these paintings are terrible. honestly, who are we trying to kid here? the color is primary, the composition is absent and everything else about it is arbitrary and unaesthetic. i dont care what -ism you use to justify it.
Anonymous: It's easy to disregard someone's work when you hide behind a curtain of anonymity. If you have the courage of your convictions, identify yourself. Otherwise your own words will be disregarded.
Stay anon or don't – it doesn't matter, as long as you give something to think about. I'm more interested in comments than commenters.
Anon, I would like more specifics from you about the paintings and why they don't work, and what you mean by arbitrary and primary (surely not literally primary colors) and what, by comparison, does cut the mustard for you.
The centralized composition, the zigzags and loopy humps, and the messy "gestural" brushwork that adds noise but not necessarily direction, as in DeK – these are clearly choices, possibly to distinguish herself from tasteful traditions in abstraction that include not only AbEx but Nozk. There is a kind of abrupt dopiness that I appreciate in, for example, Heilmann or Chris Martin, but I'm not sure if this is working. It strikes me as rather suave.
I agree with anonymous. These paintings are crappy. However, upon reading the quote, I think that maybe the artist also thought them to be crap because she specifically includes the words "work or not work" in the text. Evidently, according to this artist, and regardless of whether the painting works, it is mystical and therefore has power. So logically it follows to say these paintings are powerful even though they appear to be crap(or not crap). What we have here is perhaps a new era for painting. Critics will no longer need to render opinions or judgments. Now, a paintings power is proportional to it's mystical state. To analyze it is to neutralize it's power. Looks like we all win – Yay!!
NYC Selected Gallery Guide, June 2026Contributed by Sharon Butler / In June, in the wake of an exhausting month of fairs, NYC galleries are again presenting a full slate of exhibitions. A...
April Gornik’s unsettled landscapesContributed by Rebecca Allan / In “Liminal States,” Miles McEnery Gallery presented recent paintings by April Gornik, juxtaposing five of her familiar...
AAA at 90: Keep on lookingContributed by Leslie Roberts / The exhibition “Abstract by Definition” at Art Cake celebrates the 90th anniversary of the American Abstract Artists (...
American Abstract Artists in the 1930sContributed by Jacob Cartwright / In 1957, Clement Greenberg penned the essay “The Late Thirties in New York,” reflecting on years that were formative...
These paintings definitely work, amazing art!
xoxo
Karena
Art by Karena
these paintings are terrible. honestly, who are we trying to kid here? the color is primary, the composition is absent and everything else about it is arbitrary and unaesthetic. i dont care what -ism you use to justify it.
Anonymous: It's easy to disregard someone's work when you hide behind a curtain of anonymity. If you have the courage of your convictions, identify yourself. Otherwise your own words will be disregarded.
the fact that you sign your comment anonymous, makes me disregard it completely….you should sign your name and stand behind your words.
Fran
Stay anon or don't – it doesn't matter, as long as you give something to think about. I'm more interested in comments than commenters.
Anon, I would like more specifics from you about the paintings and why they don't work, and what you mean by arbitrary and primary (surely not literally primary colors) and what, by comparison, does cut the mustard for you.
The centralized composition, the zigzags and loopy humps, and the messy "gestural" brushwork that adds noise but not necessarily direction, as in DeK – these are clearly choices, possibly to distinguish herself from tasteful traditions in abstraction that include not only AbEx but Nozk. There is a kind of abrupt dopiness that I appreciate in, for example, Heilmann or Chris Martin, but I'm not sure if this is working. It strikes me as rather suave.
I agree with anonymous. These paintings are crappy. However, upon reading the quote, I think that maybe the artist also thought them to be crap because she specifically includes the words "work or not work" in the text. Evidently, according to this artist, and regardless of whether the painting works, it is mystical and therefore has power. So logically it follows to say these paintings are powerful even though they appear to be crap(or not crap). What we have here is perhaps a new era for painting. Critics will no longer need to render opinions or judgments. Now, a paintings power is proportional to it's mystical state. To analyze it is to neutralize it's power. Looks like we all win – Yay!!