Example of Work from Columbia

[TheStranger]

So after my research I have definitely categorized Columbia in New York as, in my opinion, the best or close to the best, MFA Program for art/painting. So I randomly grabbed some work from someone from their first year with some questions:

I personally have no strong opinion on the pieces from this artist though I do realize it is about the physicality of paint, the strokes and color in an abstract pure form. My real question is, how does a school like Columbia decide to bring a student such as this into their program? What exactly "WOW'ed" them? I ask because I feel there's a good deal of artists who have done or do such art and I was curious as to how they choose who they do. Is it the interview, letters of rec and resume that put this artist ahead to be accepted? What gave them the edge?

[silverhalide]

I am photographer, not a painter, but I have had the same thoughts about how some people are accepted into programs such as Yale, SAIC, and RISD for photography. With Yale, for example, it seems like many of the artists they choose take a very traditional approach to photography, but put a fresh conceptual or personal spin on it with their statement. Almost none of the photo work from the students at Yale seems "visually" new or experimental. So what I think it ultimately comes down to are the originality of the "ideas" behind the work in combination with a strong or consistent visual style. I also think they try to fill the program with as many diverse viewpoints as possible (so maybe with painting at Columbia they had to fit an abstract painter that is about physicality in the mix).

I am not sure if that answers your question, but that is my take on it.

[knifeparty]

You have to be a muthafuckin boss playa!

[losemygrip]

Remember--that may not be the type of work that gained the student entrance. Artists change.

Those are some pretty mediocre paintings, although not offensively so like the previous ones posted from Yale. They do, however, look very much like what's been shown in NYC galleries the past few years. That is, not "Bad Painting," but b-a-a-a-a-d painting. I get the concept, but I'm not a fan.

[AZAS]

I know Columbia look not just to the portfolio but the statement and "life experience"! It is exactly the world was used at info session. So it is not about just "what are you doing" but also "who you are" I guess.

[Josholas]

My thinking is...if you want to create art like that, and it means a lot to you, go for it!

...Just don't expect for people to buy it or see it as innovative. Like leetimko said...the art world has been there and done that. It's not avant-garde if 20 million artists have already done it, imho. Sorry if that sounds harsher than I meant for it to. Just being honest.

[Josholas]

Okay, so I think what I wrote was a little premature. It would be really helpful to read the artist statement in this case. My sentiments are less directed at this particular artist and more at artists who hide personal laziness behind the veil of abstract expressionism. I'm sure if this person got into Columbia, the artist statement must have substantially clarified the work. As was previously stated, the person behind the art is an important key to grasping the nature of their work.

[ol'spice]

perhaps I should not reply to this post because I'm bias to this type of work...

I find it interesting though that people are fast at attacking this one realm of art making practice (abstract expressionism) that is revisited by artists and aspiring MFA candidates, just like art history is recycled day in and day out all the time by all sorts of artists (sculptors, installation, video, bla bla)...

I get just as bored seeing one more installation or another video piece, when I walk in a museum or gallery. And until I read the artist's statement, I probably wouldn't go near the work.

A painting like the ones shown above elicits some kind of feeling on human beings that I particularly can't fully explain (yet) but regardless or how boring it may look to some of the people here, it seems to have a place, purpose and even a commercial bottom line... I'm doing work like that and I've been picked up by a company that is using my images and paying me well for that. Well I can sit down and try to constantly question why am I still doing that kind of work, but the conclusion is always the same: I love doing them, they come out of the depths of my heart and on top of all that, there is a demand for them!

And I agree that reading the person's statement may cause some folks to think differently about why Columbia accepted this type of work. On another note, I havent' heard back from them yet...

[Josholas]

perhaps I should not reply to this post because I'm bias to this type of work...

I find it interesting though that people are fast at attacking this one realm of art making practice (abstract expressionism) that is revisited by artists and aspiring MFA candidates, just like art history is recycled day in and day out all the time by all sorts of artists (sculptors, installation, video, bla bla)...

I get just as bored seeing one more installation or another video piece, when I walk in a museum or gallery. And until I read the artist's statement, I probably wouldn't go near the work.

A painting like the ones shown above elicits some kind of feeling on human beings that I particularly can't fully explain (yet) but regardless or how boring it may look to some of the people here, it seems to have a place, purpose and even a commercial bottom line... I'm doing work like that and I've been picked up by a company that is using my images and paying me well for that. Well I can sit down and try to constantly question why am I still doing that kind of work, but the conclusion is always the same: I love doing them, they come out of the depths of my heart and on top of all that, there is a demand for them!

And I agree that reading the person's statement may cause some folks to think differently about why Columbia accepted this type of work. On another note, I havent' heard back from them yet...

I actually agree with you, and my own work certainly has traces of abstract expressionism in it, and I wouldn't have it any other way. I think, in many ways, abstract expressionism can be more meaningful and connect more directly to the emotions than representational work. With that said, I have a question that I think gets at the "real" heart of the matter...

How does one effectively distinguish between good abstract expressionism and bad (lazy) abstract expressionism? Is the artist statement all that can be relied on? If it is marketable (and I absolutely agree that it can be), how do marketers find the best "quality" work?

Edited February 28, 2012 by Josholas

[ol'spice]

I actually agree with you, and my own work certainly has traces of abstract expressionism in it, and I wouldn't have it any other way. I think, in many ways, abstract expressionism can be more meaningful and connect more directly to the emotions than representational work. With that said, I have a question that I think gets at the "real" heart of the matter...

How does one effectively distinguish between good abstract expressionism and bad (lazy) abstract expressionism? Is the artist statement all that can be relied on? If it is marketable (and I absolutely agree that it can be), how do marketers find the best "quality" work?

Here is how (an undergrad level student still) would attempt at answering that:

Well, from personal experience, having "shed" the representational work I did for 18 years (not all of it unsuccessful) and "jumping onto the moving belt of abstract expressionism" (Milton Resnick), I think and hope that what makes good abstract expressionism work is a combination of things: the process behind it, the explanation of the process and the way the pieces look at the end... My paintings look rather simplistic (once finished) but I beat the c_ _ _ out of them for weeks at a time, months and I believe in the future perhaps If I end up having permanent studio space, I'm sure I'll have pieces sitting around getting the same treatment for over a year. My paintings aren't easy to make (personally) and It's hard to make someone that has already made up his/her mind that they don't care about that kind of work to understand it. But I also don't expect to have the entire world as my audience, so I accept things as they are. Technology definitely helps. I've started painting attention to the images that get more visits (google analytics) but I'm constantly reminding myself that as long as I trust my intuition and my work ethic, I'll end up with decent looking pieces at the end...

[losemygrip]

Raphael Rubenstein wrote some articles for Art in America where he called this kind of stuff "provisional painting."

I agree that it's better than Yale. But still not much. Not very original or thought-provoking. And I find the sloppy workmanship on the paint surfaces downright offensive.

[ol'spice]

Raphael Rubenstein wrote some articles for Art in America where he called this kind of stuff "provisional painting."

I agree that it's better than Yale. But still not much. Not very original or thought-provoking. And I find the sloppy workmanship on the paint surfaces downright offensive.

Even though the images above look like paper studies, I still see plenty of beauty on the painting surfaces, on the raw traces left by the brushes, and the movement suggested by the forms and composition of the bottom one... Also who said that every work of art MUST be thought provoking? Is that a new law or guideline? Yes, I'm a cave man...

[Chachau1]

Even though the images above look like paper studies, I still see plenty of beauty on the painting surfaces, on the raw traces left by the brushes, and the movement suggested by the forms and composition of the bottom one... Also who said that every work of art MUST be thought provoking? Is that a new law or guideline? Yes, I'm a cave man...

I agree with you, I see plenty of beauty. And, I would argue that you aren't a cave man; these studies develop and train a different type of thought process. The questions you raise by bringing up the moment and rawness are spoken from a painterly perspective. Painterliness is next to godliness in my opinion... And while these aren't my favorite, I learn something from them and I think that an open mind is important for anyone in an MFA program.

[michaelwebster]

I think using "abstract expressionism" to categorize these pieces is way off too. Sure that history might come up in relation to work like Cecily Brown, but abstract expressionism is a historically loaded term. You can't really paint an abstract expressionist canvas any more right now than you can paint an impressionist or mannerist canvas now. The context is too different, and the way it is painted, while having some stylistic similarities, is also very different. The heroicism is all gone and been replaced by a sense of futility, especially when taking into account the substrate and documentation style.

and I am sure that painters can give a more attuned analysis than that.

[polyethylene]

@michaelwesbter- I'm really onboard with going against calling this abstract expressionism- especially since it's been solidified as a historical reference paint in art history. We can allude to past movements now, but ultimately it's assumed that it's always just that- an allusion or a reference to something that's already happened and that's ultimately been (re)absorbed into contemporary practice.

Also, we're looking at those paintings without knowing things like what the rest of their body of work looks like and with what I suspect to be of greater importance- what the painter's statement and educational history is. The matter of heroism is traded in for rhetoric and storytelling where the practitioner constructs a metaphysics surrounding their art and lures the viewer in with the image as the punchline or clincher.

[Josholas]

@michaelwebster - I think your reasoning is solid for not calling it "abstract expressionism", especially since the term now describes a reference point in art history, and might be too loaded with historical connotations to describe new contemporary art. I think that is a great point.

So with that in mind, what would you suggest as an alternative "label" for it? Or is it better to just stick with something descriptive like "non-representational abstract painting"? And however it is described, what sort of consistent qualities help the average person distinguish the good kind from the bad?

The reason I ask, is because I feel like this general sort of painterly "abstract non-representational" art (and distinguishing between its various offshoots) is becoming increasingly esoteric, to the point where the vast majority of people fail to see any difference between those offshoots at all. And what's more, I feel that the general public is becoming desensitized to it, thirsting for something that is (at least visually) substantially new and innovative. There are certainly artists today who fit those criteria, but I haven't yet found any contemporary (painterly, abstract, nonrepresentational...etc.) art that the average person would find to be new and innovative. Perhaps this is my problem, as I feel a strong bias that art should serve more than just the artistic elite (or even the artist him/herself), and if this is a fault, then it is one that I willingly embrace. But don't hear me wrong...I'm not saying that there isn't a place for that sort of art, I'm primarily just suggesting that I feel it is time for the art world in general to stop focusing so much attention on finding all the leaves and branches of a good idea. Perhaps its more worthwhile to find another tree altogether. Let me know if that makes any sense.

[michaelwebster]

But don't hear me wrong...I'm not saying that there isn't a place for that sort of art, I'm primarily just suggesting that I feel it is time for the art world in general to stop focusing so much attention on finding all the leaves and branches of a good idea. Perhaps its more worthwhile to find another tree altogether. Let me know if that makes any sense.

I left the painting tree awhile ago, so I will leave (or leaf) the details of debates grounded in these types of paintings to those who are more knowledgeable.