Thursday, May 25, 2006

Vittorio Colaizzi

Vittorio Colaizzi
Vittorio Colaizzi is showing at Eric Schindler Gallery through June 6th. This image has been scanned from the postcard announcement; didn't notice before how much rosier it is on the left - is that the way it really is, or just the postcard? Looks good either way.


Anonymous said...

Actually the show runs till June 13. And the color is a little off, but I've made my peace with it. --vic

Dennis Matthews said...

hope the rest of the work isn't too close to the card image. terribly boring to me. really i think you're no good at painting, and this is coming from someone who's not that great just more well adjusted. you could do it all in pinks, purples, and blues, and it would still look crappy. yes crappy is a technical and critical term. you went to tyler, or mica, or no wait you did a master's with vcu right?
Dennis Loseriani

Anonymous said...

dennis, you need to get checked.

Dennis Matthews said...

please just cuz you write about stuff online doesn't mean you have to be every artist's bitch in richmond. there's so much art out there not being covered or even mentioned by you, and everytime I say other names you make no acknowledgement that these people exist or that you actually know them. ryan mcclennan at nonesuch? the best show in richmond right now. checked? by who or what? I'm going to the best grad school in the world better than yours and his and everyone I know. The only reason I comment here is cuz I like you martin and think you could be doing so much better than just ranting about these implanted richmond artists. by the way i was checked and the best art school in the world said hey dennis come work with us, we'll give you a studio and lots of money and a job. so there.

Anonymous said...

Dennis, after seeing a comment by Martin elsewhere about the hundreds of observers of his blog who never comment, as well as contemplating my own intentions to assign this blog to my students this summer, I must comment.

I agree that Ryan McLennan's work is thought-provoking in its attack on sheltered idealizations of "nature" by turning it upside down: predators are prey, cute is dangerous, and fur becomes foliage. Also these cute animals display human behaviors such as hoarding and partisanship, so it becomes an allegory of the explicit and implied violence of humanity. These are off-the-cuff thoughts, of course. Each of the ten paintings demonstrated a variation on these themes, all well within the formal parameters that McLennan establishes for himself. (namely, white ground with the "action", trees and critters, in stark allegorical, fable-like contrast) These parameters are set up to display those quasi-narrative aspects that seem to interest the artist most.

Painting is bigger than any one of us. What interests McLennan is the presentation of these allegories within his own well-defined iconography and mode of execution. He does not seem interested in varying or interrogating his mode of execution, nor should he be, because he is manipulating an iconography.

What interests me, on the other hand, is this very questioning/exploration of plastic construction, both in terms of the relationship between substance, ground, and manner of applicaition, AND the pictorial relationship of forms. (This is big, this is small, this is bluish, this is rusty, this is thick, this is scrubbed, this is wavy, this is straight, there is lots of space between these two forms, and those two forms are quite close.) Furthermore, my painting is fueled by an idealistic fatih that by arranging these elements, which display a digestion of painting's history, I can somehow proclaim my engagement with lived experience, by which I mean birds, wind, basil, beer, late afternoon sunlight, etc.

I certainly don't think Martin's "looks good" qualifies as his being my bitch, nor does Becky Shields' piece in Style which, although I am grateful, is a good introduction for a general audience, but necessarily leaves many key issues untouched, through no fault of her own. (it's not an art critical journal)

Nor can I be considered an implanted Richmond artist, which I presume to mean one of those who gets constant coverage and exposure ad nauseum ( we can all recite the names). One review does not establish this status.

I have enjoyed your comments on PantersNYC and was outraged a few months ago by someone who called you "sweetie" or something and denigrated your showing in coffee shops. Let's face it, the Schindler gallery is regarded as a coffee shop by some in this town. Anyone who disagrees, please let me know, and put your feet where your mouth is.

I am looking forward to seeing the promised new paintings on your blog.

I agree that crappy is an appropriate term for discourse, but like every other term, it needs qualification. Which one of my paintings did you think was the crappiest, and which one was the least well-adjusted?

Anonymous said...

Holy cow Dennis, you do need to be checked, best grad school in the world as your excuse for being an arrogant little prick. Critique aside, your new found high and mighty attitude is really kinda creepy..

Dennis Matthews said...

hey guys,
listen I may have been not very even handed with the way I said things. My point really just was that Martin you complain about what's being shown around here yet people you like don't get much coverage by you. Which I appreciate that its not just your interests being blogged here, but at the same time it seems cylical that everytime you go back to a place like 1708. Vic, sorry for the harsh words, it was meant more for what I just mentioned. That he's upset about what is shown here but goes redundantly back to some kind of abstract work or plasticized forms i.e. a post on pollock v. rachel hayes post. All I was saying really was that if you complain about the problems and nespotist attitudes of this art scene then POST ABOUT THE SOLUTIONS. Thanks for the explanation Vic about your work. Arrogant? Short comments with vague observations that I might be out of line is arrogant. Maybe you can say that cuz you're post-checked? I don't know.

Anonymous said...


i complain about what is being shown and people i like don't get much coverage?

Anonymous said...

No problem, I'm always happy to talk about myself. Thanks for directing me to Nonesuch.

Anonymous said...

Vittorio is one of my favourite artists

Anonymous said...

Maybe no one will ever read ths since its so old by now but just in case I want to make it clear that I disagree with D Matthews' negative comments on Mary Heilmann on PaintersNYC, which I seem to obliquely compliment in comment #5 above. I still think whoever slammed him on PNYC for curating in a coffee shop is wrong, But I dig Heilmann.

Nomi Lubin said...

Ha. I just read it. ^^^

Christina C. said...

Nice painting. I like it.


Christina Colaizzi

Anonymous said...

anime, animme, 徵信, 徵信社, 外遇, 徵信, 徵信社, 外遇, 情趣用品, 情趣用品, 免費a片, a片, 免費av, 色情影片, 情色, 情色網, 色情網站, 色情, 成人網, 成人圖片, 成人影片, 18成人, av, av女優,, 情慾, 走光, 做愛, sex, H漫, 免費a片, a片, 免費av, 色情影片, 情色, 情色網, 色情網站, 色情, 成人網, 成人圖片, 成人影片, 18成人, av, av女優,, 情慾, 走光, 做愛, sex, H漫, a片, 離婚, 抓姦, 外遇蒐證, 外遇抓姦, 外遇, 侵權, 仿冒, 應收帳款, 工商徵信, 美姬情趣網, 情趣風情, 中部人情趣網, 台北情趣用品, 情人節禮物, 成人情趣用品, 一夜情趣用品情趣, 情境坊歡愉用品, 情人視訊網, 美姬成人用品, 情人花束, 按摩棒, 情人歡愉用品, 成人視訊, 交友愛情用品館, 視訊交友, 情人視訊網, 成人視訊交友, 情趣交友, 美姬用品專賣, 高雄轉角, 情趣用品, 情趣用品, 辣妹視訊, 情色論壇, 情惑用品性易購, 紅煙論壇, 高雄轉角, 情趣用品, 性感睡衣, 免費視訊聊天, 視訊交友網, 美姬圖影, 紅煙論壇, 交友聊天室, 海角七號, 美姬圖影, 紅煙論壇, 成人視訊交友, 上班族聊天室, 情人節禮物, 高雄轉角, 情趣用品, 同志聊天室情書, 聊天室交友, 中部人聊天室, 情惑用品, 性易購, 紅煙論壇, 高雄轉角, 情趣用品,