Elizabeth Peyton Live Forever at the NEW MUSEUM
Uploader Comments (jameskalm)
Top Comments
-
Love how that critic called - this stuff sucks. No theories, no B.S, it just sucks.
Some of these "artists" get into galleries and museums, and have others collecting them, but it DOES NOT mean they are any good.
This stuff is bland, unimaginative and carries no resonance (yawn).
-
In terms of raw talent, Peyton is nothing special. I mean, if she was in the 18th century, she'd be laughed out of the museum for her lack of precision. The only thing that makes her work worthwhile is that she PAINTS revolutionary people like Kurt Cobain or Eminem - she reaps the benefits of their fame and legacy by painting them... I don't know... nothing special to me. Cute paintings, but memorable? No.
All Comments (74)
-
But in all honesty this is Crap.
-
Damn I hate all these art snob hipsters! I've been painting for years and your vision is your vision! There is no right or wrong in creation.
-
"if she was..." but she is not... and this is art now, not 2 centuries ago.
-
*fame i meant..
I also think larry qualls's comment is the result of the way the grad schools are operating now, not the artists/students themselves. i agree that when you walk into an open studio day or a thesis show they are usually filled with crap. but that has a lot to do with the way the candidates were being chosen. a vicious cycle, more artists dreaming of making it by going to grad schools and more grad schools pushing certain 'looks' or 'style' by admitting these people.
-
she is only partially responsible for continuously making shitty work with no substances in it. those stupid patrons and greedy dealers/ museum curators are also responsible. she could sucks all her life making bad painting and no one can point at her and tell her that's wrong. but with the money and frame she got one wonders why people would actually regard these terrible garbage as anything worth being put into a museum. to me the museum lost all its credibility because of it.
-
There's nothing like bad "high art " that is so low key it is passed off as cutting edge. This kind of brushwork has been going on since A. Ryder, the last years of Picasso, F.Bacon and was dynamic and new as apposed to derivative and hollow to the senses; Immature angst in a stunted idea. And, that curator working on this her entire life? If thats the case please stop what you are doing and go find some high "high" or high "bad" art.
-
Elizabeth Peyton reminds me a lot of Alice Neel, only with less grit and personality. Painting celebrities can be well and good, though the stylization is redundant. Her painting is "fine" in that the color shines and her paint handling is swift / efficient. However, I am surprised by her powerhouse status in the art world.
-
crap
-
while i apretiate the way the work was done she just seems like the norman rockwell of our time. if her work is conceptual i dont know im not feeling that part its probably there but in a very sutle way
-
I like her paintings, but when you watch this video right after Philip Guston's small paintings, it's like drinking sweet grape juice right after a great Burgundy...
There is a small orange painting in the show (Piotr, 1996) that is framed as if it were a Vermeer, with a huge dark wooden frame (the painting was on the cover of the monography Rizzoli did on Peyton in 2005). It appears on the video. I think that frame also says a lot about the collector's ego...I had the same sorry experience once when I saw a Dubuffet painting imprisoned in a huge tacky golden frame. It really killed the painting, as I am sure it would have killed the artist to see it...
claureic 3 years ago
Ive actually spent about twenty years exploring the question of the frame in relation to painting. This is a complex conceptual realm, a boarder between art and everything else. What happens within that boarder? Does it extend to the gallery, the museum, the Art Media? Read Derridas The Truth in Painting, a cornerstone of Post-Modernist theory.
jameskalm 3 years ago