Takashi Murakami, Glenn Brown and Andreas Gursky all have shows up in NYC now and all have succeeded in removing all the excitement from their art. Works in all three shows were so slick, so completely over-thought and over-produced that one left feeling as if the three value polish over inspiration. All three suffer from the same problem although I can't completely explain it. Its sort of like when a young band loses some of their greatness because they become too good of singers and musicians.
I love all three of these artists too. But not this time around.
I'm glad that Jerry Saltz called out Gursky in his New Yorker review. Oddly enough, the New York Times has reviewed none of these shows. Their big story on Murakami
contained no critique of his paintings, just a celebration of their $1-million price tags.
Next time.....lets hope.
Haven't seen the others, but I somewhat disagree about Murakami. I felt he went in some interesting new directions with this show, and there were one or two pieces, that were really exciting. It's a given that his work is all about polish, but I feel that he expressed more personal inspiration than I'd seen from him in a while.
Posted by: djemar | May 30, 2007 at 10:44 AM
I hear you Erik, it was good to chat a bit about this when I was visiting you last week at the gallery, and I like the band comparison!
Posted by: harold hollingsworth | May 31, 2007 at 12:35 AM
I find that review lacking in any real depth but full of snarky comments. Doesn't sound like Saltz really tried to look into any of the meaning of any individual works except for the Boxenstopp's which felt like he was looking for something negative to say.
I find it particularly odd that Saltz for some unknown reason kept harping about 9/11 and yet failed to mention the Irony of Gursky's image, Kuwait Stock Exchange, 2007 to contrast the 90s Chicago Board of Trade. It is pretty obvious.
Nor did he mention much about the images from Pyongyang. Am I the only one that got a creepy buzz from the spectacles in Pyongang? Enormous gun on the banner in the background? Our Axis of Evil enemy? Hello? I immediately saw the connection to the old movies of Nazi Armies being paraded through Berlin with deft synchronicity as well as the Cold War precision of Soviet Tanks rolling through Moscow often seen in propoganda films. But I found this to be a subtle wry commentary on it. Disturbing without being overt. Showing the ease at which people can be trained and the pressure of group mentality.
I also do get that sense that his most recent work is more polished but I don't hold that against him. To go with the "band" analogy it reminds more of fans not "getting" the Sophmore album because they lost some of their edge after they've finally hit it big and gotten a budget to polish their sound. But usually that stuff will eventually grown on a person.
http://www.spruethmagers.com/artists.php?e=&sub=w-a&Artist_ID=49
As for Murakami, I like his departure a bit away from the cartoony pop art feel. But it is polished. Hasn't his work always been really polished? I get more bothered by his repetition of imagery. Or in more fine art terms, his use of "serial" imagery. I guess that's the pop art thing in him? Turns it more into a commercial product or commodity than something unique and esoteric. Still bugs me though - seeing the same thing manipulated in a million ways.
Posted by: Art Brute | May 31, 2007 at 10:51 AM
no likey the comments?
Posted by: Art Brute | June 08, 2007 at 03:31 PM