lets talk about it (Mod warning—the link is NSFW)
http://images.villagevoice.com/issues/0650/saltz.jpg
jsut click the link
“Forbidden”
duh, that’s the painting.
thanks stan
kind of pornographic. i guess that’s the point!
clever huh.
It is strangely distracting because I find her face so unattractive.
Is there a lot of this kind of full on hardcore calling itself art, then? I’m very out of the loop.
(I mean Mapplethorpe etc notwithstanding, but he was at least creative about it).
hahaha this is a joke, right?
What... what I said, or Ant’s post?
the painting
all of the people in the article are idiots.
here’s the part where i get called a xtian fundie or something because *actually* yer man currin is *terribly* progressive.
They’re not playing snooker, are they?
[mandatory ‘sinking the pink’ gag]
Imagine having to pose like that for days on end...
have we just lost some posts?
John Currin—still a contemptible choad who hates his subjects.
He may well be a contemptible choad who hates his subjects, but some of his stuff’s amazing. Heartless might be my one of my fave things ever.
Currin’s work had come on strong, strange, and comedic, like a roomful of clowns.
this guy is a hack.
Johnny B -
I’m not saying that he can’t handle a brush. He obviously knows what he’s doing in that respect. It’s just that his slickness isn’t in the service of anything interesting that I’ve ever seen. Every painting of his I’ve looked at is nothing but an affirmation of how smart and insightful he is compared to these stupid shallow bumpkins and bourgoisie (and now whores.)
The re-birth of mannerism, eh?
not the best investment, i’d say
I’d kind of like to see the exhibition, I mean that’s a pretty small image of one painting—not much to base judgment on.
Yeah, porn as art=been done, but so what. What he does with it is more important.
Feel free to make liberal use of the potential for double entendre in this post.
That painting is really gross, no matter how skillful. This may be bcz lady subject looks almost exactly like my mom, down to hair & all, and I know my dad has her dress in a bunch of stupid cheesy ’80s pr0n shit. Yuck aplenty.
Your mom’s not that bad
NSFW courbet
can we make the 21st century a little less obsessed about being edgy than the 20th? k thx bye
all that’s missing now is pussy to be perfectly honest...
Okay, now THAT is just bizarre. Is it a PS job or are they glued on or what?
Did anyone else think it was meant to be the queen at first?
I don’t know much contextually about Currin, and haven’t even read the article in question here, but I’d say the main thing that’s interesting about this painting is the kinda fascinating (and convincing) connection it draws between like, yeah, mannerist-type old-painting aesthetics and the rigorous posing + wardrobing of porn. (The lace glove in particular seems like it’s trying hard to work that angle, plus check out the ornate gilt-looking headboard or wallpaper or whatever’s in the back there.) There’s something funny about the way it reads, for half a second, like an old nude, up until the eye fishes scanning everything and puts it together.
(Haha I think Coppola may have less pointedly done something similar in reverse with one shot in Marie Antoinette.)
i think some of his paintings are cool. they remind me of the 50’s. and 50’s advertising illustrations. he’s a good illustrator! every generation gets the norman rockwell it deserves.
he’s cartoony too.
i like his stuff better than lisa yuskavage’s stuff anyway.
(xpost)
Uh, just LOOK at those women’s legs and ass! They’re thalidomide babies!
he’s definitely big on weird unnatural shapes!
like this one. i always thought this one was pretty funny.
whoops, it went away.
props for naked bea arthur.
This may be bcz lady subject looks almost exactly like my mom, down to hair & all, and I know my dad has her dress in a bunch of stupid cheesy ’80s pr0n shit.
PIX of your mom pleeze
courbet’s pic was better.
I think what I like about him the least is “Hey, looky here I can paint any old way I choose!”
Scott, I’m sure there’s more going on in that painting than Norman Rockwell feel-goodness. He tends to be pretty obsessed with women in the aging process, and also with vanity. I think there’s something pretty misogynistic about the way he portrays those things too—he will occasionally focus his crosshairs on a male subject (the ridiculous older man with the young girlfriend) but only like 10% of the time.
There’s also something very New York (or LA, I guess) about focusing so much on that subject—a city where people try especially hard not to get old. Somehow I don’t think that would resonate as strongly in the midwest.