I went to a book signing for 100 New York Painters by Cynthia Maris Dantzic  tonight; of course I bought a copy of the book and got it signed by some of the artists and Cynthia Maris Dantzic, who were present and in the book. 

 

There was about 25-30 people in the room, on the 6th floor of the YMCA rooftop.

 

  

Personally, I’ve met, known or studied with a couple of the artists in the book - which seems to have a lot of the people around in the 70’s and 80’s when I was studying painting in NYC and briefly in Vermont.

First, I never met Cynthia Maris Dantzic, who is an Art Professor at LIU, but she spoke very well and warmly (she’s wearing a black jacket, seen in the background with her arm resting on a chair).

I studied with Harvey Dinnerstein (who was not present) in 1974-75 at the School of Visual Arts, I was in one of his drawing classes and his work is shown on pages 80-81 of the book.  I met his brother, Simon Dinnerstein, at the book signing tonight and his work is on page 84-85.

Janet Fish, who is featured on pages 100-101, visited the Vermont Studio School when I spent the summer there in 1987 - she often goes there, even now - I may have personally met her but I don’t remember speaking with her if I did - and I like the paintings in the book.

I can’t swear to it, but I may have studied with Louise Fishman at Hunter College (unless I’m mixing her up with another artist with the first name Louise -and that would be in 1971-1972) - Fishman’s work is on pages 102-103.  Audrey Flack also visited Vermont Studio School when I was there in 87, and her work is on page 104-105.

Sonja Gechoff was a personal mentor of mine in 1987-1988 after I returned from Vermont but lost contact with her shortly after.  I even took her to see my painting, After The Bath, when it was hanging in a show I had in the East Village.  It’s nice to know that Sonja is still active and Gechoff’s work is featured on pages 112-113.

I went to Cecily Kahn’s art opening several weeks ago in Chelsea and immediately recognized her as the daughter of Wolf Kahn, who also visited Vermont Studio School and who I saw at Hunter College in the late 1980’s along with his wife, painter Emily Mason.  All three artists are in the book, pages 130-133 and 152-153.

I also notice that Vincent Longo’s work is featured in this book, pages 144-145, and I think was a teacher of mine at Hunter College in the late 1980’s.

Helene Manzo was at the opening and her work is on pages 148-149; got her signature.

I’m not sure, but I may have also taken a class with Don Nice at the School of Visual Arts sometime between 1974-76, his work is on pages 160-161.  Doug Ohlson was a teacher of mine at Hunter College in 1971-73 and I remember him well. 

I seem to recall meeting Paul Resika, that I was influenced by him many years ago, but it’s not clear to me how or when, and his work on pages 174-175.

Susan Sills was at the book signing and lives in Park Slope, I got her signature on the book, on pages 194 and 195; I liked her paintings which are adaptions from Manet, mainly.

Pat Steir’s name sounds familiar - I probably met her in Vermont, her work in on pages 196-197.

Come to think of it, I also studied  with Robert Swain at Hunter College in the 1970’s; his work is shown on pages 200-201.

I met Ella Yang a couple of months ago, she has a studio in the same building Brooklyn Artists Gym is located in - and I first heard about the book from her; Ella’s work in on pages 214-215.

OK, those were the artists that I studied with or personally met - many that I knew well enough that I could say some of them might remember me (15 artists out of 100).

What about the other New York Artists in the book that influenced me but who I did not personally meet?  Well, I remember hearing about Lennart Anderson while taking classes at the Art Student’s League in the 70’s-80’s, but I don’t think I studied with him.  Will Barnet has been a well known figure in the New York Art world and while I took some courses at Cooper Union as a teenager - (Saturday courses) I never personally met him (though I know he taught there).

I also am very familiar with Chuck Close (pages 66-67) but I never met him; I knew of Richard Estes (pages 92-93) via William Beckman, who’s not in the book but whom I studied with and knew in 1973-76 when Beckman taught art in Staten Island Community College - as it was called then. 

Of course, everyone knows of Eric Fischl (pgs 98-99) though I never met him - I saw his work around NYC often, there were many shows of his work, esp in the 1980’s. Jack Levine is well known, and I recall looking at his work though I was never influenced by it; same goes for Philip Pearlstein and Robert Mangold.  I am also very familiar with George Tooker’s work - and yes, he’s still alive and living in NYC, but very old by now.

And that’s about it - I studied with, met, knew or was influenced by half of the artists in the 100 New York Painters book! 

Yes, I had to buy the book.

Strange - I am writing about my experience with Brice Marden at MOMA yesterday and I just checked his biography  to discover Brice Marden taught at School of Visual Arts - when I attended, in 1974 - that means I could have met him at that time (I don’t know if I was in one of his class or not - I can’t recall).  I guess I probably met Joe Coleman there in 1976 (but I can’t swear to it) and I certainly remember William Beckman - who I studied with back at Staten Island Community College in 1973-74. At that time I wanted to paint like Beckman - but I’m nothing like him … something he brought out to me at the time.  Beckman told me to read Herman Hesse’s work - Narcissus and Goldmund.  According to Wikipedia (whose “Death of Wikipidea I painted, BTW)

“Narcissus and Goldmund is the story of a young man who wanders around aimlessly throughout Medieval Germany. The young man, Goldmund, has just left a Catholic monastery school in search of what could be described as “the meaning of life“, or rather, meaning for his life. He was brainwashed by his single father into thinking he wanted to become a monk and use his life exclusively to serve God. Narcissus, a young teacher at the cloister school who has the uncanny ability to look into people’s souls and determine their destinies, quickly makes friends with Goldmund (they are only a few years apart, and Goldmund is naturally bright) and instantly recognizes that Goldmund is not meant for the monastery life. This comes as a sickening shock to Goldmund, whose mind had been going against his nature in a series of youthful mental conflicts recently. After straying too far in the fields one day, on an errand gathering herbs, he comes across a beautiful woman and they kiss and she invites him to have sex later. This encounter pushes him over the edge and he knows he was not meant to be a monk. Goldmund is filled with the desire to experience everything, learn about life and nature in his own hands-on way. With Narcissus’ support, he leaves the monastery and wanders around the countryside.”

Beckman saw in me the persona of Goldman, while he, acted sorta as a ”Narcissus”.  At the time I had locked myself into a belief systems and limitations I still struggle with today, but Beckman had me pegged.  When I paint ….it feels like an “explosion” ….like I want to EXPLODE….. it just comes out - flashes …. it’s not at all what I was aiming for when I was younger - but it took me a long time to accept it.  I think I’ve come to terms with it now … my energy is not Cezanne’s (even though I love his work) it’s more like Van Gogh’s - if such a comparison can be made.

As I look back at my life I have crossed paths with many well known artists who have influenced me - I doubt I can say the reverse, but who knows?

My first real encounter with Brice Marden’s work came at an earlier MOMA show, more than 20 years ago (I don’t remember the exact date) and I am listening to a new podcast from WNYC FM Radio - an interview of Brice Marden that took place about 10 days ago. 

I did not understand Marden’s work at the time (20-30 years ago)- it seemed too simplistic.  Now I understand Marden’s work … at least I think I do.

I find the early paintings of Brice Marden very satisfying in a way.

These paintings seem to stop me - it’s as if I look at it and my mind goes blank - emptied out.  The variations of colors and textures were very subtle - so subtle it looked as if it’s just a flat plane - just one color - but it’s not - it’s one of Cezanne’s brushstrokes magnified 1000 times - that’s one way of thinking of it.

But as Marden says himself - he found himself trapped by his own style and in mid career abruptly changed it - just as he became known for what he was doing ….. and that’s what marks a real artist - the willingness to abandon what no longer works…. because the essence of art is intangible - and as soon as the process becomes totally definable - it becomes old.

In a way, that’s what I dislike about Andy Warhol - just the very reverse of what Brice Marden is … Warhol was all about process - there was no actual substance to Warhol’s work - you could put anything in his canvasses - he didn’t care - it was all about Warhol’s process which he repeated, over and over - sorta mass producing his work - without really changing it much.  On the other hand, Brice Marden realized he was stuck on these works of his - knew he learned what he needed by doing them in the first place, and decided to move on to something next.

This is a more recent work.

OK, here’s what I get out of Marden’s work …. heart.   That’s right - the energy hits me in the chest - right around the solar plexus.   The energy in Brice’s paintings are very concentrated.  The best art has an element of mystery - the moment someone can explain everything in a work of art ….. the art is gone.  Art is a mystery, just like life.  You can never entirely explain Art….. it just “is”.  You can explain style, detail experiences - but the essence of art, I believe, is mysterious.  The moment you can make what you do a formula - it’s time to stop and do something else ….and that’s what Marden did.  He did something much different - he changed his style. That’s not an easy thing to do - esp when your making money on the style everyone is used to.  But he did because he knew, inside, that to keep repeating what he already worked out …. would be untrue to himself, as an artist.

The change Brice Marden went though - shown in a very stark way in the show (though the podcast refers to a more gradual transition that is not really reflected in the choice of work in the retrospective) is working on multiple planes.  Brice went from working with a shallow flat space - that went into infinity (sorta) to a space that had more room and movement in it - it probably reflected changes in his life - more freedom - more money and more places to do his work.  

The Chinese influence is strong - my guess, a past life influence - something that gets pulled back in - a refined, controlled, nuanced way of working - again, over time … most of these works take years and there’s the freedom to only paint when he wants to - when he needs to  - and to work out problems - work out life.

I believe the best art is the synthesis of life and art - working out issues within the work that are also issues in your life - in perceptions and awareness.   These paintings are really … in essence - the working out of energy flow - getting energy moving - seeing it move -that’s why the work hits me in chest the way it does and why I’ll go back at least a few times to MOMA to see Brice Marden’s work while it’s up.  

Another thing - when I listened to the podcast of Brice’s WNYC interview - I got the feeling the man who looks at his work, in retrospective, is not exactly the same person who created it.  Brice does not remember what he did exactly - in many of these paintings …. and has not figured the show out - according to his interview ….. he’s looking at his work and has not really put it into a sentence, or paragraph, in his mind, that sums up what it means.  

Why?  The Beholder is not the same as the Doer.  That which does the work is another part - looking at it as a observer, walking through the gallery - walking through the museum is the same as seeing work through the memory of it …… it’s not the same as being in the moment of creation (though the memory of that “moment” remains).

Well, I think that’s enough for tonight.  I said what I needed to say.  Amy Crehore is right…painting does run in my blood.

Would be interesting to bump into Brice Marden while looking at his show at MOMA. THAT, would be intesting…. Well, one can always wish.