least- that Schutz represents something never seen before. Innovation, by definition, builds on something.
As for the art world, it's not some monolith or a conspiracy of navel gazers. It is a larger, more dysfunctional herd that includes you and your friends, me and mine, Dennis Hollingsworth and hundreds of other entities. It has its own laissez faire economy, its own rumor mill, no center, and no single direction. And just like in the real world, "a rumor can travel halfway around the world while the truth is still putting on its shoes." (my new fav Mark Twain quote). All I'm saying is lighten up on the artist for reasons other than the work itself, and don't go searching for someone to blame for the hype- you're in this game of operator too.

awesome exchange, guys.

I'll comment on your comments in a new post.

-D

Sublets make it tough to get exactly what you want. I have had varying experiences with them, and I have been in a few. The last one I got was through a sublease auction. It is this new model for doing an apartment search where people post their subleases and you can see the details and bid directly for them. I got my place for half of what my neighbor is paying and he even tried getting a new deal on his place using a sublease auction. I told him so LOL. Anyways, if you are interested, here is the site http://www.subleaseauction.com.