To a painting layman like me, there seem to be two large
movements in painting in the greater Bushwick scene, graphic abstraction and
what Loren Munk might call crappy paintings. Both feel a tad retrograde, reveling
in the last time abstraction was in vogue in the late 70’s and early 80’s,
right before and after painting died. There are certainly people doing both at
a high level that has breathed new life into two stale constructs, but generally
graphic abstraction feels safe, in that it is almost always attractive and for
the most part succeeds solely on the quality of color use. I tend to find
crappy paintings more interesting or at least, the more challenging of the two.
By crappy paintings, I mean paintings that often have a conceptual limitation
built into their creation (even if it is only a lack of studio space), combined
with engaging with the materiality of the paint that is so sculptural in nature
that it often results in surfaces that are more physically engaging then visually
attractive. Both strands of painting seem to show up in almost every group show
in Bushwick, one clean and precise, the other opulent and rushed, but both celebrating
the left-for-dead land of abstract painting.
Mike Olin, on first pass, rises above the herd. His
paintings feel rushed, chaotic, and involve a lot of muddied colors that I
think might place them in the class of crappy paintings (a term I in no way
mean disparagingly), but the glimpses of figurative gestures and the detritus sprinkled
into the paint hint at a process that is very calculated, almost downright sneaky.
It takes a second to get past the clutter in the work that seems to owe more to
artistic romanticism of Pollock and de Kooning than to more recent process-based
art. When you see through the haze of brushwork and find the repeating
representation of eyeglasses or thick pieces of literal pieces of glass in the
paint that start to form a little narrative. Aided by the occasional vandalized
baseball card inserted into the paint, I found it hard not to image Olin as a child,
saddled with glasses and lack of coordination.
But once I started reading into the Gustonesque hints of
narration in the painting I noticed the 3-D glasses casually placed next to the
image list. Sure enough, with the aid of the glasses, the paintings are very
much in 3-D or, as was explained to me, they’re just normal paintings but 3-D
glasses tend to make lots of abstract paintings look 3-D. But I digress. Olin’s
work in 3-D becomes a whole other beast, where the wisps of inky black go from marring
a cream backdrop to floating like smoke over an endless white abyss. The 3-D
starts to overcome the dumbness of your eyes and their tendency to see abstract
paintings as flattened out on the canvas, as opposed to seeing them as windows
into an infinite space. Oh, and word is, the closing will involve black lights,
no, seriously.
Already Down
2 comments:
Wow, just saw this! Thanks Carl!
-Mike
dude loved that show bummed to have missed the black light version
Post a Comment