Hello Goya, oil on canvas, 4×6 inches
Ok, here is some of my art about art, or, art that refers to art, at least.
Tonight when I was thinking of what to write about these images, I thought about the word “juxtaposition.” Merriam Webster defines it as: “the act or an instance of placing two or more things side by side.” I remember learning this word in high school English class and being delighted by the concept. Four from this series of paintings are currently in a juried show called “Dislocations,” which is defined as a “disruption of an established order.” This is perhaps a “hipper” way to express a similar idea.
Hello Matisse, oil on canvas 4×6 inches
So if I leave you with those two words and these two images – what do you make of it? I ask because I wonder what viewers who go to see this show somewhere in the state of Maryland will get from these images. Do you need to know Hello Kitty, Goya, or Matisse to appreciate these images? The idea of leaving out someone who may not know a reference seems antithetical to my main purpose. And is this art disrespectful towards Goya and Matisse? To Hello Kitty? Is this a conundrum? :)
My very first impression of the Goya-Kitty juxtaposition was that the horror of the original was exponentially magnified. Quite shocking.
Kitty seems quite at home in the Matisse, on the other hand.
I can’t imagine that either of the artists would disapprove; in fact, I am quite sure they would have both been delighted to see their work taken out of the the icon class. My reading of both their personalities does not indicate much vanity about their work.
Disrespectful? Hardly. Brave? Yes.
These are gutsy paintings. I’d get a kick out of hanging either and watching people’s reactions. I do think, to answer one of your questions, that knowing Goya, Matisse, and Hello Kitty are essential to getting these works though.
Gosh Rex,
You are a tough commenter to follow. It’s morning here in Holland, I’ve got to take the kids to school. Leslie, I just wanted to say, “Wow!”
More later . . .
I agree with Rex that Kitty is much more at home in the Matisse. Not only the red body but the white, rounded forms are so well echoed in the foliage of the trees, the bowl of fruit, round-bottom containers, etc. The whole image is kind of dreamy and so the insertion is not too peculiar. In Hello Goya she’s in much starker contrast, and seems to cast a super-dark shadow due to an unseen light source. I can’t really tell what she’s doing (is that a magnifying glass she’s holding?), but it does seem a statement about the absurdity or irrationality of the scene. Without knowing the Goya and what it’s about, I’m not sure how much one could get from this.
I can imagine a larger theme that emerges from a group of famous paintings she inhabits. Unexpected juxtaposition is a powerful way to get attention and stimulate thinking. I like the whimsy of the concept, and it makes these master painters seem more approachable.
The juxtaposition depicted above is great and I think that the ‘juxtapositional’ effect in Goya Kitty seems even more stark and relevant to the concept than the one juxtaposed with Matisse’ work. I loved both but Hello Goya was just great!!
Juxtaposition as an art message is a very powerful form of communication and I think you have made the fullest use of it in the Goya (especially with the podium and the magnifying glass the Kitty uses to peer onto the dead general).
I would like to see more of this kind (if you have more images).
Leslie,
I put the full sized images in your post. I think I got the format you intended. I have a backup of your original. I hope you don’t mind. I’m glad I did this, because now I can see the images together.
Leslie, I remember learning the word juxtaposition in high school as well. Always a handy word in art.
I am familiar with the Matisse and Goya paintings, but not Hello Kitty. I think that the cat speaks for herself though.
I’m trying to write this comment with my 4 year old daughter Fran climbing on the chair behind me. She keeps saying “beautiful,” in reference to the “mouse.” I’m moving the Goya out of view before she interprets it.
Okay, now she is off playing. Here is what I think: you have done as well at integrating this cat into the Goya as I could possibly imagine. This is a masterwork of painting, something that could not be done as well with simple digital processing. The reason is that you have managed to make a subtle reinterpretation of the Goya in your own painting style/technique such that it fits with the cat represented in the same style. A digital cut and paste might make an amusing result, but it would not hold together in the same way. You focus on the “dislocation,” but in fact the integration is the key here.
I find myself reading a lot of contemporary interpretation into the Hello Goya. The kitty is in the scene, before the firing squad, but so incongruous that she is obviously not to be harmed by the bullets about to be fired. She stands oblivious and absurd in a world of violence that does not reach her. I find it a powerful metaphor for the contemporary world situation. I think you have taken a powerful political artwork and turned it into something powerful and relevant to our times. It is more than a bringing of Goya into the present. You present a new interpretation (or at least allow me to find one).
The Hello Matisse is fascinating because the Kitty, although somewhat different, is in all essentials the same as in the other painting. But here the message I read is different. Matisse’s painting verges of decorative. The Kitty, with the same color scheme and naive qualities, but different style, seems to turn the decoration into absurdity. To me this painting mocks Matisse’s work, at the same time it uses it to make a pleasing result.
The real juxtaposition at work here is not Kitty juxtaposed to an artwork, but the two Kitty paintings juxtaposed to one another.
Is it disrespectful towards Goya and Matisse? Interesting question. If you painted a Kitty into one of Paul Butzi’s photos, I think he might not like it one bit. It would evoke questions of intellectual property that could be quite compelling. I couldn’t imagine how these other artists would feel. Anyway, Goya was also a master at juxtaposition. Look at his portrait of the young child with the cat and the cage (scroll down a bit on the linked page to see the Goya).
Hi all,
I have a couple of minutes and wanted to thank you for your responses – reeeeeallllly interesting for me.
I KNEW soemone living elsewhere would not recognize Hello Hitty – she is such a pervasive pop icon (dare I say whore) in the states (and Japan I am sure as that is where she originates). I am just curious as to where she infiltrates exactly…because I do think recognition of her and her pervasive quality in our culture, is part of the experience of these paintings, maybe critical, as Rex and others point out.
Anway, gotta go. Karl, thanks for fixing the images, too. Sorry you had to hide the Goya – is is too much for a four year old. But you must introduce her to Hello Kitty! And I will write more later.
Seeing Kitty in the Matisse picture gives me a sense of cloying sweetness. I like her better in the Goya picture where she conveys absurdity.
I cannot relate to Kitty having grown up staring at the pricy Steiff animals in the windows of toy shops in Germany. Finally, as an adult, I bought myself a little Steiff hedgehog that is very unlike Kitty. In my second childhood, I learned to appreciate the whimsical characters on Sesame Street.
But Kitty is news to me.
I lived in Japan several years and saw lots of Kitty there, but I never really knew about Kitty in American culture and never liked her. However, I do like the concept of this obviously harmless, innocent creature wandering through the world of paintings, appearing in one after another. She seems to be asking in each, “what’s going on here?” The fact that she appears scarcely to react to her surroundings leaves viewers more free to draw their own conclusions by putting themselves in her position (in the world of the painting). It might be an interesting way to introduce kids to classic paintings.
Kitty is unfamiliar but seems like an easy purchase at one of those ridiculous Dollar Stores.
Hello Goya reminds me of Coppola’s “Marie Antoinette” which I thought was also terrific.
I am amused by Hello Kitty. How the toy stands stupidly (sorry) on the patterned flatness of the Matisse. How the painting of domesticity has become itself, domestic: a tablecloth. Sort of sad; I guess that is why I never visit the Museum Gift Shop.
For everyone unfamiliar with her….
http://www.sanrio.com/main/mbna/card.html
Yes, you can get a hello kitty credit card. And a hello kitty pen, shirt, pencil box, shoes, lotion dispenser, shower curtain, radio, toaster (with her face burnt into your bread), iron, tv, etc etc
I want to respond to some of your comments as I really appreciate them and they give me lots of stuff to think about.
Rex,
“My very first impression of the Goya-Kitty juxtaposition was that the horror of the original was exponentially magnified.”
Good. It was the first in the series and I didn’t think about it much, just did it. It was only when I was finished and stood back from it that it became disturbing, esp in light of what is happening in the world right now. The juxtaposition took a disturbing twist. I don’t think of them as gutsy or brave though – not sure what you mean by that, but sounds good to me!
Steve,
” it makes these master painters seem more approachable. ”
I wonder about the series working that way. I have thought of the series as being called “Art Appreciation,” in a tongue in cheek way. Like she is visiting all these famous places as Sister Wendy would.
“I lived in Japan several years and saw lots of Kitty there, but I never really knew about Kitty in American culture and never liked her. However, I do like the concept of this obviously harmless, innocent creature wandering through the world of paintings, appearing in one after another.”
Do you have a Target store near you? She is everywhere in there! Check oout the bath towels and accessories in particular…
She was born when I was a kid and I didn’t really get into her then — very girly. But I rediscovered her (before everyone else did, of course :)) and find she has grown on me. And she does seem to communicate innocence in a handy way.
“It might be an interesting way to introduce kids to classic paintings. ”
I am surprised the folks at Sanrio haven’t thought of that yet!
Karl,
“She stands oblivious and absurd in a world of violence that does not reach her. I find it a powerful metaphor for the contemporary world situation. I think you have taken a powerful political artwork and turned it into something powerful and relevant to our times. It is more than a bringing of Goya into the present. You present a new interpretation (or at least allow me to find one).”
Thanks for those thoughts. I am glad you went there as I did too but wasn’t sure if that would come across. I just finished “Hello Guernica” actually. It is pretty dark.
Birgit,
“Seeing Kitty in the Matisse picture gives me a sense of cloying sweetness. I like her better in the Goya picture where she conveys absurdity. ”
She is sickly sweet, that is for sure. And she has no mouth – defintitely a problem…
Sunil,
“In Hello Goya she’s in much starker contrast, and seems to cast a super-dark shadow due to an unseen light source. I can’t really tell what she’s doing (is that a magnifying glass she’s holding?), but it does seem a statement about the absurdity or irrationality of the scene.
(especially with the podium and the magnifying glass the Kitty uses to peer onto the dead general).”
She is actually holding a tennis raquet (with which she plans to deflect the bullet!)…But I like your interpretation a lot!
D.,
“How the toy stands stupidly (sorry) on the patterned flatness of the Matisse. How the painting of domesticity has become itself, domestic: a tablecloth. Sort of sad; I guess that is why I never visit the Museum Gift Shop.”
How dare you call HK stupid – just kidding. You hit it on the head there. I am fascinated by that whole world of art reproductions and products. Why would we see Mona LIsa in person when we can buy the coffe mug for $10? The paintings become almost backdrops for her, just as a cardboard ocean scene or vista might be for a model. Except that I happen to love these paintings…hmmm…and part of the pure pleasure of painting these is getting to “copy” these paintings….hmmm….
Leslie,
I recently did a post on this site on the topic of art and war. You probably didn’t see it — I self-censored after two hours, but not before it caused one person to quit Art & Perception — someone who didn’t want anything to do with a web site that was connected to politics, and deleting the post wouldn’t change that. I’ll miss this person, but an art site that completely avoids politics is like, well, think of your own simile for something incomplete. As your work shows, politics has historically been central to art. If art is to have any relevance today, it must not be afraid of taking on political issues. I think this person leaving this site opens up a lot of possibilities to explore what art is about. In other words, don’t hold back now, because we have already paid a price for trying to explore these issues here.
That said, I hope Art & Perception does not become an echo chamber for one political viewpoint. Paul Butzi recently visited here with us and added to a compelling discussion. Yet Paul wrote his conclusions on his own blog without sharing them with us here. I enjoyed reading Paul’s blog, and was saddened that he didn’t give a link to it in the relevant discussion thread here. Did he think his political viewpoints would not be welcome here? I hope that was not the reason.
Hello Guernica sounds interesting. I’d like to see it. I always felt conflicted about the original painting. Is it about war or about Picasso?
And Leslie, don’t worry about upsetting Fran. Art & Perception is for grownups, even though we discuss children’s art. There is a dedicated children’s art site now, where your work won’t be presented (unless you can share something from when you were four, which would be great).
Karl,
I am sorry to hear that you took off a post about war. I would like to read it. And I wonder if someone would really quit over one post – we cover so many topics. But I also think this blog has a life of its own that you can’t really control.
I am fascinated by art and politics, and I agree that you can’t look at the history of art without seeing all the politics entrenched in images. Goya’s series of the atrocities of war are some of the most powerful I have ever seen. The whole patronage system is based on politics. And I personally have a hard time living today without being affected by the war in Iraq. I have never made overtly political art (whatever that means), but really respect those who do and feel almost compelled to in this environment.
Leslie,
I never had any sense of Kitty as a character, just as a logo with obvious connotations from the design and from the style of products it appeared on, which were for or evoked young girls. I still don’t know if she ever talks, though I gather from Wikipedia that she has been in some cartoons. The most interesting thing from Wikipedia, though, was the following: “The earliest Hello Kitty cartoon series known was the American-animated (co-produced with Japan) Hello Kitty’s Furry Tale Theatre, which aired throughout 1987. This show parodies various famous fairy tales and blockbuster movies from the period.” This sounds like a similar concept to your Kitty in famous paintings. Not that I think of your pieces as simple parodies by any means.
I should probably ask you about Sister Wendy, but I’m not going there, I fear the infinite regress.
Your post also points toward a large topic we’ve never touched on here, to my knowledge, namely art and decoration, or art vs. decoration. The word decorative appears above only in reference to Matisse, where I think it is often applied. But often it’s used, perhaps pejoratively, to refer to Kittys on backpacks, etc. Probably fodder for another post.
Karl,
I very much agree that art touches all aspects of life, including politics. I would not want A&P to be a place of discussing politics per se, but focusing on the art or the many-faceted art-politics relationship seems appropriate. That said, it’s clear that there are many ways to offend people, and it’s hard to draw a sharp line between non-avoidance of controversy and provocative or offensive behavior. Sensitivity is never out of season. Apparently you felt there were reasons to self-censor your post, so I’m glad you did so. I wouldn’t be surprised if it comes back in some form. This blog is a funny kind of social experience in that we know (and hope!) that the conversation is followed by a larger audience than participates through posts or comments. The politician’s instinct to always have an ear for how things sound to that broader public (too often honored in the breach) is both a good and bad thing. I guess we’ll just keep on keepin’ on.
On Paul’s contribution, I also hope he wasn’t deterred for any “political” reasons, but I don’t expect other bloggers to necessarily cross-post or cross-reference here. The topic of property rights and legal limits on photographing proved close to Paul’s heart, and in fact 4 of the 5 posts following the one you point to continue the theme. His front page is at Musings on Photography. I’ll add the link in a comment on the other post so that readers there can find it.
Leslie,
I will bring back that post one day. It was a first pass at a juxtaposition of my own. I will improve it. The blog certainly has a life of it’s own. I realized that a long time ago. That is the beauty of it.
I grew up in a house with political art — Goya reproductions, real George Grosz prints and even a drawing by him. I’ve never made much political art, except a silk-screen tee shirt or two as a teenager. To me the question is not if art should sometimes be about politics, but if I have the skill to do that kind of art. I am inspired by your work.
Steve,
No, I agree, this isn’t a politics site any more than it is a sex site. It is an art site, and a perception site. Art and perception are topics that apply to politics and sex and other things (like dead rabbits, grapes, and landscapes).
Of course I don’t expect other bloggers to reference all there work here. But Paul came here for material and talked about us and our discussion on his site — it was central to his post in fact. A link here to let us know would be the normal thing to do in a situation like this. That’s why I wonder if he felt we wouldn’t like his views. In fact, I enjoyed reading them, and I left a couple of respectful comments there — I admire both Paul’s writing and his photography. Paul’s basic theme in the post is that artists should respect other people’s feelings when making their work, an issue especially relevant for photographers. He was highly critical of Richard. I say, fair game — Richard entered the political arena with his guest post, and that is a tough arena. That said, I’m glad that Richard doesn’t get deterred from his work, either by Paul or anyone else.
Steve,
Wow – I need that Furry Tale Theater! I never heard of it! In the past I have avoided seeing the cartoons in which she talks, but that sounds really cool.
I won’t digress too much but just tell you Sister Wendy’s Story of Painting is a video series in which this nun visits famous artworks and talks about them. They are wonderful.
Art and decoration. I haven’t heard that discussion for awhile…since undergrad. To be “Merely decorative” in a painting was to be accused of being frivolous, superficial, only concerned with tradiational beauty, etc. I don’t think it has quite the stigma today but I don’t know.
Karl,
Sounds like you grew up in an interesting home. Not all parensts would hang up Goya and Grosz. Very interesting and stiumulating environment!
Leslie, first of all I like the paintings very much. I’m of course familiar with the art sources, but have no idea what Hello Kitty is, besides obviously some sort of cute toy. I know you provided links, but I haven’t checked them out yet.
The juxtaposition of the two types of imagery is very effective, and I think could also be extended to putting Hello Kitty into famous images from photojournalism, or combining her with advertising images. The clash of types of reality comes across regardless of whether one is familiar with all the references, though one’s experience would be richer if they knew them. I wouldn’t worry about leaving someone out because they are unfamiliar. Some people will get the references and some won’t. One of the wonderful things about art is that it often contains doors that open into other worlds. If I felt I had to understand every reference within a work of art before I could view/read/listen to it, I would have missed out on a lot. It’s often the unfamiliar references within a work that prompt me to discover a whole new realm that I didn’t know was there.
I doubt Goya or Matisse would be offended by your work. And if they were, who cares? The history of art is full of references to previous images; it’s part of the conversation. Any artist without a sense of humor is going to have a hard time in this business. Besides, if Goya is mad at you he’s probably still pissed off at Manet too.
—————-
Karl, I didn’t realize you had censored yourself by removing a post about war, or that anyone had left because of it. That’s unfortunate, on both counts. My assumption about A&P was that we’d be discussing both art and perception. If we can’t talk about political content, and much art is political, then we’re limited to talking about the colors and what brushes we use.
David,
How do I type the smiley face for “thanks for saying that, and good to hear from you”?
:-)
will have to do . . .
Any artist without a sense of humor is going to have a hard time in this business.
Maybe that has been my problem, David.
But seriously, you said this perfectly: “The history of art is full of references to previous images; it’s part of the conversation.” The question is, what if you want to reference the image of someone who is not safely dead? What are the issues an artist faces? What if I wanted to reference Leslie’s Kitty in a painting by another living artist or photographer? Would I have to obtain permission? And come to think of it, could Leslie have any problem with the people who own the rights to Hello Kitty?
David,
I am glad to hear from you too!
“I think could also be extended to putting Hello Kitty into famous images from photojournalism, or combining her with advertising images.”
I have been pondering this a lot lately, especially with all the powefulwar imagery form the past and currently. It feels a little raw. Setting her on an old painting is once removed from the issue. But I may go for it.
I am glad you can get the ideas without knowing Hello Kitty. I think I mentioned once before that I sold a little hK painting to someone who thought she was just a cat. I love the idea of unknown references opening doors to other worlds. The artist Mel Chin seems to embrace that idea a lot. He made a video game (long before it was trendy for artists to do so) which involved carpets – Asian and Eastern European designs. he didn’t explain their contexts but wanted them to enter the player’s subconscience to maybe be rediscovered later in life. A spark of some kind to inspire further exploration.
I was kind of asking those questions about offending Goya and Matisse tongue in cheek, but I do wonder about Karl’s questions. if I were to use more contemporary art what are the issues? I think I am safe painting HK herself, otherwise no one could use toys as still life objects. Although there was a case of some painter a few years ago who got a “cease and desist” letter for painting Ernie and Bert in “inappropriate” positions:) So I wonder if I am skating on thin ice with HK. I wonder more when I paint her with pills!
Did he think his political viewpoints would not be welcome here?
No. I didn’t “think” my viewpoints would be unwelcome here, I was absolutely certain that my political viewpoints would not be welcome here.
I became absolutely, 100% certain when I realized that Karl had found Richard’s post on DailyKos, where it was published in Richard’s diary before it was posted here. It doesn’t matter if you agree with what’s written on DailyKos or not, the fact is that it’s one of the most politically focused blogs in existence as well as one of the most rabidly partisan. To take a post from there and post it here certainly makes a political statement that is hard to miss.
On Paul’s contribution, I also hope he wasn’t deterred for any “political” reasons, but I don’t expect other bloggers to necessarily cross-post or cross-reference here.
I didn’t post a link to my further thoughts on my blog because I didn’t have any desire to have the politically motivated aspect of the discussion follow over onto my blog.
It took Richard Rothstein less than forty minutes from the time you added the links to find your links, follow them to my blog, and post one of his frothing-at-the-mouth DailyKos rants as a comment on my post.
And, since Rothstein managed to post a comment claiming that I held views contrary to what I wrote on my blog, it’s hard to argue that he’s interested in discussion of what I’ve written as opposed to just wanting to engage in venomous political ranting. It seems fairly clear he didn’t even READ the post he commented on.
That pretty much proves that I made the correct choice, doesn’t it?
Wow, blogging can get contentious! I guess I saw dogmatic and politically motivated declarations on both sides of the dialogue between you and Richard.
The heated arguments seem par for the course. And certainly we are not all going to agree, especially on such loaded issues. The trick is to respectfully disagree with eachother. I also wouldn’t want to avoid political content just because some people’s ideas are repugnant to me. And I wouldn’t want to avoid putting political art work out there for discussion just because folks may disagree. How do you spearate art form politics when the subject of the art is politics? I expect to have whole range of responses on such an open forum.
What if I wanted to reference Leslie’s Kitty in a painting by another living artist or photographer? Would I have to obtain permission? And come to think of it, could Leslie have any problem with the people who own the rights to Hello Kitty?
I think I am safe painting HK herself, otherwise no one could use toys as still life objects. Although there was a case of some painter a few years ago who got a “cease and desist” letter for painting Ernie and Bert in “inappropriate” positions:)
Karl and Leslie, in answer to both of you, there are the artistic questions, and then there are the legal ones. Artistically, it all seems like fair game to me. Legally, I have no idea.
There are of course many examples of artists using familiar, trademarked images in their work, Warhol’s soup cans being perhaps one of the most famous. But I don’t know what the legalities are of doing so. Did he get permission? Or were they just happy that he made their packaging seem hip? My general impression is that there’s some provision in copyright law for doing interpretations, but I don’t know how that works. If the worst that happens is a cease and desist order, it doesn’t seem like such a big deal. You could then do paintings of the cease and desist order. But of course if there’s money involved it’s another matter. I do know that Jeff Koons was sued by someone because he made a large copy of some silly puppy sculpture of theirs. Does anyone know how that turned out?
If anyone knows more about this legal stuff and wants to do a post about it, it would be very interesting.
It seems a little strange for Paul to leave harsh comments on an A&P post and then use the material of that post for his own blog and later say:
I didn’t post a link to my further thoughts on my blog because I didn’t have any desire to have the politically motivated aspect of the discussion follow over onto my blog.
Isn’t that playing games with the public mind?
Paul, I’ve been busy in the studio lately, so I’m afraid I missed the whole thing, Richard’s post and whatever dialog the two of you had. But i would hope A&P could accommodate a range of political views, and even an occasional rant (as long as it’s entertaining).
If everyone agreed here, politically or otherwise, it would be really booooooooring! Hope you stick around.
Interesting… I had no idea Richard posted on DailyKos, nor have I read DailyKos before (for those unfamiliar with it, it appears to be a left/liberal/yourwordhere-leaning political blog to which many people contribute). I don’t see that it qualifies or disqualifies Richard as a contributor on Art and Perception, the same as if he posted on Rush Limbaugh’s blog (if he has one) or any other. Is there a political statement? I guess readers will have their own answers to that. The post itself, I would say, suggested a certain attitude toward certain issues. Here in Montana, I know rock-ribbed Republicans who would sign on in a minute, but Paul is probably right that that attitude is more common on the political left than the right. Regardless of Richard’s political leanings, this blog is not his or anyone else’s, and we welcome disagreements from commenters. Please read the comments on Richard’s post and see for yourself. While there, judge also whether anyone disagreed with Paul’s position in his blog — hope I’m paraphrasing fairly — that one shouldn’t trespass on private property for the sake of a photograph. I certainly don’t, and I live by it even here (Montana) where 95% of the time I could trespass risk-free.
Arrgh, crossed comments again. I write too slowly.
Leslie
To return to your paintings, which I like very much — would you say that your use of a painting is dictated by its subject matter or by its formal design? That is, did you choose the Goya because it was about war or because Kitty was such a great contrast (not thematic, but design-wise)?
I found the Goya/Kitty piece compelling, wryly funny, although I did think the tennis racket was a magnifying glass, and so a bit horrifying, also, in that she sits in this bloody scene and calmly examines it with this glass.
The Matisse I thought might be a comment on Pattern and Decoration, inasmuch as Kitty seems just another part of the pattern that Matisse sets up. Even the whites that you’ve used for Kitty interact with the whites you’ve taken from the Matisse.
All that said (and that I like your paintings very much) I found myself how you made the choice of these paintings rather than, say Cezanne’s mountain or Degas’s ballerinas (now there’s an idea)? Are there genres of paintings that you can’t use because of their subject matter? Cezanne, for example, might be difficult because Kitty is so much an urban (or suburban) icon.
With some appropriation artists, it’s clear that they have a bone to pick, but with the two you’ve shown here, I sense a playfulness rather than a stance. Am I right?
And I’m going to show your paintings to my intelligent but not-art-educated husband and see what he says. I don’t know if he’ll recognize any of the references, including Kitty.
June,
Thanks for getting back to the paintings.
“Are there genres of paintings that you can’t use because of their subject matter? Cezanne, for example, might be difficult because Kitty is so much an urban (or suburban) icon.”
I am still developing this series (I work several series at once) so it is in its infancy. SO far I have completed a Hello Cezanne (self portrait), Mondrian, Frederick Remington (the only artist who I don’t like so far – that was a challenge), Picasso, and Kahlo. To come in the near future: yes Degas becasue HK is so girly, Lichtenstein, Manet, Brueghel, Van Gogh (there will probably be several VG’s), Van Eyck, Rousseau. I don’t see any limitations yet, as to whether the images are urban or rural, etc. She can contrast so nicely depending on the image and what “persona” she herself is taking on. Some will work better than others. These are my two favorites so far. I am the kind who has to just paint it and then find out if it works, rather try to figure it out ahead of time. I will post the whole group on my website eventually when I get out of the dark ages about Dream Weaver. Four of them are in their first show together and two others just went in a faculty show of a community college where I teach, so the reactions have been steadily streaming in. It is wonderful to hear and a bit overwhelming. I am not used to such an immediate reaction, before the paint has a chance to dry!
The comments about the Matisse and decoration are interesting. I see her “matching” the painting in a superficial, absurd way, almost as an augmentation of the painting, an irreverant one. She is also wearing a birthday hat and carryign a cake, which is super hard to read, but I picture her kind of mimicking the woman in the painting doing domestic duties and kind of blending in with the wallpaper (which HK can’t quite pull off).
Yes, they are meant to be super playful. I do not have a bone to pick with these artists, and in fact feel like I am paying hommage to their works (in my own twisted way)while I am playing with their status as icons as well as the commodities they are. Just as HK is an icon and commodity. I am still forming these thoughts about it, so none of it is gelled.
Thanks so much for your thoughts and do let me know what your husband thinks!
Leslie,
Your list sounds wonderful — Mondrian! and Kitty! Mercy. And Kahlo — perhaps Kitty can comfort her a bit.
I didn’t read the cake, although I saw it and then decided it belonged to Matisse. I wondered about the hat. I’m bemused to think that she’s having a birthday party in the midst of the Matisse scene — something about red?
I think your comment “I am the kind who has to just paint it and then find out if it works, rather try to figure it out ahead of time” is true for many of us — certainly it is for me. But then, after I’ve reached a certain point, I can go back and analyze and see the evidence of what I was working at. I didn’t know if you had reached that point or not — or perhaps you never do — it can be a bit of a bother. However, I find the post-work analysis sometimes a good jumping off place for further art.
I’ll let you know what Jer has to say….
It seems a little strange for Paul to leave harsh comments on an A&P post and then use the material of that post for his own blog
You know, Birgit, I just went back and reread my comments, and they don’t seem very harsh. Direct, yes. But not rude. Not nearly as rude, in fact, as Richard’s comment on my blog. I certainly wouldn’t characterize my comments as any harsher than Richard’s original post, which having been written for DailyKos was intentionally inflammatory.
And when you say “used the material for his blog”, let’s be clear what that means. I quoted a small section from Richard’s post and a small section from a comment, with a link directly to the post and comments, so that readers could easily go and read the original text, in the original context. To judge from the clickthrough statistics on my blog, virtually every reader who read the entry on my blog clicked through that link, so I’m pretty confident that everyone who read what I wrote at least glanced at the original context.
And, to illustrate just how much Richard’s post figured in my post on my blog, the reference to the A&P post and comments occurs about 65% of the way through my post. It’s not as if the only content in my post is a retread of the A&P discussion.
From what I’ve seen, that’s in accord with common practice.
Now ask yourself this: how many of the readers of the post here on A&P were even aware that the original venue for the post was one of the most inflammatory, politically partisan sites on the web? How many of them read the comment thread on the original post over on DailyKos?
Answer: none.
Isn’t that playing games with the public mind?
No more so than posting the article on DailyKos, then posting it here without links in either direction, no. At least in the article on my blog, there’s a link to the original conversation. That’s a courtesy that apparently neither Richard nor Karl felt was needed.
So what you’re doing, Birgit, is chastising me for something you’ve accepted from both Richard and Karl. In fact, both Richard and Karl are “playing with the public’s mind” to a far greater extent than I am.
Maybe you should worry about their misbehavior, and after you’ve handled that, get back to me about my transgressions.
Thank you, Paul. Good point, let us all be mindful of giving references.
I wish I could remember where I recently read about the wish to have more discussions with you about sargents-tent-in-the-rockies.
Re: Photographing someone’s property
Our property in the country is imaged by a satellite. I can zoom in on our house using ‘Google Maps’. So much for our privacy. While we are all subject to public surveillance, I still would not photograph my neighbor’s house without their permission. But I would photograph an eagle flying over their trees.
Re: social and political comments
Unless it is related to a work of art, I would prefer not to indulge in social, political conversations on A&P. For that purpose, there are political blogs.
In my view, it is appropriate for a cultural icon like Ed Winkleman to discuss his world outlook in cyber space. But here on A&P, I would prefer the sort of detachment that a person of Jewish faith exhibits in an art history class discussing Christian art.
By all means, let us discuss Goya, George Grosz and contemporary political art, including the difficulty of achieving it. But let us try not to proselytize our personal point of view.
Our common bond is art and perception with all its difficulties. But let us remember that we are all different. What you bring may be different from what I bring here. Let us try to express and respect our diversity.
If you were to zoom in on our house at Google Earth, you would only see a blur.
And if you look at Hello Goya at a bit of a distance with a bit of a squinty eye, the dark, central shadow looks a bit like a bullet.
D., the dark, central shadow does look ominous
Leslie,
These paintings are really growing on me. I’m beginning to understand more about the role of Kitty. I’ve realized that an insertion or juxtaposition like HK can be a very effective way of communicating to the viewer, who naturally focuses on the incongruous element and attempts to “decode” its significance, which basically involves the relationship of the element to the rest of the scene. For example, one might place oneself in HK’s position and consider what else is going on. This entree seems like it could connect the viewer more directly to the story of the artwork than he or she might be from just the anonymous, conventional, gallery visitor perspective.
This seems a terrific device for commenting, politically or otherwise. And of course, the scene need not be from an old master, but could be one of yours. The downside is that viewers assume you are commenting. The artist can’t claim, as Colin reasonably can with his photos, that she’s just showing us something. But your touch is not heavy-handed, rather very light, and I think it works very well.
Birgit,
If Michelangelo joined our blog, would you suggest that he should refrain from expressing his religious views and how these contributed to his artwork? Maybe he could talk about fresco technique? Or would you want him to express himself, but preface every sentence with, “In my personal religious view, . . .” to avoid influencing us with his religious art? For my part, I’d want Michelangelo to say what was on his mind, and I would use my own mental resources to decide what to accept and what to question.
Leslie,
I never saw this hello Kitty character before (that I recall). From the discussion, I do not feel this has harmed my interpretation of your work. Kitty seems to carry her meaning in her visual presentation.
I suggest that you create your own character, like Kitty, but your own, and go further with that. I think you have hit on a major idea here, but you don’t need the Kitty as baggage if you can make up something equivalently trite and cute. You might even make a fortune with the new doll ;-)
If Michelangelo joined our blog, would you suggest that he should refrain from expressing his religious views and how these contributed to his artwork?
That is exactly the point that I am making. It would be fascinating to hear how Michelangelo thinks that his religious views contributed to his art.
The context is art!
I hope that I would be able to listen without feeling that I had to challenge his personal view and how it expressed itself in his art or be compelled to change my own personal view. Let us express and respect our diversity in the context of the discussion of art.
Actually Leslie,
I retract my point about replacing Kitty. Since I don’t know her, I don’t know what her full impact in these paintings is. Perhaps my experience of them would be even richer if I were more in the know about Kitty.
Leslie, if I recall correctly you said (1) Kitty is a hit in Japan and (2) Kitty has no mouth. The two statements make sense in regards to the little I know about Japanese culture. I heard that women scientists there have a hard time. Perhaps, it is changing.
I still get goose pimples when I look at your Kitty. I could not do what you do.
It takes courage to handle such an insidious female stereotype
In my view, it is appropriate for a cultural icon like Ed Winkleman to discuss his world outlook in cyber space.
Birgit, I think Edward would find your view of him as a cultural icon extremely amusing.
I would say that his blog is popular because of the types of discussions that occur there, and not the other way around. It’s not as though it got popular, and that popularity gives him a license to express his views.
EW has a rule that people must treat each other respectfully when commenting, even while having heated discussions about controversial topics. He bans personal attacks from one commenter to another, but there are no restrictions on topics or extremeness of views. That seems like a healthy approach.
If someone presents an extreme view, someone else will challenge it. That’s how we test our beliefs, by subjecting them to disagreement by others. It forces us to examine what we think, and either articulate it more clearly or reconsider our stance. Good way to learn.
The two blogs I spend the most time on are EW’s and A&P. If we start restricting the topics we can discuss or the views we can express, I assume I’ll lose interest in A&P pretty quickly.
D.,
“And if you look at Hello Goya at a bit of a distance with a bit of a squinty eye, the dark, central shadow looks a bit like a bullet. ”
Yikes. True. HK’s shadow can be very scary.
Steve,
“the viewer, who naturally focuses on the incongruous element and attempts to “decode” its significance, which basically involves the relationship of the element to the rest of the scene.”
Nice way of putting it. thanks for looking again. I feel happy when a piece merits a viewer spending time to decode.
Karl,
“Kitty as baggage”
outrageous!! :) she is important. If it were my own character they would become something completely different.
Birgit,
“It takes courage to handle such an insidious female stereotype ”
Actually sometimes I feel like she reclaims the whole traditional femininity concept and turns it on its heel. There is a whole girlie trend right now in youth culture, but a lot of it is about “girl power,” so not passive or pathetic girlie images. Pink does not have the same meaning it did twenty years ago.
David,
“The two blogs I spend the most time on are EW’s and A&P. If we start restricting the topics we can discuss or the views we can express, I assume I’ll lose interest in A&P pretty quickly. ”
I agree 2 thousand percent. Art encompasses way too much of culture for there to be a clear line in the sand as to whether my political view is “art related” or not (and who would decide?). Maybe what I said above about femininity woudl be perceived as too political or unrelated to art?
I think taking a look at how EW enforces ground rules of respect and no personal attacks would be a good idea if he is as successful at it as people say. If we steer away from controversy we will risk more than if we embrace it at times.
David,
I certainly found the idea of Ed as a cultural icon amusing, but I think there is beginning to be some truth in it, at least in the blogosphere.
I’m for open discussion here. To prove it tomorrow I’ll post about sex.
David, we are different for Ed’s blog because we don’t have a single person setting the rules. That’s the way we set it up back in November. No one person can say what we can or can’t talk about, any more than someone can define the scope of art or perception.
I hope you will test the bounds of what makes for good discussion here. You have done this already — the post about Five Conversations, and it was a fascinating discussion. Did The Beatles Cheat? was another great post.
I thought that, above, I emphasized my hope that we all express and respect our individuality as far as it related to art and perception.
Why should we imitate EW blog?
I don’t think that A&P would be, for example, the appropriate forum to discuss the next presidential campaign unless we considered it in the context of art – perhaps, there will be terrific cartoons of the contenders. Or, one can always dream, one of the candidates promised to give out a trillion dollars in art fellowships.
With respect to social gossip: Do you want me to update you that next Thursday, I will fly to Boston to visit the newest zipser baby? His name is Max and at birth, he weight 8 lbs and 10 ounces.
We love to hear about Ed’s travel because he is Ed. No one wants to hear about my traveling.
David, on A&P., we have a majority vote. My single opinion does not count.
Why should we imitate EW blog?
Birgit, I’m not suggesting we imitate anyone’s blog. With respect to EW, well, you brought him up :)
As far as social gossip, here’s my feeling about it. If there’s something interesting posted, especially something that makes me think, then I’ll read it and engage in a conversation about it. Social gossip could, I suppose, fall into that category, but it’s unlikely. If it’s baby pictures you’ve lost me.
My own rule of thumb (I’m not suggesting this for anyone else) is that I’ll post something if I think our readers might find it of interest, and especially if it might stimulate a good discussion. I try to be as respectful of others as possible, but I never worry about whether my opinion is going to offend someone. I just say what I think, and if someone disagrees then I want to read what they think too.
Leslie,
Pink has always been one of my favorite colors.
How can we talk about girlie power if Kitty does not have a mouth?
You and I are encouraging our students to speak up. I cannot relate to a girlie toy lacking a mouth.
David, I am completely with you
We love to hear about Ed’s travel because he is Ed. No one wants to hear about my traveling.
I don’t want to read about Ed’s travels because he’s Ed. I want to read about them because he occasionally goes to places whose names I can’t pronounce, and eats sheep’s eyeballs (or so it’s rumored). When his posts are about subjects that I don’t care about (and they often are) then I don’t read them. But many of the posts are great. Actually, the discussions are often much more interesting than the posts themselves (no offense, EW). Kind of like here :)
Birgit, your travels may be just as interesting as EW’s. Share the stuff you think we’ll want to read about.
Leslie,
As promised, I queried Jer about HK/Goya and HK/Matisse. Remember, he’s a talented writer and intellectual, but with a somewhat lamentable vacuum in art history (which, however, has its advantages, because I can enlighten him and that keeps the marriage conversation going)
Anyway, here’s his responses. He didn’t know any of the references in your paintings — not Kitty, Goya, nor Matisse. I didn’t give him any prompts. He was looking at a a paper copy of the images I printed off AandP,
About HK-Goya: “less instantly appealing [than HK-Matisse] because darker, less contrasty. However, it’s a satire, on closer inspection. The soldiers are killing the bear and its friends. An adult theme. Don’t hang this one in the nursery. It should go in grandpa’s billiard room.”
About HK-Matisse: “This one — for the vivid contrast and cheerful child-like colors. It’s a piece for children — fairy-tale like and suitable for hanging in the nursery.”
So those are responses from a reasonably intelligent but clueless-about-context adult. I don’t know what you can do with them, but I offer them up.