I attended the Brice Marden session moderated by Barbara Solomon talk at the New York Times Arts and Leisure Weekend this afternoon; I had my son, Adam, with me, and was able to buy him a ticket, along with my own.

First, Barbara Solomon got on just about every one’s nerves with her questions.  I tried to take notes on my SideKick 3, but it was too noisy and had to stop – listen closely and now write the essence of what I heard.  I’ll write down what I remember in no particular order.

Brice Marden, whose show at MOMA I reviewed several weeks ago, had just visited his show this morning, back from vacation; he’s been there several times.  Part of doing a show  is seeing your art in one place – and creating work that you want to see.  In fact, it’s the artist’s job to create the best, most exciting work they’d want to see.

Marden was particularly sensitive to the space where art is shown – claimed that many Miro’s, particularly those in the Metropolitan Museum’s Modern Art Wing – were not well seen due to the room setting and “rugs”.   Brice Marden mentioned he like Miro’s late work but it’s not received much attension from curators.  Brice mentioned, in response to a question from Barbara Solomon (don’t recall what it was) that an artist starts to make a lot of money when they repeat themselves (I guess, later on in their career).

He mentioned he started out at Boston University (hope I got that right) and ended up with a Graduate Scholarship to Yale Art Academy where he had art feedback twice a week (one person gave “classical” feedback, the other, “romanticism” feedback and there was a graduate thesis which took the form of a show.  Brice Marden won a small prize from the show (400 dollars at the time, I think in 1963 – but I’m not sure) and ended up living in New York City where he rented an apartment from a landlord who bought his paintings, from time to time.  He had his first show in NYC around this time.

Brice Marden talked about working part time throughout his career – that he’s someone that opted to have a fixed income for his work (so he’d know how much he had to work with) over doing freelance work to get by.  Even now, he’s advanced a monthly stipend from his gallery dealer as his has a need to keep his many residences – his lifestyle up.  As well as Brice does – he still needs a steady income coming in.

Someone asked Marden a question at the end about what he’s influenced by – he said that he starts with an idea, that in the process, that idea is altered by the painting; he also mentioned he uses long brushes and that Velazquez, who he admired quite a bit, did to as well.

Getting back to Spanish painting, Barbara Solomon asked Brice how he liked the Spanish Painting show at the Guggenheim Museum..he said he was happy to see many of the paintings, particularly many of the older Spanish paintings being shown - but did not feel many of those  paintings worked in the environment of the Guggenheim.  Marden also said he admired Manet’s work a lot (which makes a lot of sense as the “gray” he uses in many of his earlier paintings seems to have been influenced by Manet.

There was probably a lot more I could write – but I don’t remember it all. Some of it will come back to me.

A funny moment – before the talk I ended up buying a ticket from a scalper for the show but it ended up being the for the wrong talk – one by an architect instead of the Marden show.    It made me think that often, when startled, it’s easy to be thrown off and make the wrong decision.  Out of 25 bucks, it may not have been the wrong decision for the man who I bought the ticket from.  It just shows me that good and bad, right and wrong, depend, somewhat, on what position you’re in.

I’m not sure if they are paintings or sketches.

The first was a model study I did this afternoon (above) – I arrived halfway into the session and spent about 90 minutes on this painting – there was lively conversation from the few of us painting from this model – who I think was named Avieda (hope I got the spelling right).

I did another still life and again, I had problems resolving this study – maybe it’s the coloring in the studio – the floors are a muted brown – green and I try to capture that – but there’s so much of it that I don’t have anything present in front of me to offset it - it’s almost a sea of brown – green – gray.  

I enjoy being immediate with Oil Pastels – little setup – fast results – both studies are 22″ x 28″.

Peter Wallace showed me the new studio space that we will be moving into starting January 2007 – down the hall – it’s magnificent – and there will lots more activities going on at BAG – and room for it.

By the way, the still life I did tonight is along the same theme as the one I did last month (below) with Junot wine bottle (I think it was Red Wine last month and White Wine this time.  I could do more elaborate still lifes if there was imagery I wanted to work with at the studio – most of the time I just take whats lying around.

I think the first Junot still life – the one with Red Scissors might have been more successful – less cluttered than the one I did today.  On the other hand, an artist paints what’s inside – sometimes it’s sunny and sometimes it’s stormy and cloudy – both are equally valid and important.  We can’t just pick out the parts of our life that we like and forget the rest – or else life loses it’s meaning.

So, I’m not sure what I’m working out today that was different than a month ago – or for that fact, The Red Cup still life I did two weeks ago – where I also had problems with figure – ground relationships. 

And I’m also thinking of the Black Nude Study I did two weeks ago.

I enjoy seeing these works together – the first two were new from today, the rest being done over the last month.  In fact, the “tone” of my first two pictures from today appears “darker” and more somber - yet I don’t recall being any more that way than before.

I think we just paint what is going on inside of us – can’t help it … sometimes it will come out bright, other times, somber.

What is it with Pablo Picasso lately – there’s two major shows in New York (at least) that focus on his work – with the Whitney focusing on Picasso and American Art while the Guggenheim highlights Picasso compared to other Spanish artists of all time.

 

I should have started from the top of the spiral and worked my way down – that’s what the Guggenheim is designed to encourage – but I usually walk from the bottom up – and made it a little more than halfway up the spiral ramp before the museum was closing – so I’ll have to come back at least one more time.

Unlike a typical show where the artist is highlighted – here the genre is exhausted – IE: Picasso landscapes are compared to landscapes of other Spanish Artists across time.  Same thing with portraits and still lifes.  Some of the finest Spanish paintings are here in this show on loan till late March, 2007.

Some thoughts - the best art in the show had a consistent quality – great art is about the idea beyond the painting – it’s not the painting itself – but the thought and energy behind it that matters the most.

IN fact, most of Picasso’s paintings in this show were done in one or two sittings – often a sketch or two a day.

There’s so many good shows here in NYC right now because there is an abundance of art that can be loaned to create all kinds of shows, like this one.  In a way, it’s totally irrelevant how long it takes to do a work of art – Picasso’s work is compared to artists that lived 350 years before he was born – these works placed side by side showed Picasso’s greatness.

Anyway – it’s time to go to bed.

I was not sure I’d like this show about Shrinking Cities at Pratt and I did not really connect with it – not only that …. I was not even trying to understand it – it was too much effort to read all the information about it.   But I did take a walk around the gallery a couple of times and tried to see if there was anything I could connect with … and there was not.

 

Here’s some notes about Shrinking Cities:

The conclusion of a three-year project of the German Federal Cultural Foundation, under the direction of Philipp Oswalt (Berlin), in cooperation with the Leipzig Gallery of Contemporary Art, the Bauhaus Dessau Foundation and the magazine Archplus, Shrinking Cities examines the phenomenon of urban population decline from an international perspective. Artists, architects, filmmakers, journalists, and cultural and social researchers present the changed reality in these regions using examples of four cities and regions: Detroit, Michigan, USA; Manchester/Liverpool, United Kingdom; Ivanovo, Russia; and Halle/Leipzig, Germany. The topics range from neglect and the appropriation of spaces to the development of innovative subcultures and criticism of city planning.

Pratt Manhattan Gallery will present phase 2 of this exhibition, interventions while Van Alen Institute, New York will simultaneously present Shrinking Cities, phase 1, international research, December 8 – January 21. A symposium is being organized for February 2007.

Like I said – architectural shows about social reform …. interesting to some..but not to me.