Previous: Roundup (15)

Next: Greetings, Southern Californians (27)

New work

Post #1022 • June 18, 2007, 6:52 PM • 28 Comments

Self-Portrait, SG1, SG2, NDM1, LB1, KS1, RD1, RD2, ML1. (Update: Key portions of titles included so I can tell what people are talking about.) It may just be easier to browse from the 2007 page, for the time being. (Update: You could also start at the one and click "next." Yeah, that'll work.)

Pent-up slathering, I guess.




June 18, 2007, 7:17 PM

SG1 especially & also Self-Portrait best yet, by far. KS1 & SG2 also very good. Keep on slashing!



June 18, 2007, 7:40 PM

upon first glance, the self-portrait is the best complete all aound picture, but some others do show a stronger liveliness with potential.



June 18, 2007, 8:03 PM

I like the style and the use of color in the oils. I much perfer the oils over the others.



June 18, 2007, 8:20 PM

Sometimes going backward is the best way to move forward. Like now, for you, Franklin.



June 18, 2007, 8:34 PM

Really, I think the key is to keep slashing. What woks less well is when thick slabs of the same value & color are used to "follow" the areas of the figure, as in RD1 and ML1, which creates a draw & fill situation.

SG1 just smashes it all together. One value-area does not follow another value area at all but the figure is still maintained.

Kosloff & Auerbach do this well sometimes.



June 18, 2007, 9:48 PM

Opie, I was thinking the contrary - I like how the low-value lines cut the space apart into something more structural and less soupy. That's what I liked about KS1, which is also where I through black off of the palette. After that structural feeling jumped out at me, I started seeing how intense I could make some of the lines, which is where the RDs and ML1 came out of.To my eye, that network of dark cuts is working. What do you think?



June 18, 2007, 9:49 PM

Threw black off the palette.



June 19, 2007, 12:20 AM

Your forms have solidified, thanks to the series that researched flatness. And I like. But I haven't looked closely enough yet to provide critique. Later.



June 19, 2007, 7:24 AM

way to go franklin. Really good paintings!! Much better than the previous.

Color, mark and shading work for me. The self portrait is my favorite but SG2, RD1, RD2 and ML1 also very strong.



June 19, 2007, 7:33 AM

I agree with the most people, the self-portrait is the best. The question is why? This is my personal opinion but the self-portrait is the simplest visually among whole series. The two dominant colors in bold and dynamic slashes of the figure seperates well from the subdued background. Despite destortion we, viewers, still can follow artist's logic and his interpratation of reality versus us/viewers past experiences of the reality. This is the most unique language of the painting - a fine line between realism and abstraction. None of the other media besides painting, in my opinion, can achieve the intensity of attention where the viewer's mind locks with the artist's mind in the intellectual conversation of easthetic, complex ralationship of form and color etc. We are born with more visual brain than anything else and paintings may address those inborn qualities and needs. Anyway, your Self-portrait leads viewer to the visual discovery and you did excellent job walking the fine line discussed above.



June 19, 2007, 8:58 AM

Franklin - we may be talking at cross-purposes. "Less soupy" is certainly good; that's what I see in SG1 because of the intermixture of fast, different-colored strokes. By "structure" I believe you mean the isolation & relating of specific, paint-laden areas, which is working much less well, and I would say the RDs and ML1 would exemplify that. The portrait seems to operate differently, perhaps because of the singular shape without articulated background.



June 19, 2007, 1:25 PM

I like the RDs. There is something specific in them, something exciting--potential for the paint to really move inside the form. It doesn't, yet...until the hair and parts of face in pink bathrobe. Very glad to see the oils, very glad.


Marc Country

June 19, 2007, 2:19 PM

My picks:

Self Portrait



Why? I dunno... maybe the forms are more distinct from their surroundings...



June 19, 2007, 2:34 PM

It's cuz great eyes all see alike, Marc


Marc Country

June 19, 2007, 2:43 PM

True enough.



June 19, 2007, 3:32 PM

definitely with all of your pictures in this style you are working in that auerbachish realm, but it looks like with some of the lastest pictures that you could draw somewhat of a link to what your buddy Jordan was doing when he was painting those wild "animals". and that is not a bad thing. that bull he did was very good. probably a stretch , but it did pop in my head.

also after going to jordans page, i noticed that he has done some of that "stage set" collage Rauch stuff as well.



June 19, 2007, 6:43 PM

The self portrait is very good. Artists (at least figurative ones) nearly always outdo themselves somehow when they paint themselves. I've seen that happen consistently; it's not a coincidence. SG1 reminds me of an Italian Futurist picture in some ways, though it's less fussy. SG2 has echoes of Picasso's Demoiselles. Nice. RD1 should be repackaged (or retitled) as a Mary Magdalen (as soon as I did that, I liked it better; it's my Guido Reni gene), but the Munch effect is a tad too lurid. ML1 is better compositionally or design-wise than otherwise; the left third is especially problematic for me. Interesting stuff, Franklin (really).



June 19, 2007, 7:38 PM

while it is difficult for me to put this into words and it may come out not quite right, one of the reasons the self-portrait picture works is because it comes off more in connection with cezanne and classic 1914 picasso than auerbach, as compareed to the others.

as a whole it really holds together and works nicely, but the refined fracturing of the head and neck is what brings it to life.



June 19, 2007, 7:44 PM

The self portrait in that tight format is one of the easiest problems in painting. I'm glad it's working well, but at the same time there's no way to mess it up.



June 19, 2007, 7:54 PM

Franklin, there's always a way to mess something up, even if some things are easier to pull off than others (generally speaking). You should never underestimate incompetence and/or serious lack of natural talent.


Marc Country

June 20, 2007, 2:43 AM


Self Portrait: The face on the right side of the pictrure looks wounded: that meaty cheek, and shit-kicked eye, describe a beaten man in a painter's smock. The nose is broken, in several places. Otherwise, it's a beaut.

SG1: Explosive. Opie says "slashing", Jack says "Italian Futurist" (as opposed to Australian, of course), so we're all stabbing at the same thrashing animal. I find the purple area questionable visually, and inexplicable representationally, so I wouldn't mind seeing it change.

SG2: Figure/ground definition seems murky. I also find myself wishing the figure wasn't so tightly framed, perhaps to lessen the somewhat violent tension of the pose depicted (made more 'violent' by the 'slashing' brushstrokes, maybe). Or, maybe it's just the hair.

NDM1:Good colour. A lot to like about this picture, but I find the lower legs attach to each other too much, anc separate from the rest of the body, likewise. I also crave some definition in the shoulder/chest area.

LB1: Nice dark, heavy pcture. Great ass (cheeky devil). The arm/armpit dark slach seems overdone, though. And, do all your figures have their hands in their twats, or what?

KS1: That's not black? On the arm, and the foot? Well, it works like black, at least in these pcitures. Through and threw. Hot painting.. I'd like to see her seat cooled off, maybe... less fleshy, maybe more visible structure to the chair?...

RD1: I'm having problems with the hand/wrist area, and also, some unclear misgivings which Ope's comments may point more clearly to. Also, some nit-picky facial things...

RD2: Nice. Buzzy, in a way, kinda like Wayne Thibauld (sp?) Something in the face/background hair connection/are irks my eye. Otherwise, another goodie.

ML1: Don't take this the wrong way, but the figure seems a bit... Gumbyesque. And dare I say the words, 'stage-like' space? Nevermind. Say, is that blood on the radiator from the model's leg? Ouch.




June 20, 2007, 1:54 PM

Marc, nothing against Australians, but Futurism happened to be an Italian movement.


Marc Country

June 20, 2007, 2:04 PM

Interesting, and so true, Jack.
Sometimes, I get them mixed up with the Venetian Blinds (who use less diagonals) and the Roman Numerals (mostly text-based stuff).
Then, there's always the "Inveterate Futurists" that Clem mentions...



June 20, 2007, 7:21 PM

Is that "inveterate" or "invertebrate"?



June 20, 2007, 11:13 PM

Really enjoyed seeing this new work, Franklin. It's pretty chewy.

I agree, apparently, with the majority as I think the self-portrait is the most successful. At the risk of making an obvious observation- the super thick impasto seems the antithesis of the last group of work I remember seeing from you, flat areas of color - collaged, I think- that bent over backwards to emphasize their flatness. Can I ask what was up with that? I know you might not answer, but I'm curious about how it relates to what you're doing here.



June 21, 2007, 10:43 AM

Katie, if you look at the work from 2004 and earlier ('05 was a bad year) you'll see that the flat, collage-like work was the antithetical series. I've been working with impastos more or less consistently since 2001. Doing the 2006 work, though, seems to have affected the color in the recent paintings for the better. I'm throwing down invented hues here and there rather than observed ones, which I think has sweetened them.



June 21, 2007, 11:21 AM

...good - back to the painterliness again- you must not be living in Miaimi...
Cheers !



June 25, 2007, 12:23 PM

Greetings! Very interesting site! Visit these sites, you know about much interesting! [I know everything about interesting. - F.]



Other Projects


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