Previous: ambrosino continued (18)

Next: roundup (9)

muniz at tachmes and smoke, oh my

Post #411 • November 18, 2004, 8:57 AM • 11 Comments

The theme of the week seems to be Not Major, But Enjoyable. Victor Muñiz showed drawings and a mural at Leonard Tachmes. Both the small works and the large one had raucous comic energy. Comics and comics-inspired work falls off the map for a lot of people, but I'm a fan, and Muñiz is quite good at it, working in the surrealist tradition of LSD-era Robert Crumb and various non-narrative artists in publications like Raw.

Nearby Smoke Gallery had a Halloween party and exhibition. Smoke proprietors Emilio Remoir and Steve Corbo are former students of mine from Dade North, and I'm proud of them for opening a gallery next to Ambrosino and MoCA, where they totally don't fit in. Remoir's piece below didn't go over too well with Bonnie Clearwater, rumor has it.

The back room showed, under black lights, haunting but handsome photos of Mexican (?) slaughterhouses by Mario Flores.




November 18, 2004, 5:31 PM

I'm afraid I am off the map, or at the edge at least, when it comes to this kind of thing. Having been an art editor and cartoonist myself in my far-away younger days, and a striving serious artist subsequently, I know there is a difference. Besides, Heerman's Krazy Kat is more art on an old comics page than any of the ambitious stuff I have seen up on the walls, certainly including Keith Haring, Crumb and the others. it is fun and likable but much more so on the pages of the old MAD magazine, and it cannot satisfy the urge for the best.

Mexican slaughterhouses? Must we always be grisly & gory and laden with horriblisme? It is so done to death (so to speak).



November 18, 2004, 5:34 PM

That's "Herriman", of course. Sorry.



November 18, 2004, 6:53 PM

I think Muniz is a new talent we should keep an eye on.



November 18, 2004, 10:36 PM

the 'north miami is dead" piece seems to have a lot of anger and the anti-establishment angst. too bad, those feelings aren't well-aimed. introduce them to goya. i want to hear from that voice more often.



November 19, 2004, 1:27 AM

Why don't they fit in, Franklin? I don't really see that. They may be new on the scene, but so is everybody initially. It's not as if they represent some sort of radical departure or totally new approach. They're not the same as Ambrosino or Tachmes, but then they couldn't be, could they? As for MOCA, they just need to get into brightly colored glass do-dads, preferably large ones; that should do the trick.


Jerome du Bois

November 19, 2004, 1:45 AM

Aaahooo, werewolves of Miami.

But the teeth are about as real as the edginess.



#1 Fan

November 19, 2004, 5:18 AM

victor muniz can draw like a mutha. those pieces are gorgeous. and as for some previous commentor (tracy) criticizing muniz's art history education, it seems absolutely superfulous. although i do agree with tracy's comment about giordano's sense of composition (or lack there of). the halloween stuff doesn't even deserve comment and franklin just because it was squeezed between two good galleries and it may seem "edgy" doesn't mean you have post that crappy ass work.



November 19, 2004, 4:57 PM

You really should get out and see some real drawing, #1 fan. This stuff is fun and exhuberant, but as for "drawing like a 'mutha'", well, it's OK. There are pure cartoon artists by the dozens out there who draw way better than this, and who have evolved more original styles and methods.

And while an ignorance of Guston may have no direct bearing on this particular exhibit of drawing, it certainly is a shameful comment on the guy's education (which was Tracy's point) and leads me to think that there must be an awful lot more he does not know and has not been exposed to, knowledge and information that is not only useful but necessary for a young artist. One of the fundamental problems of the art we see around here is that it is being made by kids who know very little about art.



November 19, 2004, 5:57 PM

I'm going to say it again: I don't think an ignorance of Guston is indicative of a poor art education. Does anyone have Muniz's resume? Did he concentrate in painting or US/European art history? If not, I can't suppose that he should have encountered Guston. Guston is not typically included in core art history courses, and is not likely to be discussed if a student is concentrating in sculpture, video, illustration, design, ceramics, metals, printmaking, performance, or graphic design. The history of painting is not the entire history of art.. Even in the history of US/European painting, Guston is not a large figure. He does have a certain following and a legacy, sure, but is it really relevant to Muniz's work? He might benefit from knowing about Guston, but he certainly is not deficit if he does not.

Further, claiming that one's art education is shameful presupposes that art education ceases at a certain point. And now that Guston has been suggested to Muniz, we can assume that his education is no longer shameful? Or is he damned to shame forever as he was "poorly" educated in college? At what point can he raise his head in public once more? Should we extend the shame to his educators? Let's track them down and put them in the stocks for omitting Guston!



November 19, 2004, 8:59 PM

Read what was written, Kathleen. His education was said to be shameful, not the artist himself. Tracy wrote >. My comments reflected this.

I assume that entails an undergraduate and a graduate degree in art school, presumably 7 years of concentrated art education at highly respected institutions. Guston is included in any art history course that purports to teach art after WW2, and any student in an art school in any course of study that I have ever heard of requires at least a couple such courses and usually several that are more concentrated.

Furthermore, it is incorrect to say that Guston is "not a large figure". His 50s paintings are part of the basic story of Abstract Expressionism and his post-70s pictures, after his notorious first show of cartoonish figures at Marlborough Gallery in 1970 (I think it was 1970) are part of the subsequent history pf painting because he became a reference point for the whole generation of Neo-Expressionist painters of the 80s as well as many others. His pictures are sought by all collectors of the period and museums and bring huge prices at auction.

Even if Muniz was not taught about Guston in school, which i find incredible, it is equally hard to believe that he would not take interest in Guston subsequently, given his style and subject matter.

In other words, with all due respect, you are just plain wrong.



November 19, 2004, 9:00 PM

Tracy's comment was left out for some reason it was:

I have to wonder just what a new world school and RISD education actually buys you these days



Other Projects


Design and content ©2003-2022 Franklin Einspruch except where otherwise noted