Re: Painting the Town

by valis00 (03.21.07 10:11 pm)

I realize these posts are supposed to be a bit tongue-in-cheek, that’s why I like to read them so much, but it's a bit reckless — not to mention weak reportage — to spend one night out with a bunch of CalArts chronies and imply that they are fully representative of what is going on painting-wise in LA. Kudos to Tom Lawson! He is no doubt a stalwart teacher, worthy of any and all accolades due him, but neither he nor his most successful students exemplify prevailing attitudes in painting out here. The simple reality is that, weather you like it or not, the times are a’changin’. It’s no longer safe or funny to judge art by the same tired old standards of the last 40 years. LA’s greatest asset as a community of artists is that it has always been wildly unpredictable. The only reason anybody pays attention to what is going on out here is exactly because the reality on the ground is not nearly as pat as what the author implies. As with any satire, it’s only funny if it’s true! I look to these posts as a humorous assessment of the world I live in. The author would do well to abandon schoolish prejudices to enjoy what’s so exciting about what’s going on out here right now.

Re: Painting the Town

by StephenP (03.23.07 10:08 am)

The times they are always a-changin' - that's what keeps us looking!

Re: Painting the Town

by valis00 (03.23.07 02:05 pm)

True that! I defer to the wise gentleman.

Re: Painting the Town

by nonce (03.23.07 09:26 pm)

If only other CalArts artists, past and present, jacked into the same kind of cronyism described here, maybe we'd hear a little more about folks like Mitchell Syrop or Dee Williams.

Not to knock painting, or the artists in this article, though. Abstract painting, especially, can be as political as anything; it's a matter of strategy and context.

Re: Painting the Town

by dopplebock (03.26.07 01:24 pm)

Dana Who?