Kathy Grayson, in Virtual Insanity, at Cinders... closes April 19th.
She makes them from self-portraits taken at the computer... using different effects and backgrounds (I think).
The pixelation does some of the same stuff that is happening in a few of the new Dana Schutz paintings...
2 comments:
Hi Martin, isn't it completely absurd to paint pixelation ? I mean most of these artists sit anyway 90% in front of their laptops and in the remaining 10% breaks they make a 2 or 3 paintings in between. So logically they should start to shift into digital works, what does not mean to abandon paint completely. Here are some new works I did recently combining this and that. The Silver Tron Series http://tinyurl.com/cqon5r I know from your work, that you do media shifting all the time, and I adore it. Best regards from Tbilisi, Hans
http://artclubcaucasus.blogspot.com/ and http://twitter.com/artclubcaucasus
;-))) bye
On the one hand these are nice images, an individual doing their thing, enjoting the medium. On the other hand, there are a lot fo people painting pixels.
Lucas Samaras is a good example of someone who got a computer and made some stuff - I have my fair share of digital detritus. I don't call it art - that would mean its worth exhibiting - but more importantly, I;d have to explain it - and there is no more explanation than a magpie or an octopus or a racoon, collecting things.
Sure there's Tron, Videodrome, Simulacra, digital theory. But that just speaks to the esthetics, not the underlying drive.
There are a bunch of deitch artists who take advantage of vector art, Adobe Illustrator, bitmaps, Mpgeg compression artifacts, circuit bending hacks. That;s "youth culture" right there.
SO when KG, shows at Cinders, and you know cinders, you know what it's all connected.
But I'm into PandD, saturated colors, vector art and so on - but aside from ambivalent feelings about ambition (both more and less) I wonder if a show is necessary anymore. Why show?
Post a Comment