When I first saw Katharina Grosse’s paintings at Gagosian, my reaction was that they were too big, and that the surfaces were too flat–that they looked better on the computer screen than they did�at the gallery. Berlin-based Grosse (b.�1961, Germany) is mainly�known for large-scale three-dimensional work that features bright, unmixed, sprayed-on color that evokes abstract painters like Sam Francis and Helen Frankenthaler. Readers may remember that this past summer Grosse�completed “Rockaway!,” a controversial project commissioned by�Klaus Biesenbach at MoMAPS1 in which she covered a Fort Tilden beach building (and some of the beach surrounding it) with bright�red paint that looked as if�it had been poured from the sky.�
In the press release for the Fort Tilden show, MoMAPS1 suggested that Grosse’s ambition was to “extend the scope of her painting beyond the borders of the canvas” and declared that her�installation projects�”evoke the physicality of action painting and earthworks through their gestures and monumentality.”
The statement for the Gagosian show also intimates�that the paintings, made with unmixed acrylic color and various stencils, aim�to engulf the viewer:
Embracing the events and incidents that arise as she paints, Grosse opens up surfaces and spaces to the countless perceptual possibilities of the medium. While she is widely known for her temporary and permanent�in situ�work, which she paints directly onto architecture, interiors, and landscapes, her approach begins in the studio. With calculated focus, she allows new patterns and procedures in her paintings to emerge from action, further multiplying this potential with stencils cut from cardboard and thick foam rubber�tools with which to develop further cuts, layers, and perspectival depths. Grosse�s gestures unfold all at the same time in unmixed acrylic colors, engulfing the viewer in a toxic sublime.
The strength of Grosse’s�past work rested in�the clever, audacious way she�combined�paint and physical structure.�These new paintings on canvas, though ambitious and slick in terms of energy and scale, lack�the improvisational element that working on an object or building provides. As a result, they seem essentially�formulaic. Certainly they�aren’t�as compelling as the public art projects (or, for that matter, the three-dimensional sculptures that she paints). For color fanatics, I can see the attraction, but those less�interested in color pyrotechnics than in�structure,�line, and surface may not be�impressed. From an�art market and museum placement standpoint, of course, these new paintings are obviously�more�practical than public projects. Furthermore, this is Grosses’s�first show at Gagosian, and, let’s face it, almost everyone digs bright colors to some degree.
“Katarina Grosse,” Gagosian, Chelsea, New York, NY. Through March 11, 2017.
Richard Jackson: A painter who has been asking �What if�?� since the 1970s
Catalogue essay: COVER THE EARTH by Stephen Maine
Jacqueline Humphries and digital distraction
I like the ones in the front room …they were clear but I felt the 4-5 paintings in the side room could use a crop .The bottom half seemed to work great but all together they got mushy ,the color became harsh
Funny, in the 80’s this type of painting was casually dismissed as “still-born offspring of Abstract Expressionism”. I guess it took all these years for demand to finally catch up to supply. Maybe liquidity in the stock market has a correlation to liquidity on canvas.
I think you’re really right about Katherine’s work on a certain level especially from the perspective of the exploration of mark making and layering of paint, which is I think so special in your work. For me I love how her boundaries start to dissolve with her installations which I find to be much more compelling. Her work becomes so static when it’s contained within boundaries of the structure of the square. But I see what she’s doing with painting, she’s capturing areas that are perhaps puddling where a concrete shape is formed within the experimented mix and layering of color. I found her video to be very revealing. I liked how she discussed a male vs female interpretation of formalistic terms. I wonder if she is trying to use that male language to exceed its self from a female perspective. What do you think?