Monday, March 28, 2016

The Expanded Field | Is Neil Jenney Too Real for the Art World?

Inequality, , , , ,
The Expanded Field

Is Neil Jenney Too Real for the Art World?

The 71-year-old, self-taught painter opens up an artist-run space so he can show...himself

Neil Jenney in front of Ozarkia, 2014. (Photo: Courtesy of the artist)
Neil Jenney in front of Ozarkia, 2014. (Photo: Courtesy of Marcus Tullis)
The latest in The Expanded Field, a series of talks with art world personalities.
Opening a gallery in the front of his massive studio on West Broadway in Soho—a block more known for flagship luxury stores these days than artists’ lofts—is only the latest maverick move for an artist who could really care less about the way other artists do things. At age 71, Neil Jenney still exhibits as much talent as he does disregard for the art world. For over 40 years, he’s chosen to show his paintings without the help of a gallery (with the exception of a show he did at Gagosian in 2013) in a DIY style that predates multiple generations of bearded Brooklyn hipsters. Now, like many artists 40 to 50 years his junior (and to the disappointment of art dealers everywhere), Mr. Jenney is opening up his own artist-run space in order to show his own work and work by his friends. Although he’s as he says “under the radar” these days, Neil Jenney is a pivotal figure in the history of 20th century American art. His breakout body of work from 1969-70, a forceful reaction against Minimalism, dragged both painting and figuration back from the brink of extinction. His brushy, vernacular paintings were (lovingly and ironically) dubbed “Bad Painting” by art critic and curator Marcia Tucker, who curated a landmark 1978 show of the same moniker at the New Museum where Mr. Jenney’s work was a standout among standouts. Now, he’s mounted a new, two-man show of his own work and alongside the repoussé metal wall works of his longtime friend, Robert Lobe. We spoke to him about being called “funky,” why frames are important and his unique path onto museum walls.
LinearSculpture1
Neil Jenney, Linear Sculpture, 1967. (Photo: Courtesy of Marcus Tullis)
Though you became famous for your early “bad” paintings, you actually began your career as a sculptor.
Yes, I started working with linear sculpture. I considered them kind of anti-minimal. This was 50 years ago when everything was gray. Eventually, they attracted Richard Bellamy, who used to be my dealer.
And is it true that Andy Warhol saw these and bought a few?
Yes. I showed these 49 years ago in the first show that included Bruce Nauman and Richard Serra. They sold from that show and I didn’t. Bellamy said “People like your stuff but nobody’s got floor space. Everybody’s got wall space.” I said “now you tell me.” So I started to make these for the walls, and then they sold.
You’ve been in this fantastic space since the early 70s, correct?
Yeah I bought it in ‘73. Then I opened up my own little gallery on Wooster Street, so I didn’t really need a dealer. Bellamy was a nutty guy when it came to money and stuff like that. I was better off handling it myself. And Ivan Karp was around and he’d send his collectors up and get a commission sometimes.
AccidentandArgument1
Neil Jenney, Accident and Argument, 1969. (Photo: Courtesy of Marcus Tullis)
By then you’d switched over to painting, but not just painting, “bad” painting.
The bad paintings occurred after I did this show in Germany with David’s dad, Rudolph Zwirner, in 1968. By the time I got back to New York, everything [in the galleries] was Photorealism! Ivan Karp was showing photorealists with [Leo] Castelli, and then he opened up his own gallery and got guys like Richard Estes and Duane Hansen. I felt like it was just second generation Pop—pretty but a stale idea. So I told a friend “it would be better to have a good idea and do it terrible!” So then I started the “Bad Paintings” which seemed like a new realism to people.
So by “realism” you mean a literal idea with a very descriptive presentation?
People got very Freudian when analyzing the paintings, but that wasn’t what I was doing. I said “No, no, I’m just showing things relating to other things. ‘Accident, Argument’, get it?” I realized I had to shut down these reactions and make it very clear. But people would still say “oh it’s very funky”, which was code for ‘Californian’, and if you were a New York artist, you didn’t really want to be Californian. That was the kiss of death.
Have you always made your own unique frames for the paintings?
I started doing these in 1970. I decided to do “good” painting and started for the first time to read about realism. I discovered that to the Greeks, a painting was meant to mimic looking through a window onto a scene. So the frame is the architectural foreground that presents the illusion. So I realized, “holy shit, it’s not just decoration. It’s presenting the illusion. The painting has to have a frame.” So suddenly, I’m back in the sculpture business again. I guess I’m really a sculptor at heart. I’m having a show here this fall called “Frames of the 20th Century.”
Neil Jenney, Atmospheric Formation Tortises. (Photo: Courtesy of the artist)
Neil Jenney, Atmospheric Formation, 2005. (Photo: Courtesy of Marcus Tullis)
It’s funny that your post-minimal style came back into vogue over the last 5 years or so, and now figurative painting is coming back. Meanwhile, none of these young artists even know about you or your work.
Yes, I’ve been under the radar. I had the space here and was able to show my work at my apartment, and I never really needed shows. The [bad paintings] were kind of a hit, but now I really wanted to do the opposite. I believed in the zeitgeist and was positive there were a few similar artists out there doing the same thing, so I thought “I’m just going to work on my oil technique and get it ready, and then we’ll have a real movement” like AbEx. But you know what? It’s 40 years later and it didn’t happen. It’s just me and Vija Celmins.
[Laughs] Well there’s Rackstraw Downes too, but I understand what you mean. I’m sure painted realism will make a comeback soon.
My analysis is that in the whole realm of art there are only two styles: Abstraction and Realism. And they’ve always existed side by side. You have the pyramids—the definition of refined minimalism—with the head of Queen Nefertiti right next to it—the epitome of advanced Egyptian realism. Or there’s the Parthenon—a collection of abstract iconography—with the Phidian sculpture [Athena of Parthenos] inside. They’ve always been side by side, and that’s the way it is today.
In your newer work, you often paint from nature. This mostly happens at your house in Connecticut, right?
Yes, I split time between New York and Connecticut.  I’d like to build a house there, as I’m really a frustrated architect. I like buildings that look like they could’ve been built 1,000 years ago. I also have some acreage set aside to build my own museum. You know, some of the best paintings I ever did belong to the Museum of Modern Art, but they keep them in storage. So if you want to be on the walls, you have to have your own museum.
Neil Jenney, Bathers. (Photo: Courtesy of the artist)
Neil Jenney, Improved Picasso, 2012. (Photo: Courtesy of the Marcus Tullis)
Speaking of MoMA, can you tell me a little about your secret ‘Picasso’ series?
I call them my “improved Picassos.” Every time I would see a nice Picasso over the years my reaction was always the same: “Wow that’s a terrible frame.” So I wanted to frame a Picasso for the longest time, but I’m never going to be able to get an actual Picasso. Then one day, I discovered a street artist by Port Authority that was pretty good. At one point, I went by and I saw a stunning little Picasso copy that he’d made and decided to buy it. So I made a frame for it, and I loved it! I wanted some more, but the guy was too busy painting wedding pictures, so I finally had to order some Picassos from him. I’ll do stuff to them like trim edges and touch up the color, because he’ll make them too bright or makes mistakes. But I’ve been doing this for five or six years. When Larry [Gagosian] saw them he said “what are these?” and I said “well it’s just a hobby that I have, improving Picassos.” He couldn’t stop looking at them and for years he’s been talking about having a show of them at his uptown space. But now that I’ve opened my own gallery I thought “what am I having this show on Park Avenue for?” So the next show here [on February 1st] will be a two-man show: “Picasso and Jenney.”
Robert Lobe, Fiddle Fern. (Photo: Courtesy of the artist)
Robert Lobe, Fiddle Fern, 2013. (Photo: Courtesy of the Marcus Tullis





Opinion | Ranking Batman: The Dark Knight Actors From Worst to Best | Holy digits—it’s the Bat-Chart!

Ranking Batman: The Dark Knight Actors From Worst to Best

Holy digits—it’s the Bat-Chart!


American actors Burt Ward (left), as Robin, and Adam West, as Batman, ride in the Batmobile in a still from the television series, 'Batman,' c. 1967.
Burt Ward (left), as Robin, and Adam West, as Batman, ride in the Batmobile. (Photo: 20th Century Fox/Courtesy of Getty Images)
Batman is back! And this time there’s something different about him…
Oh yeah, it’s Ben “Boy oh boy, that was some Hollywood comeback” Affleck taking over the role after previous Bat guy Christian Bale’s last performance in The Dark Knight Rises (2012).
This week sees the theatrical release of Batman v Superman: Dawn Of Justice starring the Oscar winner as Gotham’s finest along with the UK’s Henry Cavill reprising his role as the Man of Steel.
Batman has a long and fascinating cinematic journey since its first feature film debut in 1966—Ben Affleck will mark the eighth actor to don the cowl and cape. But who’s the best Bat? Well, here’s what we think.
But, as a side-bar, and before Bat aficionados take to the comments section to complain, we won’t be looking at Batman and Batman and Robin from the 1940s. These were not feature-length but film serials comprising of 15 instalments (of usually just under 20 minutes). So apologies to fans, friends and family of those Batmans, Lewis Wilson and Robert Lowery .
7. George Clooney
Remember when George Clooney was going to be somebody? When he was going to be the next BIG thing?

Sadly his jump from television heartthrob, Dr. Doug Ross in long-running medical drama ER, took longer than expected and for a long time he was remembered as the man who killed Batman. Even Mr. Clooney admitted it.
While we would never want to accuse an actor of not taking a part seriously, Mr. Clooney yawned his way through through 1997’s Batman & Robin with all his smug cock-headed charm, revealing he didn’t have quite what it takes to convey the complex and disturbing role of the Gotham vigilante.
6. Val Kilmer
Poor Val Kilmer, he WAS somebody. But through poor choices—both in choice of roles and acting choices—the actor became somewhat of a doomed celeb.

We wouldn’t want to pin the blame entirely at Mr. Kilmer’s feet for his performance in 1995’s Batman Forever—the gaudy production and luminescent direction from Joel Schumacher must be held accountable, not to mention being lumbered with tedious sidekick Robin. Still, Val isn’t terrible. He handles Bruce Wayne with charm but is oddly pedestrian in the more action stylings of his alter ego.
5. Will Arnett
There are many facets of The LEGO Movie to praise. Many, from technically beauty, to mind-blowing set-pieces, to the deconstruction of story-telling and adulthood (not to mention the gags). But we’re here to praise Will Arnett’s hilarious, but undoubtedly superb performance as Batman.

Not only did he get to play the Dark Knight, he also stole the laughs too. No wonder that he’s getting his very own, Batman: The LEGO Movie, next year.
4. Adam West
It’s difficult to imagine a world without Adam West. A world without his remarkably expressive and knowing Dutch-angled face just doesn’t bear thinking about. A world without his trademark voice and inflection is not a world I want to live in. A true icon in the entertainment industry.

And to be an icon in the Sixties was no mean feat, given the talent that surrounded him in every division of art, be it film or music or television; but West did it. His joyous interpretation may not be to every Bat fan’s taste but it’s more memorable than most and strikes a happy chord whenever seen.
The Bat Dance.
The Bat Dance. (Photo: Giphy)
Oh, and I can’t imagine anyone else on this list doing the ‘Bat Dance’…
3. Kevin Conroy
For those wondering ‘Who?’ or ‘This is a bit of a cheat!’, we should point out that Mr. Conroy played the voice of Bruce Wayne and Bats in the animated series. But in 1993, a story which was initially intended for straight-to-VHS release, was bumped up and given a big screen outing—Batman: Mask of the Phantasm.

For a generation, Mr. Conroy WAS Batman. His voice WAS the night. His voice WAS vengeance. Surprisingly, for a cartoon, his performance was mature and sensitive, this was no pantomimic Saturday morning roustabout. This was the real deal.
It also didn’t hurt that Mask of the Phantasm was an exceptional piece of storytelling with a production and cast to match (1993 was an excellent year for animated movies, The Lion King and Tim Burton’s The Nightmare Before Christmas were also released).
2. Christian Bale
No other actor to play Batman and Bruce has had to undertake the raw journey that the Christopher Nolan Dark Knight had to endure. Bale takes a trip from distraught and vengeful youngster to violent thug to hero (then enemy, by his own choosing) to a man broken and uninterested – and then to sacrificial hero once more. This was a real character(s).

Mr. Bale’s Wayne was charming and every part the confident and handsome playboy millionaire—his relationship with Michael Caine’s ultimate Alfred perhaps the highlight of this side of his ego. As Batman, the Welsh actor was simply breathtaking. Be it his initial attack on Carmine Falcone and his goons in Batman Begins, where he is cool personified, or his rage-laden beating of The Joker in The Dark Knight, Mr. Bale’s Batman is no one-note super-hero. This is a surprisingly real and believable person, matching Nolan’s gritty and veracious world.
1. Michael Keaton
Like Mr. Bale, Mr. Keaton respected the dual roles and the plurality of Batman. Much was made of his casting at the time with fandom (quelle surprise), citing he was too “lightweight” and “comedic.” But, as has been proven many times, actors with a comedy bent, can make the dramatic all the more potent.

His Batman was the first time we’d witnessed such a sight and his take-no-shit attitude made for a compelling hero. But it’s his Bruce Wayne that really takes Mr. Keaton above the rest. His tortured soul shines through always and it’s difficult not to sympathize with a man who wants revenge for such a bloody act whilst also helping the good people of Gotham. Mr. Keaton’s Bruce had none of the self-confidence shown by every other actor to play the part (so far), choosing to go for a bumbling, awkward Clark Kent-ish style of performance. Trying to tell Kim Bassinger’s Vicki Vale, “I’m Batman,” will always be one of his greatest moments.
Despite being perfect in the role, we would have loved to have seen his opening line as originally intended by Tim Burton. As he revealed in the informative documentary The Death of Superman Lives—What Happened?, it was to be, “I’m Batman motherfucker!” That would have been quite the introduction.




censored on facebook... again!


if you condemn daesh you are blocked and censored on facebook :(((
..
it's this global stupidity that breeds fresh ground for terrorists :(((