bricology (![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small} bricology) wrote, |
Where has the time gone, indeed?! It's one of my few regrets that I came to art late-ish in life. I was trained in architecture, spent years dealing in antiques and spent a year working on a WWII submarine (for the Maritime Museum), so I didn't get around to making my first sculpture until late '99, and didn't get my first solo show until 2002. The art world is unforgiving of late-bloomers, but I persevere.
Peyton's work is superficially appealing; it shows interesting color sense and composition, and the surfaces don't look overly labored, which are the elements that reminded me of your work. But it's ALL surface with her. In a way, I suppose her work perfectly reflects the zeitgeist; it's shallow and self-indulgent, just like most of her subjects. Your paintings--from what I can see on a monitor, anyway--seem to be more like vehicles for the inner stories of your subjects to be made visible. I'm impressed.
I've recently torn my website apart and am now about 80% done putting it back together again. The main thing left to do is to edit a video of an installation I did for the Bayennale last summer. As soon as it's completed, I'll send a link to your website's e-mail address.
I'm marginally interested in contemporary art; the '50s and '60s art scene interests me much more. I'm a huge fan of dead artists like Cornell, Ernst, deStael, Hundertwasser, etc., and older living artists like Lee Bontecou, Panamarenko and James Turrell. There are also some artists of my generation whose work I find interesting, such as Andrea Zittel, Gabriel Orozco, Olafur Eliasson, Joan Nelson and April Gornik. I keep up with contemporary art because of these kinds of artists and because I suppose I want to be aware if my work is relevant to others. (Not that I would change if it weren't.) Unfortunately, "fresh fresh" in San Francisco means the latest 20-something straight out of SFAI or CCA, who aspires to be the next Barry McGee or Chris Johanson. Is my bias showing?
Peyton's work is superficially appealing; it shows interesting color sense and composition, and the surfaces don't look overly labored, which are the elements that reminded me of your work. But it's ALL surface with her. In a way, I suppose her work perfectly reflects the zeitgeist; it's shallow and self-indulgent, just like most of her subjects. Your paintings--from what I can see on a monitor, anyway--seem to be more like vehicles for the inner stories of your subjects to be made visible. I'm impressed.
I've recently torn my website apart and am now about 80% done putting it back together again. The main thing left to do is to edit a video of an installation I did for the Bayennale last summer. As soon as it's completed, I'll send a link to your website's e-mail address.
I'm marginally interested in contemporary art; the '50s and '60s art scene interests me much more. I'm a huge fan of dead artists like Cornell, Ernst, deStael, Hundertwasser, etc., and older living artists like Lee Bontecou, Panamarenko and James Turrell. There are also some artists of my generation whose work I find interesting, such as Andrea Zittel, Gabriel Orozco, Olafur Eliasson, Joan Nelson and April Gornik. I keep up with contemporary art because of these kinds of artists and because I suppose I want to be aware if my work is relevant to others. (Not that I would change if it weren't.) Unfortunately, "fresh fresh" in San Francisco means the latest 20-something straight out of SFAI or CCA, who aspires to be the next Barry McGee or Chris Johanson. Is my bias showing?
