Web Log
Posted by: Roberta Langran on Oct 11, 03 | 11:32 pm-
I enjoyed the works
by Terrell James because she is a wonderful colorist. Her use of colors
in an atmospheric 'setting' do engage me for a longer period of time.
I experienced a strong sense of continuity within each piece. Then I
found myself struggling pleasantly before her works attempting to locate
some recognizable object. But, isnt that what we are supposed to do?
The descriptive writing is inspirational and relating to her thoughts
is easy. The impetus that works of Matisse gave her was thunderous and
so was her reaction to it (working quickly as if being given dictation).
Also beautiful was the way she experienced self knowledge. It surfaced
from the depths as the fossil migrates from the ocean bed to end on
a mountain top. Both statements are poetic and I see poetry in the canvases.
All the painters in our class can imagine the moment she gazed at objects
in the room and they emerged through her canvas.
It is significant to me that while her works hold deep and symbolic
meaning for her, she is not so intense that she cannot have a moment
of levity and nickname a work. It's as if she is having a private joke
with the canvas and this demonstrates her self assurance.
Posted by: Sarab6 on Oct 13, 03 | 3:43 pm-
Terrell James' paintings
have a stong dreamlike quality to them. They exist in a state that is
between directly representing something, and forms that subtley suggest
something familiar. Before reading about her work I felt a strong sense
of the earth and nature in the paintings. I found the connection very
interesting between her fascination with cracks in rocks and fossils
and how she incorporated those lines into her paintings by literally
scratching the lines onto the canvas. I felt the larger paintings were
the most successful. They require the viewer to do more searching into
the floating landscapes that she has created and they envelope the viewer
more. I have a question for Tracy-I am really interested in the Steel
plates of hers that I saw in the booklet you gave us. I was just curious
about them and wondered what you knew about them in terms of backgroud
and technique? I thought they were really fascinating.
Sara Luxen
Posted by: Frank Stanley on Oct 14, 03 | 3:21 pm-
Viewing Terrell's paintings was like looking at the air between the eye and the object. I felt as if her canvases were on the brink of coming into focus, or becoming understandable as objects. Her large paintings were the most interesting, but some of the smaller panel paintings were very engaging. Some of her panel paintings had a strange "potential for figuration", as if a few makers would bring forth a body through the paintings surface. I didn't sense the same "potential" in the larger painting, as they seemed more architectural. For some reason while viewing Terrell's work, I couldn't stop making the connection with Gorky (It annoys me when people view my work and name a well none artist,) but I couldn't remove the connection from my head. The least interesting images in the exhibit were the pallet paintings. There wasn't enough to keep me interested in looking. I think they would be valuable as studies for artist, but I don't think they helped the exhibit and they seemed more like filler work.
Posted by: Frank Stanley on Oct 14, 03 | 3:31 pm-
I know this is of topic from Terrll's work but I am curious what the class thinks about originality, and the obsession with being new and cutting edge, which seems to very present in the art world right now.
Posted by: CatherineBetz on Oct 14, 03 | 10:16 pm-
I also was reminded of Gorky while viewing Terrell's work. Although if I remember correctly, Gorky's colors were much deeper in hue and value, and they gave a more fluid feeling- like a viscous liquid. The airy almost dream like quality of Terrell's work was her strongest characteristic throughout her work, while juxtaposing colors against them to show depth. I found the scratching of the surface of the canvas, with what I can only assume was the back of the brush, was very interesting to me. Not only the placement of the scratches, but the difference in depths of the scratches.
On a side note, I really enjoyed the Calder exhibit at the Gallery. I was so drawn to his work. Catherine
Posted by: Tracy on Oct 20, 03 | 10:31 am-
Terrell's work reminds me somewhat of Charley Aberg's White Paintings that was displayed in the Pollock Gallery. I don't know if many of you saw the show, but the way Terrell and Aberg applied paint is rather similar in my opinion. They both use pale "easter like" colors with the occasional vibrant eye popping colors to catch the veiwers eye. I agree with Frank about "as if her canvases were on the brink of coming into focus, or becoming understandable as objects." It seems each patch of paint is pushing and pulling against one another fighting for position within the painting's surface. I like that. Hope you all have a wonderful weekend.
Posted by: Lauren C on Oct 20, 03 | 11:01 pm-
I am sorry for the
tardiness of this post... I was sick and then with midterms and such,
it took me awhile to get by the museum and see the work. Anyways, I
really enjoyed her work. I found it very soothing. I like line a lot
and in her work lines were very important to me, probably because they
could easily go unnoticed. I also enjoyed the fact that nothing seems
clear, yet everything is solidly placed. I agree with most that her
larger works were better in keeping you interested. As far as Frank's
comment about being 'cutting edge', I thin kwe all, in our work, want
to have something that sets us apart. No one wants to be viewed as unoriginal.
It's human instinct to attempt to be unique and different. I want to
be a shoe designer and everyone I talk to says, "Lauren, make sure
that there is something in your sketches that make them uniquely yours.
Hundreds of books get looked at in a day and you want them to stop on
yours." Well, galleries are like that too, or so we are taught
to beleive. They have so much work sent to them that yours has to be
'cutting edge' in some way for you to even be considered.
Lauren
Posted by: Caroline on Oct 21, 03 | 11:17 pm-
It was interesting for me to read about Terrell James' childhood interest in nature -- specifically rocks, fossils, and bones. Her love of things from and of the earth somehow are transmitted through the shapes she employs in her paintings and in the use of color she chooses for some of her work. Her soothing grays, blues, greens (and even her use of bright white), are colors that draw the viewer into her paintings. Rothko's vivid rectangles using reds-oranges, purples, etc., are not here. Instead, James' compositions possess a dreamy, ethereal landscape quality that pulls the viewer in and holds us. Regardless of what was in her mind initially, we each reflect in some sense upon gazing at her work, and the fluidity, form, and texture of her shapes and composition take us each to different places. As Degas once said, "It is not what we see; it's what we make others see." Caroline
Posted by: ashleytrafton on Oct 22, 03 | 11:42 am-
This group of Terrell's paintings suceeds because of the illusive and subtle elements within the work. The amorphous shapes of paint, the expressive but ambiguous charcoal lines, and the subtle color transitions, greens grays and pale yellows, all made me search intently for something solid- like naming shapes in passing clouds. The inspiration from nature is evident in the color choices, and the seemingly chaotic, yet balanced shapes. The tonal grays are interrupted by small patches of intense pinks or oranges, giving the tranquil paintings sudden exciting moments. I'm reminded of Heyden's "Surprise Symphony" when the dynamics shift so suddenly that you jump out of your skin. I also think the paintings with fewer of these intense moments are more interesting and effective. When there are so many bright patches, the subtle gray layers become overwhelmed and less noticeable. Overall, I was very pleased by the work, but I do agree with Frank that the palette studies were sort of out of place.
Posted by: Frank Stanley on Oct 26, 03 | 9:13 pm-
Addressing my own
question: I have an objection to the obsession of always finding a new
art. This stems from a frustration with much of the recent artwork that
I have seen in which the artist, (perhaps in desperation) in an attempt
of becoming hip and new produce an amazingly bad artistic abortions
disguised with gimmicky effects. During my freshmen year I had done
the NYC colloquium, (which I plan to do this year) and I was shocked
by the poor quality work in most of the galleries we visited--only a
handful of exhibits were worth while, and the rest were tragically hip
works saying little and showing it in very uninteresting ways. It seems
that so much of the bad work is being driven in the pursuit of a new
image and a new art, as if the artists were sacrificing anything interesting
to make something new. This seems odd to me. I have been called a "moralist"
artist by a professor before (which doesn't bother me one bit) for my
views on art, but I believe originality comes from concentrated work
and not some radical new medium or pseudo-intellectual work presentation
of an uninteresting idea. Don't get me wrong, new mediums can be very
interesting when used by the right hands, but often these right hands
are hard to find. I believe working and thinking makes new and original
art, not radical mediums. Mediums should be selected for a specific
reason, not because there the new way of making art.
Frank
Posted by: sergio on Nov 04, 03 | 3:30 pm-
in response to Franks comments -moralism in art-i'd like to agree that working and thinking makes new and original art. But it sems the more i learn about art, the more clear it becomes that there are no absolutes. I think having a moral structure for looking at art or making it can be very useful and reassuring but i think it inevitably breaks down sooner or later. I think it all boils down to how someone responds to a work of art personally, not if it follows a set of criteria. So does this mean that anything can be considered art? or any judgement of it illegitamite? i dont know. an individual will respond to something first and foremost on an immediate personal level and then in a context predicated by societal/intellectual pressures and other external modes (like what you were taught in art school). it is true that we all respond similarly to certain pictoral/visual qualities, and maybe it is at this level where we can collectively judge art. but that can satisfy so much, and depending on how much rely on that criteria will also determine how you judge art. in the end i find it extremely difficult to define art and set certain restrications about viewing it. for all i can tell art shouldn't "be" anything, so therefore it could be everything. To a practiing painter this is a little scary. -i'll continue in next post-
Posted by: sergio on Nov 04, 03 | 4:10 pm-
-Continuation of
rant....- so, to a practicing "artist" this IS a little scary.
if i were to view myself in a "practicing profesional" mode
it seems I have no chance of success. how can i compete with all these
individual tastes, or hope that some patron's criteria of "good"
art will be compatible with my work. am i supposed to rely on my individual
prefrences and ideas manifested in my painting to sell, or hope to learn
and adapt to some mystic universal "truths" (that I have heard
of but dont quite understand) about art? should i appeal to this "universal
human experience/condition" to establish some sort of connection
with the viewer or paint for my own sake, with the hope someone else
out there with money might like it.
It seems it doesnt really matter since srt historians seem to tell the
world what is good art, and that doesnt become sure unless the art sells
well. Apparently no one thought Van Gogh was any good while he was alive,
but now his 'Water Lillies' sells for like $20 million dollars and he
is considered one of the greatest artists of the 19th century. so i
don't know what to think. we can talk all we want to about art theory
and criticism but in the real world ( Tracy, tell me if i'm wrong) these
rules dont seem to matter nearly as much. Selling well and gaining favorable
criticism are two different things, I guess the dream is to have both
at once.
Posted by: sergio on Nov 04, 03 | 6:38 pm-
so, about the panel talk at the MAC. i must say i had some mixed feelings about it. on the one hand it was a pretty poor presentation, nothing really got across very clear, i had no real idea what their gallery was about, and i admittingly fell asleep through about 10 minutes of it. But on the other hand, as I was talking to someone afterwards about it, I was not wholy disappointed. In fact it was a bit refreshing. The speakers weren't very eloquent, certainly not articulate, and not very "professional". but in a way they seemed very honest, they certainly weren't out there to impress anyone with their lexicon or theories. As a student (i think it is important to mention this), I found it funny that these guys had an audience at full capacity. I guess after attending so many lectures at school, listening to formal discusions and debates, I thought it great to witness this level of professionalism which undoubtably shrinks in comparison to the academic dicourse I'm (as a student) used to and reared to expect. It is relieving to know that someone can struggle embarrassingly with words and presentation but still show consistently at the Biennial and be represented in the FW Modern. I am not writing this to defend their quality of presentation, just to show that it is possible to succeed without all the rhetoric skills of an art critic. Again I say this as a student. I'm sure that if I went like most of the people there to learn something and view an engaging discussion, i would have been severely dissapointed. but so what, these are working artists talking, not highly paid campus touring lecturns.
