| |
|
American artist John Currin has a mid-career retrospective going on at the Whitney (in NYC) which I took in on Friday.
Currin is a "controversial" figure, for over the last decade the accepted reading of his paintings is that he tweaks "political correctness" by representing women (especially) and men in highly caricatured form, though (allegedly) with impeccable technique derived from his study of Italian and Northern Renaissance painting. See the artnet link above for some examples. Subject matter in Currin paintings begins with middle aged women's heads imposed on the slender physiques of glamour models, to take-offs of 70s fashion/pin-up adverts (culminating in a disturbing (well, to me) number of paintings of women with impossibly large bosoms, leading me to believe that R. Crumb is more of a model that Cranach or tiepolo - if I may dilate for a second, it's odd that comic art gets no mention in the write-up here (I haven't perused the full catalog), as something as different (though as bad) as the Philip Guston retro at the Met touches on Crumb even though there was no real connection. I'm by no means an expert on comics but looking at Currin's "Bra Shopping" it seems to shout Crumb at ya), to full-frame anatomically exaggerated nudes, to finally genre painting (though some with "gay" couples).
As a cartoon, Currin's work functions well enough - I don't especially find his work funny or amusing though there were some amusing titles (which should give you a hint at the artist's confidence in his work to hold an interpretation by itself), but he's just not a ~serious~ artist. I don't mean serious in the sense that all art should be ponderous or about weight subjects - art can be light and funny. I mean that his work is ~simply~ a prank - and not an especially clever prank at that. Charlie Finch (whose writing I usually like), in the article linked above says that " [Currin] seeks to perceive what is authentic within the purview of his bent vision," but I don't think there's anything either especially authentic* nor bent about Currin. His perversions for the most part puerile and tiresome, and his re-interpretation of the "cliches" of the different modes of representation he borrows from aren't very insightful. There was one painting in the entire show where I thought that he was close to getting at something - entitled Lobster (2003) it was a bent woman with the accoutrements of a still life arranged on her shoulders - bread, a bowl of lemons, lobster, a fish, etc. It was boldly painted, and kinky - it was the first time I thought - woah, maybe there's something going on there. But then a day later I thought it was probably a Dali rip-off - it sounds like Dali, right?
* Not that authenticity is particularly important. I'm not sure why Finch would even use that word, given that the only way Currin's work is remotely interesting or explicable is if you treat it as pastiche. |
|
|
