Morris Louis produced a startling amount of work in the short span of time that was his life. Between 1954 - 1962 Louis produced more than 600 artworks in what was for it's time a stunning new direction. This direction has become known as "Color-Field Painting".

The theory is that Color-Field Painting is based on two general components; color and field. There are a few lesser ideas as well, one of which is working away from any kind of figure-ground relationship, and it is heavily weighted on the shoulders of Clement Greenberg. Greenberg's raise was the championing of the Abstract Expressionists and Color-Field Painting was his second act.

In the past few years, Greenberg has fallen from critical favor and the group of artists that are pulled down with him are the Color-Field artists. It has become clear to me that Color-Field Painting needs to be looked at through a different lens if it is going to regain any footing in the history of art as a whole (I'm talking group of artists not individuals). The fact is, that Helen Frankenthaler and Morris Louis have created some amazing paintings (as have Olitski, Gilliam, Noland, and Davis to name a few) however what struck me about Louis's painting in this show was the incredible amount of process that is right at the surface of these artworks, combine the obvious links between Color-Field Painting and what would become known as minimalism and you have a serious mix of artworks to be looked at through a very different lens than that of "Greenbergian" doctrine. I think this is the reason these paintings stay at the forefront of art, while the "movement" as a whole is kind of a sinking ship. At the end of the day, color-field or other reductive strategies are still being used to make artworks. Hence the serious need to develop a new way of looking and thinking about these artists.

Which brings me back to the Morris Louis show, Two works in particular stood out to me, Dalet Tet, 1959, an amazing amount of work in creating this canvas - with so many pours developing into a rich velvet like black with color pours dancing underneath. This was the first piece that I saw of Louis's that made me think and visually explore more about the process of his artwork. The second piece Beth Chet, 1958, with it's array of browns and umbers, this image stands out for me as much for it's difference to the other works, as well as it's use of semi-architectural elements. (sorry, no images were available)

This is the first museum show of Louis's work in 20 years. The show, although a little on the short side is still a very strong show if for no other reason than it is time to start critically reassessing a pivotal time in abstract image making. Highly Recommended.

Morris Louis Now
An American Master Revisited at the Hirshhorn Sept 20 - January 6

Image at top: Morris Louis, Number 99, 1959-1960
Acrylic resin (Magna) on canvas, The Cleveland Museum of Art, Contemporary Collection of the Cleveland Museum of Art, 1968.110. Copyright 1960 Morris Louis.

Labels: Criticism, Museums, Painting, Washington DC

Elisabetta Povoledo writes for The New York Times on saturday, about the digitization of Veronese's The Wedding at Cana being installed on the island of San Giorgio Maggiore a few weeks ago. The article goes into great depth about the painstaking work of how this masterpiece was scanned, scrutinized, and eventually printed, and touched up to become very close to the real thing or at least a photo of the real thing - or something that resembles the original as it now exists.

The group Factum Arte has digitally recreated, in what I understand is in amazing detail and has hung it in the same place it was removed from almost 210 years ago.

Here's a bit of the backstory
Napoleon's forces removed the painting from the refectory of the Church of San Giorgio Maggiore as war booty - cutting the painting into pieces and reassembling it back home. It currently hangs at the Louvre (Paris) directly across from the Mona Lisa and is claimed to be viewed by 9 million visitors a year by the French authorities. (sidebar: do you remember any of the other paintings in that room? - I don't)

Venice has always wanted this painting back - they still occasionally have mock trials of Napoleon and every few years someone wants to sue the Louvre or the French Government for it's return. That return is not going to happen since it was resolved (diplomatically) in 1815.

Back to the story
So what we have is a very serious digital reproduction sitting in place of what is now somewhere else. Do understand that I believe that this digital copy - which took 18 months to do - is probably one hell of an object. However it is not an art object. It carries no authenticity as art. The thing is, I believe in art, the real thing - not copies, duplicates or substitutions. I want to experience, the presence of something, it may be ancient or temporary - but I want to experience that thing. I want to see the same paint, rock or whatever the artist did when he or she made it. This is as close to religion as I have, and I care for it deeply. This "new" The Wedding at Cana bothers me, I feel like it's starting a bit of a trend where this will become an acceptable way to view art in the future. This is the crux of why I'm even bothering to write about this.

A couple of years ago I wrote about a Caravaggio exhibit that exhibited all of his paintings in one place as digital reproductions. People would say "It's just as good" or some such thing - but the truth is the show had the stink of not being real - and the public agreed - the show quietly went away.

I will give credit to Factum Arte who has insisted that the digital work is "not a clone but a deep and detailed study". I just hope that the public understands this when they see a artwork that looks like the real thing in the place where it was always meant to be, and is now for lack of a better word, home.





A Footnote Richard Hell, speaking about his first band, Television, stated; "All we did was cut our hair and played in street clothes, and people, so hungry for the real thing, worshipped us like gods".

Labels: Criticism, Europe, international, Painting

I went gallery hopping this weekend - but most were shows that were wrapping down or galleries that were just getting back to work and hanging the September show and not showing much, so I went down to the museums and overheard this particular little snippet of conversation.

"I think maps were initially military in practical use - but grids are too basic. Way too basic for most people to get how complex the simple becomes."

I was overwhelmingly happy to hear that in this day and age.

Labels: Criticism, DC Galleries

Jean Baudrillard, R.I.P.
I've just learned that Jean Baudrillard died earlier this month. I was/am a fan of his writing an although his approach seems to be falling out of critical favor at the moment, I do think he was probably the most accurate/interesting of the Semiotext(e) writers. His theories have seemingly held together longer and his insight seemed clearer than most.

His theories on Hyperreality and Simularca, are to me, the highlights of his thinking.



Stardust Hotel
March 13th, 2007 both of the Stardust's (I'm taking about Las Vegas here) towers were imploded. In Vegas this kind of thing is happening all the time now, so I guess it's no big deal. However I do think of these as archetypes of the new American landmark. The Stardust was given a truly Vegas style send off with 10 minutes of fireworks before the building was imploded.

Isn't that perfect - we celebrate the fact that we are tearing it down.

Anyway, I was able to photograph the sign before it was taken down this fall. The Stardust sign will be moved to the Neon Museum on Fremont Street. It's going to cost $80,000 to move the it to the museum. I know that the Neon Museum is in fundraising mode right now for a number of things, and I'm sure they could use your help.

The Neon Museum

Labels: Criticism, Death, Las Vegas