The article "An Artist Reluctant to Sell Himself" was published on the website nytimes.com on March 7, 2013.The article carries a lot of comment on Neil Jenney who "follows his own lights, makes his own rules and essentially creates his own frame of reference".
Giving appraisal of the situation it's necessary to point out that Mr. Jenney burst on the scene in the late 1960s and early ’70s, in order to go his own way, outside the dictates of the prevailing art trends.
In addition the author of the article mentions that his “Bad Paintings” bypassed the Abstract Expressionist and Photo-Realist fashions then current in favor of canvases that showed figurative images (people, fighter planes, fences, fish and oxen) set against backgrounds painted in broad, sloshy brush strokes of brown, green and blue acrylic;he gave these works elementary, allegorical titles like “Tools and Task,” “Sawn and Saw,” “Girl and Doll” and were originally left unframed.
Analyzing the situation it's necessary to emphasize that in some ways the story of Neil Jenney might be said to be the story of what did not happen after this opening salvo; in the ensuing years he continued to evolve as an artist, moving on to create meticulously painted and tightly cropped luminous bits of landscapes and skies (referred to as “Good Paintings”), which he painted in oil on board , he also built large, sculptural frames for them, stenciling titles directly onto the frames,as with the “Bad Paintings” he gave them simple but effective titles like “Meltdown Morning” and “Window #6” that pointed to the social concerns behind the art (later he added similar frames to the earlier paintings) .
In this connection it’s worthwhile mentioning that in interviews he came across as a homespun philosopher, sounding a utopian note as well as issuing ornery statements about art and life, including “Art is a social science,” and “No real artist would ever use a camera,” critics generally responded well; in The New York Times in 1981 Hilton Kramer called Mr. Jenney “a very political artist” and “a very talky artist — quite the talkiest of his generation,” while another critic later referred to him as a descendant of the Hudson River School “by way of Pop,” but for various reasons, including his habit of keeping much of his work scarce (“It took me so long to make my stuff,” he said of his paintings, “it’s hard to let go. They’re like my kids.”), Mr. Jenney did not go on to become a household name like, say, by his onetime college roommate William Wegman, and his paintings have never sold for the stratospheric prices commanded by the work of some of his peers, like Andy Warhol. (Mr. Jenney’s paintings sell at auction in the respectable six figures, with the highest price on record being $590,500 for the sale of his “Girl and Vase” at Christie’s in May.)
In conclusion the author of the article expresses the view that part of the problem, is that Mr. Jenney, now 67, has never wanted to relinquish the handling of his career to anyone but himself. It probably hasn’t helped his reputation with critics or his visibility in the larger world that he has not been formally associated with a gallery since 1970, although he has frequently shown with Barbara Mathes and in 2001 the Gagosian Gallery put on a show called “The Bad Years, 1969-70.” Or, for that matter, that he declined a retrospective at the Museum of Modern Art in the late 1980s (Mr. Jenney said that William Rubin, the museum’s director at the time, agreed in a phone call to postpone the opening so that he could finish two paintings for the show, but that two months later Rubin was gone from the scene.)
As for me I think that the art world has always laid claim to its share of oddballs and mavericks, and I'm sure that Neil Jenney is really talented person , he has vivid imagination , his own point of view and what is more important he is not addicted to fame and money. He paints what's going on around him but not what is popular at the very moment I believe he is worth to admire.
Giving appraisal of the situation it's necessary to point out that Mr. Jenney burst on the scene in the late 1960s and early ’70s, in order to go his own way, outside the dictates of the prevailing art trends.
In addition the author of the article mentions that his “Bad Paintings” bypassed the Abstract Expressionist and Photo-Realist fashions then current in favor of canvases that showed figurative images (people, fighter planes, fences, fish and oxen) set against backgrounds painted in broad, sloshy brush strokes of brown, green and blue acrylic;he gave these works elementary, allegorical titles like “Tools and Task,” “Sawn and Saw,” “Girl and Doll” and were originally left unframed.
Analyzing the situation it's necessary to emphasize that in some ways the story of Neil Jenney might be said to be the story of what did not happen after this opening salvo; in the ensuing years he continued to evolve as an artist, moving on to create meticulously painted and tightly cropped luminous bits of landscapes and skies (referred to as “Good Paintings”), which he painted in oil on board , he also built large, sculptural frames for them, stenciling titles directly onto the frames,as with the “Bad Paintings” he gave them simple but effective titles like “Meltdown Morning” and “Window #6” that pointed to the social concerns behind the art (later he added similar frames to the earlier paintings) .
In this connection it’s worthwhile mentioning that in interviews he came across as a homespun philosopher, sounding a utopian note as well as issuing ornery statements about art and life, including “Art is a social science,” and “No real artist would ever use a camera,” critics generally responded well; in The New York Times in 1981 Hilton Kramer called Mr. Jenney “a very political artist” and “a very talky artist — quite the talkiest of his generation,” while another critic later referred to him as a descendant of the Hudson River School “by way of Pop,” but for various reasons, including his habit of keeping much of his work scarce (“It took me so long to make my stuff,” he said of his paintings, “it’s hard to let go. They’re like my kids.”), Mr. Jenney did not go on to become a household name like, say, by his onetime college roommate William Wegman, and his paintings have never sold for the stratospheric prices commanded by the work of some of his peers, like Andy Warhol. (Mr. Jenney’s paintings sell at auction in the respectable six figures, with the highest price on record being $590,500 for the sale of his “Girl and Vase” at Christie’s in May.)
In conclusion the author of the article expresses the view that part of the problem, is that Mr. Jenney, now 67, has never wanted to relinquish the handling of his career to anyone but himself. It probably hasn’t helped his reputation with critics or his visibility in the larger world that he has not been formally associated with a gallery since 1970, although he has frequently shown with Barbara Mathes and in 2001 the Gagosian Gallery put on a show called “The Bad Years, 1969-70.” Or, for that matter, that he declined a retrospective at the Museum of Modern Art in the late 1980s (Mr. Jenney said that William Rubin, the museum’s director at the time, agreed in a phone call to postpone the opening so that he could finish two paintings for the show, but that two months later Rubin was gone from the scene.)
As for me I think that the art world has always laid claim to its share of oddballs and mavericks, and I'm sure that Neil Jenney is really talented person , he has vivid imagination , his own point of view and what is more important he is not addicted to fame and money. He paints what's going on around him but not what is popular at the very moment I believe he is worth to admire.
good!
ОтветитьУдалитьSlips:
...a lot of comments
...the fame