Find Your Valentine
Slog
News & ArtsThursday, January 8, 2009
Visual Art Currently Hanging
Posted by Jen Graves on Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 11:02 AM
Scott Foldesi's Tabloids (2008), watercolor, sumi color and pencil on paper, 45 by 60 inches
Check out that grid of fluorescent lights on the ceiling, organizing everything in the frame, like the grid of a Renaissance painter.
Now check out this diagonal grid of light, equally organizing. It causes an initial bewilderment about whether the bench and trees are inside or out—it keeps you looking despite the total banality of the ostensible subjects (bench, trees).
Scott Foldesi's Bench (2008), oil on canvas, 48 by 40 inches
Yeah. And that's only seeing them on the internet. Imagine them in person. Meaning: ARTWALK IS TONIGHT.
These are at James Harris Gallery. (Gallery site here.)
8
I suppose there's supposed to be some sort of merit to Foldesi's apparent inability to convincingly paint (or even include) the support struts of a park bench in perspective?
What utter crap. Like I'm supposed to fall all over myself for something that looks like it's been lifted from the checkout area of an IKEA store?
What utter crap. Like I'm supposed to fall all over myself for something that looks like it's been lifted from the checkout area of an IKEA store?
10
Look at the right side of the park bench. See the things holding it up? They're what I referred to as 'supporting struts'. There's two of them. Now, follow along down to where they meet the floor. There's a bar of metal set perpendicular to them, which extends over to the left side of the bench.
Are you looking to the left side of the bench now?
Do you notice that a) the perpendicular bar in the foreground does not lie on the same horizontal axis on the left side of the planter? That's what I was referring to when I questioned the merit of Foldesi's work on the basis of his "apparent inability to convincingly paint the support struts of a park bench in perspective".
Did you also notice that b) the left-facing park bench has only one 'supporting strut' holding it up? that's what I was referring to when I elaborated on a) by mentioning their absence.
I certainly could go on; in fact, I will. The only element in this composition that's worth a damn is the park bench itself, and even that's a botched job. You can see that some amount of effort has been made to build some perspective, marred as it is by the planters, which have a bright flatness to them that make them look as though they're from some other composition entirely.
And about the horrid things coming out from the planters, they look utterly flat, a non-commital, textural afterthought. But where it really grinds to a halt is unfortunately with the only other element at play: the contemptibly cliched (and lazy) use of a gridwork of white squares to add depth.
I also note the colour scheme... or the effort made to adhere to one, at any rate. If you could edit out those awful abstract ficus, you might just have something to work with.
Oh, but wait, I'm supposed to be impressed with the distorted reflections of the white squares in perspective. Look, they're a slightly different tone of beige. Amazing.
This is just the sort of thing that the parents of art students pay to have framed so they can hang it up on the off-white walls of their off-white living rooms, right over their beige couches, where they then can proceed to never look at it again until they move.
All in all I would characterize this composition as bland, commercial, and poorly-executed. And so, to "Dr Mambo" in remark #9 I say, who's the retard now, retard?
More...
Are you looking to the left side of the bench now?
Do you notice that a) the perpendicular bar in the foreground does not lie on the same horizontal axis on the left side of the planter? That's what I was referring to when I questioned the merit of Foldesi's work on the basis of his "apparent inability to convincingly paint the support struts of a park bench in perspective".
Did you also notice that b) the left-facing park bench has only one 'supporting strut' holding it up? that's what I was referring to when I elaborated on a) by mentioning their absence.
I certainly could go on; in fact, I will. The only element in this composition that's worth a damn is the park bench itself, and even that's a botched job. You can see that some amount of effort has been made to build some perspective, marred as it is by the planters, which have a bright flatness to them that make them look as though they're from some other composition entirely.
And about the horrid things coming out from the planters, they look utterly flat, a non-commital, textural afterthought. But where it really grinds to a halt is unfortunately with the only other element at play: the contemptibly cliched (and lazy) use of a gridwork of white squares to add depth.
I also note the colour scheme... or the effort made to adhere to one, at any rate. If you could edit out those awful abstract ficus, you might just have something to work with.
Oh, but wait, I'm supposed to be impressed with the distorted reflections of the white squares in perspective. Look, they're a slightly different tone of beige. Amazing.
This is just the sort of thing that the parents of art students pay to have framed so they can hang it up on the off-white walls of their off-white living rooms, right over their beige couches, where they then can proceed to never look at it again until they move.
All in all I would characterize this composition as bland, commercial, and poorly-executed. And so, to "Dr Mambo" in remark #9 I say, who's the retard now, retard?
11
uh, YOU still are bullwinkle?
just 'cause you write a lot doesn't make it true. i LOVE how passionate you are about it. i really, really do. but why be such a jerk? if you don't like it, why not let it be? scott's a great artist. might not be YOUR cup of tea, but that doesn't make him any less talented. no one says you have to like everything.
here's my suggestion for 2009 to everyone saying really mean (and not necessarily TRUE) things about art. instead of taking the REALLY easy avenue of saying WHY you hate something, focus your energies on why you LIKE something. it's a lot more satisfying in the long run.
bullwinkle, you clearly have an aesthetic you like. so why not focus your criticism on that and actually add something substantitiave?
i...just...don't...get...mean!
just 'cause you write a lot doesn't make it true. i LOVE how passionate you are about it. i really, really do. but why be such a jerk? if you don't like it, why not let it be? scott's a great artist. might not be YOUR cup of tea, but that doesn't make him any less talented. no one says you have to like everything.
here's my suggestion for 2009 to everyone saying really mean (and not necessarily TRUE) things about art. instead of taking the REALLY easy avenue of saying WHY you hate something, focus your energies on why you LIKE something. it's a lot more satisfying in the long run.
bullwinkle, you clearly have an aesthetic you like. so why not focus your criticism on that and actually add something substantitiave?
i...just...don't...get...mean!
14
Bullwinkle is correct about the crossbeam of the bench not being co-linear with respect to the planter. And now that he's identified it, I CAN'T STOP STARING AT IT! Totally ruins the painting. I do sorta like the texture of the leaves in the planter, though.
15
I agree with Bullwinkle 100%. Scott may be a great artist, but this painting is painful to luck at.
16
oh man, this is great!
I've been part of that "if you don't have anything nice to say don't say it" mommy knows best seattle art scene caricature until i felt so one dimensional I had to extract myself back into three dimensions before I got to the point of not being able to call myself an artist anymore. Truly, what is it with you people who make more rules about what it is to be an artist that makes republicans look downright radical? I may not agree 100% with Bullwinkle, but right on for having the balls (or ovaries) to speak your mind! Art should tend toward expanding consciousness, not reducing it. I learned more from bullwinkle than any of those other flaccid comments.
Seattle needs more NY, where you can say fuck you and still be friends cause everybody seems a little more secure in their skins. Say fuck you in Seattle and you're in for a lifetime of passive aggression. Which attitude does more for freedom and expansion of expression? Which attitude is more spiritually aligned with art?
Socially, Foldesi's aesthetic fits right into Seattle. Flatness hinting at three dimensions. Negative space indeed.
I've been part of that "if you don't have anything nice to say don't say it" mommy knows best seattle art scene caricature until i felt so one dimensional I had to extract myself back into three dimensions before I got to the point of not being able to call myself an artist anymore. Truly, what is it with you people who make more rules about what it is to be an artist that makes republicans look downright radical? I may not agree 100% with Bullwinkle, but right on for having the balls (or ovaries) to speak your mind! Art should tend toward expanding consciousness, not reducing it. I learned more from bullwinkle than any of those other flaccid comments.
Seattle needs more NY, where you can say fuck you and still be friends cause everybody seems a little more secure in their skins. Say fuck you in Seattle and you're in for a lifetime of passive aggression. Which attitude does more for freedom and expansion of expression? Which attitude is more spiritually aligned with art?
Socially, Foldesi's aesthetic fits right into Seattle. Flatness hinting at three dimensions. Negative space indeed.
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
SL Letter of the Day: Life Sentence by Dan Savage
-
SL Letter of the Day: Daddy Loves Who? by Dan Savage
-
Required Listening: Howard Stern on Ellen, JC Penney, Bullied Gay Kids, Rosie, Santorum, Bachmann, et al by Dan Savage
-
Crowdsourcing Uncut Police Video from the Dec. 12 Occupy Protest at the Port of Seattle by Eli Sanders
-
State Legislator Testifies That His Opposition to Same-Sex Marriage Came to Him from a Commercial for Jack in the Box by Christopher Frizzelle
-
"Let me be the first one to say: My business will refuse to participate in a same-sex marriage ceremony," by Republican Representative Matt Shea of the Spokane Valley by Eli Sanders
-
The Onion Is on a Roll: "Iran Worried U.S. Might Be Building 8,500th Nuclear Weapon" by Charles Mudede
-
"I don't know if I want to be here [if gay marriage passes]," by Republican State Senator Jay Rodne of North Bend by Eli Sanders
-
The AP Is Reporting That Whitney Houston Is Dead by Paul Constant
-
Announcing The Stranger's Tournament of Dunces! Who's the Dumbest Representative in the State House? by Christopher Frizzelle
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (17) RSS