« BLOG SPAM | Main | infinate love »

An Open Critique

This is an untitled painting up for open critique

This painting is by Joe Post, and can be seen at his website in the context of his other work at www.postjoe.com

This is an idea we have been toying with...
Basically the idea is this: We put out a piece of work and you the bloggin' community comment and critique it. All through our time at Calvin, we both felt like critiques were never harsh enough, there just was never any real zingers or emotional outbursts. We never heard what people really thought of our work. So, here it is, the chance to critique in the anonymity of the web and the chance for us to defend our ideas.

To get things started I will just list out bullet style (with out the responses to these questions or comments) what some critiques of this work are:

First, what are these paintings about?

Its looks really contemporary (or maybe even hipster), does it have any lasting value?

How seriously can you take this work?

Does a big huge painting do anything to move me to a higher contemplation?

This/these paintings are in danger of becoming too obvious?

Is this (idea) brand new?

Is this just another revisiting of Alexis Rockman? Who is characterized as: "...not contemplative at all...obvious..."war is bad, aids is bad, the government is evil""

Feel FREE TO COMMENT on any or all of these questions and comments. The idea for us to get a free flow of ideas, any ideas. We are using are own work not so that we get a bunch of "hey, that's nice" or the opposite "that sucks". We want something more than that. At very least this will amount to a conversation between the two owners of this blog. I went now you go.

Comments

i thnk you are going to find it difficult to get responses in this mannner. people are not comfortable being critical.

that said, i do like this in 2d way more than when i saw them in real life. (and this is where i out myself as knowing nothing about art) the "droopiness" or gloppiness of the paint on the actual pieces has always put me off.

I think that I disagree with George. It's the plasticity and texture of the paint that I like most about this painting. I think that a digital photo does no justice to the intimidating size and dominating presence of the real thing. Besides, a monitor cannot reflect light like paint does, and the colors are guaranteed to be different on every screen.

george said, "people are not comfortable being critical."

what he meant was, "i am not comfortable being critical."

it looks like bunch of people watching a [nuclear] explosion. i think the painting is sloppy, i wouldn't call it aesthetically pleasing (except for maybe the b/w crowd of people, which local (for now, anyway) artist meagan luhrs does, and does better.) explosions and people sounds political, so if there is any critique in here, it's latent and played out. calling a painting hipster is patently absurd.

i know this painting is quite large. how can anyone critique it on the screen? doesn't size (i.e. presentation) come into play for any art experience?

I think the that what we are being asked to critique really is not the painting as a painting, but as an image. Meaning, it does not matter how we look at it, on a screen or in person (to this critique).
But I am interested in this idea that a painting should only be critized in person, in the flesh, or should I say in light of the brilliant shinning aura that exudes from "original" works of art. Is this really a question people are still asking (I am asking) in light of everything or modern and postmodern framers has questioned and answered.? See for example, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Work_of_Art_in_the_Age_of_Mechanical_Reproduction
Also, consider reading the full text.

Post a comment