Hey Joe, thanks for posting that, never saw it before and I can’t resist making a few observations.

The wooden maquette is central to the painting. It is sitting on a toy drum which itself sits uncomfortably in a cramped rock island, that oddly looks as if it also could be a pedestal,  surrounded by an artificial looking set of sky and water. The maquette appears to be juggling Christmas glass ornaments perhaps combined with a few balloons, notice the one in the upper left hand corner dragging the sky along with it. One of the ornaments is broken, the ornament is red and the broken shell shapes could easily double as drops of blood.

There are two floating polished glass ornaments that appear to have reflections of people on them. Perhaps the artist’s own reflection or some other scene. Three famous examples of reflections are in the The Arnolfini Marriage by van Eyck painting of a marriage; Las Meninas by Velazquez; and a self-portrait reflected in a glass ball by Escher. I think what is reflected in those two glass balls is important; unfortunately I can not get in closer to see them.

The maquette’s head is the most inconsequential aspect in the painting. It is in a vertical stagnant pose; neither tilted nor large nor seeing, a simple small wooden knob.

The maquette’s left leg is irrelevantly kicking up its foot perhaps kicking/knocking upwards one of the reflected ornaments. The other foot is pressed down on a colorful yellow ornament, calls to mind the expression of “putting my foot down” but so far hasn’t done so.

The painting has an irrelevant surreal quality, like the balloon making off with the cloud…reality here is not taken very seriously.

The maquette is something of mentally absent clown, the drum hints at a clown’s prop, trying to balance a few too many fragile separate things. And all of this is taking place on a rock island pedestal, recalls the expression “I am a rock”.

I find the piece morbidly saccharine and would prefer to see the wooden puppet come ferociously to life and smash the living daylights out of all those fragile floating identities; and laugh with exhilaration that he didn’t have walk on eggshells and could abandon the balancing act!

Hahahah, that’s my take!

Newberry

(Edited by Newberry on 2/12, 7:54pm)

Hey guys,

Ummm, art criticism? It is kinda strange, on another topic, I have differences with many aesthetic intellectuals in the Postmodern world and  in objectivist circles: McClosky, Torres, Kahmi, Cox. When writing about an artwork they and what is generally common is to have an art historical approach. That the day of the artist, their habits, thoughts about art and stuff, what they did in life, etc inform the art. Along with criticism of the work. But often you hear that to understand the work you need to know what the artist intended or the time they worked.

For me that is irrelevant for art criticism though it is essential for placing the artist in history. To use stronger language when faced with the artwork don’t give a shit about the artist or what they thought; just look at the work and find out what it is telling you. I share this attitude with Rand, that an evaluation of an artwork is based on what is in the work allowing no other outside considerations.

I think what is cool about that approach is that it doesn’t allow for much speculation…if you can’t confirm it in the work it doesn’t hold up.

…haha, so Marcus and Joe, juggle that! Hahaha,

Michael

(Edited by Newberry on 2/13, 5:51am)

Peter,

I had a hoot at your post, its great to have someone understand me!

Jonathan,

You must be one interesting bird. Metaphysical value judgments are as difficult to find and validate in literature as any other art form. That is difficult is not the same as impossible as you suggest.

Your guesses on the possible meanings of the painting are really astute and very good but then that is barely scratching the surface. You have to then go through all the visual information, really like a detective, and come up with the theme that is justified by all the visual info you have. If your suggested theme doesn't fit, you got to toss all or part of it and keep going. Man, its work.

And there could be several interpretations but to be objectively valid they must be supported by the visual evidence in the work.

I really do think it is irrelevant when the artist tells you their intended theme…in many cases it simply isn’t support by visual work…but then that becomes very interesting, to find out what the artist is really saying. You seem to think that what an artist states goes. What goes is what is in the work.

But you are right that there can be the possibility that an artist is confused or not very good…but that will unfold as well by examination.

I would like to make another observation, a painting might not have a simple theme, it maybe strange, confused, subtle or terribly complex, or a nuance of contradictory emotions…I think finding out the nuances of that is like trying to understand a complex lover, pigeon holing them will not do, to get under their skin you have to be quick to react to subtleties…and that can all add up to a wonderful experience.

Newberry