David Park
I've just finished the David Park, biography and have drawn some different conclusions in what I have been writing here, though most ideas support what I have thought. I realize now Paul must have been in competition to some extent with the San Francisco school. They were older and more sucessful as he was still finding his bearings. The Staempfli Gallery show was in 1959. Most of Paul's good paintings of models in the loft on Broadway and on Long Island start in the 60's.
It seems de Kooning was a big force behind Bay area figurative painting as he was to Paul and NY School painting. I have to see that this all was motivating Georges before I came around. It is maybe too obvious that to draw or paint in a bravura way soon gives way to a de Kooning like painting. Paul once showed to me some brushes de Kooning gave him-- he tossed them to the side, "one can only make a de Kooning with them." he said. They had long whip like hairs.
Park was being influenced by Still maybe in a similar abstract expressionist way. His figures have a monumental quality that Still's early "cave men" also have, though Park brings these into contemporary yet still mythic life. Park goes further here than Georges ever ventured.
It seems de Kooning was a big force behind Bay area figurative painting as he was to Paul and NY School painting. I have to see that this all was motivating Georges before I came around. It is maybe too obvious that to draw or paint in a bravura way soon gives way to a de Kooning like painting. Paul once showed to me some brushes de Kooning gave him-- he tossed them to the side, "one can only make a de Kooning with them." he said. They had long whip like hairs.
Park was being influenced by Still maybe in a similar abstract expressionist way. His figures have a monumental quality that Still's early "cave men" also have, though Park brings these into contemporary yet still mythic life. Park goes further here than Georges ever ventured.
Paul Georges
I think Park's best work though is located in the realistic articulation of space, where Georges was headed also. Park analyzes Piero della Francesca and finds a very wonderful compressed space. He doesn't stay there long though as I suppose he was criticized as was Georges for being too conventional. To me this radical form of great art is never conventional as it is beyond the conventions and making them new, at least in those few paintings.
Diebenkorn was in NY and Washington, DC briefly and took on de Kooning more directly. He maybe was more successful at it than any NY counterparts I can think of, Jack Tworkov comes to mind. Diebenkorn is better than any of the NY Studio School artists which I suppose is a counterpart of Park's
teaching at CA School of Fine Arts. We don't think so much of de Kooning here as Diebenkorn became successful in becoming himself though not in surpassing de Kooning. I wonder if Guston ever thought of Park?
There was an earlier figuration that Park was involved in that looks very similar to earlier Porter, and Guston figuration from the twenties and thirties, I also just saw some of this at the new Still Museum in Denver. De Kooning made some of this finer detailed work early on but Bill's was always more abstract and European.
Bischoff it seems never really came to full fruition as his switch back and forth from abstract to figure left him less than that which added strength to Park and Diebenkorn. He also went off and had a teaching career. He could have made some of the best, but his color is not the best as at times it becomes stylized drifting between the abstract and naturalistic to become confused and the space is never difficult enough, too obvious.
Georges may never have made a bravura nude as good as Bischoff though, we need to see more paintings. He soon goes off to a more Realistic mode. I know this all gets very confusing but maybe I can get to where I'd like through ranking.
De Kooning and Still remain the best, they simply went beyond to a place that was new and now exists in our art spirit. This now familiar form though would benefit from a larger idea about Park's, and I believe Porter's deeper figurative yet abstractly concerned paintings.
Certainly Diebenkorn's career exists somewhat like this in that his earlier figuration supports his later abstractions, which grow I think grow thin, literally. ( The paint does not seem to be physically holding up, literally.)
I actually think Porter and Georges depend on each other, as Porter was not as ambitious in his scale as Park. So I guess Bischoff and Georges fill in here to some extent.
Pollock, Rothko, Newman were never as Figurative in their beginnings, though Benton figures in there with Pollock. I feel Rothko and Newman would benefit from a putting back of their Mythic concerns and content which was detached from it's form in the Formalist days by critics.
Well at some point I guess with the big Fresco like Whitney painting Georges departs from all this with a tighter Realism as Pearlstein and Lesley, did, and the new slick Pop art starts to wield an influence.
Katz follows Rosenquist to some extent, Paul reacts negatively to this influence and becomes his own artist which is what we haven't been able to cope with as of yet. I think Georges though supports the elegance of Katz and lends a richness lost in Alex's formal strategy.
Georges was diverted by Frumkin Gallery and his relation to Pearlstein and Lesley. He saw the lack of freedom in that direction and I think held on to some of this earlier zeal which has slowly left our central art form and culture in favor of a social correction necessary from the pressures of a new postmodern reality.
This art of Park and Georges now all seems a dream.
Diebenkorn was in NY and Washington, DC briefly and took on de Kooning more directly. He maybe was more successful at it than any NY counterparts I can think of, Jack Tworkov comes to mind. Diebenkorn is better than any of the NY Studio School artists which I suppose is a counterpart of Park's
teaching at CA School of Fine Arts. We don't think so much of de Kooning here as Diebenkorn became successful in becoming himself though not in surpassing de Kooning. I wonder if Guston ever thought of Park?
There was an earlier figuration that Park was involved in that looks very similar to earlier Porter, and Guston figuration from the twenties and thirties, I also just saw some of this at the new Still Museum in Denver. De Kooning made some of this finer detailed work early on but Bill's was always more abstract and European.
Bischoff it seems never really came to full fruition as his switch back and forth from abstract to figure left him less than that which added strength to Park and Diebenkorn. He also went off and had a teaching career. He could have made some of the best, but his color is not the best as at times it becomes stylized drifting between the abstract and naturalistic to become confused and the space is never difficult enough, too obvious.
Georges may never have made a bravura nude as good as Bischoff though, we need to see more paintings. He soon goes off to a more Realistic mode. I know this all gets very confusing but maybe I can get to where I'd like through ranking.
De Kooning and Still remain the best, they simply went beyond to a place that was new and now exists in our art spirit. This now familiar form though would benefit from a larger idea about Park's, and I believe Porter's deeper figurative yet abstractly concerned paintings.
Certainly Diebenkorn's career exists somewhat like this in that his earlier figuration supports his later abstractions, which grow I think grow thin, literally. ( The paint does not seem to be physically holding up, literally.)
I actually think Porter and Georges depend on each other, as Porter was not as ambitious in his scale as Park. So I guess Bischoff and Georges fill in here to some extent.
Pollock, Rothko, Newman were never as Figurative in their beginnings, though Benton figures in there with Pollock. I feel Rothko and Newman would benefit from a putting back of their Mythic concerns and content which was detached from it's form in the Formalist days by critics.
Well at some point I guess with the big Fresco like Whitney painting Georges departs from all this with a tighter Realism as Pearlstein and Lesley, did, and the new slick Pop art starts to wield an influence.
Katz follows Rosenquist to some extent, Paul reacts negatively to this influence and becomes his own artist which is what we haven't been able to cope with as of yet. I think Georges though supports the elegance of Katz and lends a richness lost in Alex's formal strategy.
Georges was diverted by Frumkin Gallery and his relation to Pearlstein and Lesley. He saw the lack of freedom in that direction and I think held on to some of this earlier zeal which has slowly left our central art form and culture in favor of a social correction necessary from the pressures of a new postmodern reality.
This art of Park and Georges now all seems a dream.
There is no one better than Georges in these relations. Park would stand up. Bischoff in a full redress would fall away, Diebenkorn will totter but stay, especially his drawing. Pearlstein and Lesley definitely fall away. Resika, Heineman, Leland Bell, don't really feel in this race.
Throw away Georges we have a much weaker Porter to represent Katz's height. Alex would not mind, though as he is less threatened.
Maybe I'm wrong, it certainly seems so by now. Why can't I leave this alone? I think Georges is necessary and inevitable.
No comments:
Post a Comment