12.18.2003
walls, windows and philip guston
walking through the wonderful philip guston retrospective at the met last weekend, I was reminded of something my friend justin used to say back in art school. at the time, justin was moving deeper and deeper into abstraction (we were/are both painters), and I was moving out of it. he used to describe his work as "a wall rather than a window"—meaning that the emphasis is placed on the frontal, tangible properties of its making (i.e. texture, color, etc.) rather than pictorial or allegorical associations. this became a pretty useful dichotomy for our studio debates at the time.
years later, it’s not the most profound metaphor anymore (and surely harold rosenberg and others have made similar points more eloquently), but give us a break—we were 20 years old. and as a painter of a profoundly "window-like" persuasion, I’ve been forever plagued/enthralled with the various representational predicaments generated within my own work—i.e. the nature of vicarious interaction, the distance between what is represented and what is physically in front of you, etc. etc.. in a sense, there’s something sad about a window: the claustrophobic confines of the spectator, the passive status of "bearing witness," talk instead of action. (but I could never be satisfied with form and color alone— I make a bad formalist.)
at any rate, walking through the lineage of guston’s work, I had the old "wall/window" binary in my head. the show at the met is chronological, and I almost found myself tempted (in a silly, superficial way) to view his work from the 50’s onward as a literal narrative—as little blobs of paint that slowly turn into forms. little chunks of red grow up to become beer bottles and light bulbs. walls become windows.
so let’s talk about those windows. clearly, in my opinion, the representational work is his strongest. guston, as an art hero, is worth the hype. his betrayal of modernist purity is convincingly brave (albeit excessively applauded)… he fits provocatively into the context of socio-political turmoil in the sixties… and—perhaps most importantly—he allows himself to become incredibly vulnerable as a painter as well as a person.
if we accept justin’s metaphor (for the sake of argument), the everyday objects which litter guston's domestic/apocalyptic narratives of the late 60's/70's are so thoroughly transformed that I find myself leaving the practical sadness of the window behind. something resonates deeply; I have none of the tepid passivity of the typical spectator. his later paintings are never limited to pure escapist fantasy, nor straight social commentary, nor esoteric autobiographical meanderings. guston’s objects are sad nomads; bruised, bear hugged and fattened up by love affairs, paint tubes and richard nixon. they belong to a painted world which has expelled them from its pictorial window. and they want to get back in. perhaps vicarious experience is at its best as a viral manifestation of this very tension— as a jettisoned force invading both the purity of physical experience as well as the comforts of the imagination. and once infected, I become involved.
years later, it’s not the most profound metaphor anymore (and surely harold rosenberg and others have made similar points more eloquently), but give us a break—we were 20 years old. and as a painter of a profoundly "window-like" persuasion, I’ve been forever plagued/enthralled with the various representational predicaments generated within my own work—i.e. the nature of vicarious interaction, the distance between what is represented and what is physically in front of you, etc. etc.. in a sense, there’s something sad about a window: the claustrophobic confines of the spectator, the passive status of "bearing witness," talk instead of action. (but I could never be satisfied with form and color alone— I make a bad formalist.)
at any rate, walking through the lineage of guston’s work, I had the old "wall/window" binary in my head. the show at the met is chronological, and I almost found myself tempted (in a silly, superficial way) to view his work from the 50’s onward as a literal narrative—as little blobs of paint that slowly turn into forms. little chunks of red grow up to become beer bottles and light bulbs. walls become windows.
so let’s talk about those windows. clearly, in my opinion, the representational work is his strongest. guston, as an art hero, is worth the hype. his betrayal of modernist purity is convincingly brave (albeit excessively applauded)… he fits provocatively into the context of socio-political turmoil in the sixties… and—perhaps most importantly—he allows himself to become incredibly vulnerable as a painter as well as a person.
if we accept justin’s metaphor (for the sake of argument), the everyday objects which litter guston's domestic/apocalyptic narratives of the late 60's/70's are so thoroughly transformed that I find myself leaving the practical sadness of the window behind. something resonates deeply; I have none of the tepid passivity of the typical spectator. his later paintings are never limited to pure escapist fantasy, nor straight social commentary, nor esoteric autobiographical meanderings. guston’s objects are sad nomads; bruised, bear hugged and fattened up by love affairs, paint tubes and richard nixon. they belong to a painted world which has expelled them from its pictorial window. and they want to get back in. perhaps vicarious experience is at its best as a viral manifestation of this very tension— as a jettisoned force invading both the purity of physical experience as well as the comforts of the imagination. and once infected, I become involved.
12.17.2003
quizo wisdom: most populous cities of the world
i'm quickly becoming addicted to pub quizzes (aka quizo), and tonight, at fergie's pub here in philly, the bonus round asked us to name ten of the top twelve most populous cities in the world. it stumped the whole bar. our team got four, which was about average. here, pulled from ask jeeves, is a reprint of the actual results. this totally blew my mind...
1. Mumbai (Bombay), India 12,383,100
2. Buenos Aires, Argentina 12,116,400
3. Karachi, Pakistan 10,537,200
4. Manila, Philippines 10,232,900
5. Delhi, India 10,203,700
6. Sao Paulo, Brazil 10,195,000
7. Seoul, South Korea 9,630,600
8. Istanbul, Turkey 9,419,000
9. Shanghai, China 9,005,600
10. Dhaka, Bangladesh 8,942,300
11. Jakarta, Indonesia 8,827,900
12. Mexico City, Mexico 8,681,400
13. Moscow, Russia 8,368,200
14. Lagos, Nigeria 8,349,700
15. Tokyo, Japan 8,240,100
16. Lima, Peru 8,113,000
17. New York City, U.S. 8,084,316
18. Cairo, Egypt 7,937,700
19. Teheran, Iran 7,893,700
20. London, United Kingdom 7,417,700
1. Mumbai (Bombay), India 12,383,100
2. Buenos Aires, Argentina 12,116,400
3. Karachi, Pakistan 10,537,200
4. Manila, Philippines 10,232,900
5. Delhi, India 10,203,700
6. Sao Paulo, Brazil 10,195,000
7. Seoul, South Korea 9,630,600
8. Istanbul, Turkey 9,419,000
9. Shanghai, China 9,005,600
10. Dhaka, Bangladesh 8,942,300
11. Jakarta, Indonesia 8,827,900
12. Mexico City, Mexico 8,681,400
13. Moscow, Russia 8,368,200
14. Lagos, Nigeria 8,349,700
15. Tokyo, Japan 8,240,100
16. Lima, Peru 8,113,000
17. New York City, U.S. 8,084,316
18. Cairo, Egypt 7,937,700
19. Teheran, Iran 7,893,700
20. London, United Kingdom 7,417,700
