Wednesday, May 2, 2012
Daniel Granitto
Blog Entry One
When looking at the work of Luc Tuymans in class, it reminded me of my
experience with his paintings at the MCA. I had virtually no background knowledge
on his life and how it informed his work. In fact, I hadn’t even seen his paintings
until I stepped into the gallery last year. I remember feeling disinterested, and
somewhat confused as I slowly made my way through the first room. I
thought, “Okay, so I ‘m looking at yet another contemporary painter who just isn’t
very good at painting.” I became more interested as I made my way deeper into the
show, but I do not think I realized that his work was so politically informed until I
got to the image of Condoleezza Rice. But even in front of this painting, I was not too
engaged with the political content and back-story. Instead, I began to appreciate
Tuyman’s style of painting. I was drawn to the speed of the painting, as it appeared
that it might all be applied in one layer somewhat like a puzzle of shapes and tones. I
was later informed that most of his pieces are completed within a day. I was also
suddenly quite drawn to his color palette. The tones of the face were chalky, hazy
and subtle. There was something very quiet; yet powerful in the way he was
presenting color. I left the show with almost a complete change of heart and I now
find his work quite engaging and exciting.
All of this to say, that I was not interested in the political content, though I
know that it is important to his practice. Ultimately, I still ended up appreciating
these works simply for their formal qualities. This is encouraging to me because it
suggests that perhaps people need not know the complete background to an image
in order to enjoy it or at least find it interesting.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
From Anna...
ReplyDeleteI think there is no way Luc Tuymans' work could have existed without photography. Everything from imagery to the conceptual messages in them is derived from photography. It was interesting to hear that you initially did not respond to his paintings and thought that he was a bad painter. I had the opposite experience - I loved Tuymans' paintings from the start. I knew nothing about the political message they were carrying and when I went to see the exhibit at the MCA I was looking at his painting style and gave zero consideration to the conceptual messages behind his work. I did not need to know them to appreciate his work. And, actually, now that I do I feel that they are almost too intense and I am not looking at them the same way I did before. I used to see them as sort of strange memories done in an interesting color palette. Now I am not even looking at the painting technique, but rather trying to imagine what compelled Tuymans to make them so emotionally and politically charged. I think this takes away from the painterly experience and puts Tuymans work into a conceptual category for me.