A painting show on TV, TV on a painting show; a TV in a gallery, a gallery on TV; an exhibition of a show, a show of an exhibition. The aforementioned is a taste of the finesse and style in the press release for the exhibition entitled: "Screen". The concept is a simple one--relate painting to TV, and vice versa. However, staging a show, filming it on video, then playing the results in a gallery along side the work to signify TV, misses a point; namely, if that was a representation or stand-in for the actual thing, the attendance for galleries would soar. Such fodder on a TV screen makes public access look interesting. In the end, the video portion of the show comes off as mere artifice in order to create an axiom for a show that would more accurately have been titled "Today's Top 40". Yes, I'm afraid its true, a monkey could have passed by our most venerable, trendy SoHo venues and plucked a similarly representative bunch of practitioners of the art of painting. In addition, putting these fashionable newcomers next to the illustrious and celebrated is always a crowd pleaser. Then why, you ask, has this profound display been embraced with such ardor from our best known critics? Perhaps, the answer lies in the fact that it is reassuring and vainglorious to have a popularly accepted viewpoint validated. Casey Kasem would be proud of the format: "Greatest Hits, New and Old."
such fodder for an artworld makes all communication puzzling. i liked the pictures of the hickies, but i was later told they were not included in the video/net component. hats off to your chutspah, lets have some more.
C'mon Kenny, are you really trying to use the bludgeon of "quality painting" to beat down a surprising and eventful show, of painting, even? You sound like a real Studio School snob. What color is your ascot?
i wouldnt know quality painting if it hit me over the head. were you really surprised by a single piece in the show? if so, can u please come to an exhibit i organize? by the way, my ascot is Peter Halley purple.