Previous: special offer (4)

Next: the self-criticism of self-criticism (24)

palmbeach3

Post #456 • January 18, 2005, 11:40 AM • 26 Comments

I enjoyed myself without effort at palmbeach3. I saw lots to like, the size felt manageable, and the division of the fair into three sections (contemporary art, photography, and crafts) made sense. It had more to see than Art Miami (which now looks even more useless by comparison) but didn't have the drowning-in-art atmosphere of Art Basel. Exhibitors tended to frown and bobble their heads side to side when asked if they were having a good fair. I heard many of them wish for more people, and wonder whether the other two fairs had sucked the energy out of the local art lovers. But several said they were doing well.

Eric Forstmann at Eckert.

Andrea Belag at Heinz Holtmann.

Mary Joan Waid at Nohra Haime.

I can barely read my writing, but I think my note says Guido Anderloni at Karpio Facchini.

Pierre Marie Brisson at Franklin Bowles.

Auerbach (terrible shot, slightly better than nothing) and Freud at Archeus.

Eric Aho at Tory Folliard.

Janusz Walentynowicz at Tory Folliard.

Ruprecht Dreher at Dogenhaus.

Craig Kauffman at Franklin Parrasch.

Howard Hodgkin at Hackett Freedman.

A crazy little Milton Avery at Hackett Freedman.

David Ligare at Hackett Freedman.

Terry Rodgers at Fay Gold. The first time I saw this guy's work it pissed me off. Now, I sort of got into it. It struck me as Rosenquistian. (Rosenquixotic?).

Angelina Nasso at Fay Gold.

Yan Rauchwerger at Dvir.

David Hollingsworth at Goya.

Comment

1.

alesh

January 18, 2005, 8:18 PM

Once again has decided not to show us any of the photography, but it was actually pretty impressive, especially some of the older stuff. I have a few names at home which I'll post later on.

The size was more managable, although looking back on it now the stuff I saw in the first half hour definetly made more of an impression on me then the rest the day. But nice stuff all around. Somehow, being in Palm Beach made the whole thing seem very natural, even having a booth with jewelry.

2.

Franklin

January 18, 2005, 8:33 PM

Sorry, but until Photoshop invents a filter called Remove Reflected Image of Einspruch's Gleaming Dome, we're not going to see a lot of photography here. Alesh is right, though - the photo section had impressive work.

3.

Franklin

January 18, 2005, 8:34 PM

I hasten to add that the Anderloni is a photograph.

4.

catfish

January 18, 2005, 8:44 PM

Franklin, try a polarizing filter ON THE CAMERA, not in Photshop. They work wonders. Assuming you use a SLR, you should be able to twrill the thing until the dome disappears.

5.

Jack

January 18, 2005, 8:44 PM

I didn't go this year, but I'm sure it was far better than Art Miami. The guy behind the Palm Beach fair used to be behind the Swiss Basel, so he knows a thing or two. The PB Convention Center is also a much nicer facility than the one on Miami Beach, which is not crucial but helps.

Sales are obviously the bottom line for art fairs, and maybe Art Miami sells enough to keep going, but it has little if any credibility by now, so its future seems uncertain. I certainly wouldn't miss it if it ended.

6.

alesh

January 18, 2005, 9:00 PM

I didn't realize. It (the Anderloni) was much more impressive when I thought it was a painting.

The polarizing filter is a good idea, but don't you have one of those HP digicams? No thread on that one, I don't think, so that's a no-go (unless you rig something?)

Another possible strategy is to shoot from some angle where reflections are minimized, then turn trapezoids back into rectangles in photoshop. 'S worked for me in the past.

7.

oldpro

January 18, 2005, 9:08 PM

This is an intersting group of pictures. My take:

Forstmann: impresssive as trompe l'oeil, pretty chilly as a painting.

Belag: Clumsy, awkwardly set up,needs to crop & develop color further.

Waid: nice enough.

Anderloni: Gimmick city. Why blur?

Brisson: OK, would like to see more

Auerbach looks good, even out of focus. Interesting that he maintains such high visibility with such an "out of it" painting style.

Freud: Good, nice developed drawing style. Somehow Freud is one of those artists I "recognize" as being pretty good but don't get much from. Such are the vagaries of taste.

Aho: nice try, but too much deliberate blurriness and not enough value contrast along the middle ground trees

Walentynowicz: The 3D version of the trend for anemic figure work. Ugh. Zilch.

Dreher: Like Belag, dull set-up & composition, bright but unmoving color.

Kaufman: Wow, I haven't seen one of his lozenges for 30 years. is he still doing them?

Hodgkin: He is serious and respectable but too precious for me. I never got much from his pictures and I have seen acres of them

Avery: Nice, a good figure painting from Avery who was really a landscape painter. Looks like the paint might be crazed some.

Ligare: I would have taken this for the kind of surrealist-incluenced work being shown all over the place in the 30s. Nicely painted but dull.

Rodgers: fairly skillful, uninteresting. Looking vaguely like Rosenquist is hardly a plus, as far as i am concerned.

Nasso: OK. Pretty standard abstraction. There are galleries in NY that specialize in this sort of thing. It seems to do well.

Rauchwerger: Nice Bonnardish painting, pretty good color. Could have been cropped in on the right.

Hollingsworth: By far the most intreresting picture on the page (thought I think the Auerbach may be the best). I would like to see more by this person - there are indications that could go either way, into terminal cuteness or rich painterliness. The little "seaform" bits are OK here but are worrisome if the feeling they convey becomes more a part of his paintings.

8.

Chad Harris

January 18, 2005, 10:31 PM

I think the color choices in the Hollingsworth are pandering. But, what do I know?

9.

oldpro

January 18, 2005, 10:35 PM

What do you mean by "pandering". Chad? I didnl't think the colors were that great, but I didn't discern much of anything else about them, except that they were fairly "individual", that is, apparently peculiar to the artist.

10.

Hovig

January 18, 2005, 10:42 PM

I second oldpro's assessments, more or less. I'm not a big Hodgkins fan either, but I actually liked the piece above, especially taken next to the Dreher and Belag. Also the Auerbach. I have the same problem with some de Kooning, I just don't like works that manipulate the human form "inhumanly." (I'm far more disturbed by de Kooning's woman than anything by Basquiat, Hirst or the Chapmans.)

Franklin - Is the Dreher piece 3-D? The Rodgers work reminded me more of Phil Pearlstein than Rosenquist. At least Rosenquist tries to say a bit more than "lazy naked people at a party." If you want lazy naked people, I think Pearlstein's the guy.

Tho I should say I'm growing more accustomed to the Auerbach as I look more. Still a horrifying image tho. (Another view here.) And I think the Hollingsworth is wearing off on me. It's falling increasingly on the decorative side, tho maybe I'll change my mind again if I keep looking--but as for all those mexican sycamore seed pods stuck all over it ... well ... like Canadian geese in the northeastern states, those things litter the ground here in Houston.

11.

Chad Harris

January 18, 2005, 11:03 PM

I'm not a big fan of that retro Target green - although this is a little more olive. It looks like he's a middle aged man trying to be hip - emphasis on trying. At least there's no hot pink.

The Milton Avery is touching and interesting.

12.

Franklin

January 18, 2005, 11:19 PM

That texture in the Avery comes from scraping, not crazing, if that's what you meant, Oldpro.

I'll try the polarizing filter - I think I have threads.

The Dreher is 2D. There's a shadow strip under the horizontal, but it's flat.

The Hodgkin and Rodgers are wearing off on me. I'm liking that Rauchwerger more and more.

Auerbach has nailed the paintstroke-width to image-width ratio. I think that comes through even without the focus.

13.

alesh

January 18, 2005, 11:24 PM

I distinctly enjoyed this piece, when I saw it IN PERSON. The "green" is actually a muddy yellow, and the "sycamore seed pods" are dabs of paint (this is a very three-dimensional painting, even more so then franklin's recent self-portraits).

14.

that guy in the back row

January 19, 2005, 12:09 AM

Funny how the art Franklin posted and the resulting discussion more or less agrees with my assessment of the show. The Auerbach and the Hollingsworth were indeed the stand outs. Can't agree with alesh however, I thought the photo component was lacking. There were a couple of great Marilyn Monroe boob shots. Porn just has a hard time in the art arena.

15.

HE

January 19, 2005, 4:35 AM

I thought there were three sections to the show? and wasn't one of those sections photography? I mean after all that talk of Naomi Fisher's photograph I would think you would post some up (it was one third of the show). Anyway, I thought the Photography section of the fair was the strongest part with most of the contemporary section filled with board me I think I favor the painting styles exhibited at NADA so that may set me apart from the readers here.

16.

alesh

January 19, 2005, 5:21 AM

three photographers who blew me away at PB3:

Peter Bialobrzeski
(http://www.laurencemillergallery.com/bialobrzeski_exhibition.htm)

Frank van der Salm
(http://www.mkgalerie.nl/fvds.htm, tho not as good as the stuff they showed)

and Sigmar Polke, who's photo work is difficult to find online.

17.

Momoko

January 19, 2005, 7:22 AM

Regarding the trick to take pictures when reflections impede the images, I sometimes use an object to make a shade over which the reflection is prominent. The object could be anything as long as it makes a shade, but it is better if it is dark in color. You can paint the handle of the umbrella black and carry it around with you. Depending on where the light source comes from, sometimes it should work. Just don’t show it to security people.

18.

bookworm

January 19, 2005, 4:33 PM

I liked the Auerbach best too but
I really liked the Brisson. Study the figure. So natural yet not boring at all.I love looking at it and wouldn't tire of it I don't think. IT is animated and something is going to happen...

19.

doing more

January 20, 2005, 7:38 AM

it's always nice when something is touching and interesting; chad your comment made me look at that avery again -initially i had missed the piece. i didn't see pb3 but wish i had, even if the only sign of photography (posted here, that is) is premised trickery.
long live photo, death to all art tricksters....

20.

that guy in the back row

January 20, 2005, 9:46 AM

Nice baby photos doing more. Do you do weddings too?

21.

Franklin

January 20, 2005, 2:59 PM

Guy, that just wasn't nice. Some of those are decent photos, and surprisingly not cloying considering the subject matter.

22.

flatboy

January 20, 2005, 3:16 PM

Doing More, Guy, and Franklin: If babies are precious in real life - and they are - that does not protect pictures of babies from criticism when they are put up for the public to view. Hack away Guy. The only problem, Guy, is that they are good photographs. Impressive warm color diffused throughout. It is emphasized by their being on the dark side with reduced contrast. All stuff that enhances the already good color and other nice effects.

Anything goes in art, including the sentimental.

23.

that guy in the back row

January 20, 2005, 5:30 PM

okay, I had just got back from the studio and I always sleep better if I take a few pot shots at a random photographer. I had another look today with fresh eyes as it were, and I think this artist has a long way to go. Some of the color isn't bad. But the overall effect is cold, despite the warm light.

24.

doing more

January 21, 2005, 7:44 AM

hey guy,
cold? i guess you're able to assume knowledge in any realm but if my pictures are anything: it's not "cold." much like other 2-d work, the web changes them, wish you had the will to see beyond preconceived judgments. bloggin is awesome...i'm happy this forum exists, pot shots and all.........................

25.

that guy in the back row

January 21, 2005, 9:22 AM

cold, not so much in temperature, as in red=warm blue=cool, but rather cold in their effect on the viewer thats all. It might have something to do with the digital camera you are using. or the translation from film to digital whichever the case maybe. Put up some new ones or show them in public so this can be more closely examined. Interesting.

26.

Katherine

January 31, 2005, 11:54 AM

Rodgers' work is outstanding. Just saw a show of his in amsterdam. Mastery of composition. Much more interesting than either Pearlstein or Rosenquist. Fabulous painter.

Subscribe

@franklin_e

franklin.e

Offers

Other Projects

Legal

Design and content ©2003-2017 Franklin Einspruch except where otherwise noted