I haven't seen the Julian Schnabel exhibition at the AGO (maybe yet? I don't know)... but I've read a few recent reviews on this particular show and a few older reviews/profiles of the oft-pyjama-clad artist. Most feature words like over-hyped, obnoxious or tasteless, but, in my humble opinion, the good reviews are even more cringe-inducing. I don't know why, but I hate when art writers base their reviews on the imaginary ability of an artwork to produce "raw and brutal emotions." If you're going to get in the Schnabel-corner, at least lend it a little theoretical credence. I mean, is something art if a critic hasn't (properly) written about it?
(Take this with a grain of salt, I haven't visited the show but have seen his work; also this has nothing to do with his film-making. I don't care about that for the purpose (haha) of this post.)
Schnabel is kind of like Iron Man. Not the superhero, but rather his artwork is like the blockbuster movie. It's glossy, big-budget, bloated and rather meaningless. To be honest though, I liked Iron Man; it was good vacuous fun and Robert Downey Jr. is a charmer in the role of the millionaire, weapon-maker. Did I give the film much thought after the credits started? Nope. And I think the same could be said of Schnabel's ginormous blah-paintings. I kind of like checking them out, I like that they make me think of this wonderfully decadent and vapid period in art history (the 80s).... but the giant canvases seem more well-suited for the studio set belonging to the artist from 'A Perfect Murder' that Gwyneth Paltrow cheats on her Wall St. hubby with.
I really hope between this and the Tut show the AGO brings in something more well, substantial (and I mean this is non-economical terms). It's uplifting to think that this will almost certainly be found in the upcoming Jack Chambers show, at once significant and subtle. Can't wait!!
No comments:
Post a Comment