Painting: Now and Forever, Part II at MATTHEW MARKS GALLERY

James Kalm risks a soaking deluge to bring viewers the first gallery of this abbreviated glimpse of on of this summer's most discussed painting shows. Presenting a cross section of generational and geographical implications, "Painting: Now and Forever, Part II" is the second installment of the original exhibition that happened in 1998. At that time the shows were split between Matthew Marks Gallery and the late Pat Hearn's. Though limited in scope these exhibitions display a broad spectrum of current practices while also re-evaluating past movements with in a Post Modernist context. Featuring works by Lily van der Stokker, Jack Goldstein, Martin Kippenberger, Rodney Graham, Binky Palermo and others

Category:

Entertainment

Tags:

• James
• Kalm
• Matthew
• Marks
• Gallery
• Lily
• van
• der
• Stokker
• Jack
• Goldstein
• Martin
• Kippenberger
• Rodney
• Graham
• Binky
• Palermo

[plushsnail]

supposedly, the Reena Spaulings piece was the tablecloth from a dinner she had at a restaurant. also there was a separate room next door (but still part of Matthew Marks) filled with Josh Smith paintings.

i wasn't crazy about this show but i'm glad you documented it - it was good to sort of get to see it again.

[jameskalm]

Plushsnail,

Thanks for the clarification, I read the explanation of the Spaulings piece too, after making the recording. As a painter, going on forty-five years of work, I can only give the impressions of what I think is happening, and sometimes I'm wrong. I would have liked to have recorded more of the show, but between studio time and crappy weather I was lucky to get what I did. Thanks JK

[jameslour]

The worst show ever. These quotes sum it up.

"Five minutes of work, and you're hung in a major gallery"

"convey the impression that the only way to take painting seriously is to treat it as some kind of joke"

[jameskalm]

jameslour,

I'm hopping that you find the second installment of this exhibition more to your liking, although "the only way to take painting seriously is to treat it as some kind of joke" might be more applicable to some of the work in part II. JK

[LawrenceCharlesMille]

Graham's paint looks so right. Like little Neruda poems.

Thank you James. Best-

[jameskalm]

LCM,

In the press release and some of this show's reviews they state that Graham isn't really making "straight" painting, that these are rather examples of a Post Modernist affectation. Like Kilimic he is appropriating a type of past manneristic stance and exploiting the viewers desires for nostalgia (but I kind a like 'em myself).

[jcjim99]

one of the weakest shows of "painting" i've ever seen. lightweight fluff would be an understatement. one of the few pieces that was really great was the japanese artist

Tanaka. ( the small colorful circles). saw a retrospective of her work at NYU a coulple of years ago. very impressive.

[jeffreycollins]

Thanks for showing the BLINKY piece. Too bad he didn't stay around longer. He was a great painter. Thanks for the documentation James. You really do give those of us outside of NY a peek into the galleries there. I hope to be back there for a visit in a month or two. I'll have to look you up bro.

Jeffrey

[samaytara]

ty,

i totally remember this day!

[eenkjet]

this work is a sarcastic jab at the true discipline of abstraction. if someone had told me it was a high school art program show, i would not have been impressed.

[LawrenceCharlesMille]

I agree.

Maybe ART deserved it when we first beat it stupid.

But must we continually drag its carcass from gallery to gallery to museum to university and back around again? Pollock et al dared to be authentic. It's time to lay down the pipe, chess pieces, and Duchamp's pussy smoking jacket.

[LawrenceCharlesMille]

OK. I know his work now. Old fashioned hippie smart-ass conceptual art from the provinces. We need a genius to give the art establishment a resounding dope slap.

[LawrenceCharlesMille]

James - Thanks for the info. i'll check out his other work. I suppose that's why they struck me as so "right". Poking the eye of Art seems to be a twentieth century concept (read historical). So is Graham and his ilk on another wave of irony, behind, or just naive?