My words: At first I was looking at images of Tuyman's work, remembering having seen them before and recognizing their muted color palette. I wasn't very interested in what I was seeing - which is the same way that I felt the first time I glanced at his work - emphasis on glance. I had never paid attention to his work for several reasons: He is very much a painter - many painter friend's of mine had referenced or at least better knew his work. Also, his subject matter didn't draw me in, his painting style/brush didn't draw me in, his muted color didn't draw me in.
Then I read on saatchi what his work was about, where it came from, and what was really going on. I then became interested. And in reference to what is said on the saatchi site - I can now see that in his work. I don't know if I didn't take the time to see more in his work or if his work requires one to know more of the background.
From Saatchi:
'Exposing the gap between represented image and historical event, Luc Tuymans's paintings delve into the inner workings of how mythology is created. The reality of Luc Tuymans's work is almost 'twee', pleasing images of a lampshade or leopard-skin rug pass quite comfortably as aesthetic totems; it's only their cognitive association with the Holocaust, or atrocities of the Belgian Congo, that encapsulates the true banality of evil - the unspeakable horror in a teacup, the monstrous potential of an empty bath. Luc Tuymans's paintings consciously fall desperately short of the iconic, becoming vestiges posed as counterfeit emblems for that which cannot be conveyed.'
My words:
Uh, wow. I see it. (Elsewhere I read that a relative of his was a nazi soldier that died and he had a mentally challenged aunt who was in the camps. ) The banality of evil is definitely something i've found myself preoccupied with at various times in my life (and to varying degrees) - I grew up wondering how in the hell such a thing as the holocaust could have happened (like the rest of the world). This is quite silly, but I remember feeling guilty or at least "my direct relatives weren't there" kind of feeling while growing up in a small Texas German Catholic community. I read, my namesake, Hannah Arendt's Banality of Evil and understood what she was searching for. It (evil) is still mysterious. One still can't put your finger on it...I like that Tuyman's work deals with this elusive and very human subject matter--and he deals with the elusiveness at that.
From Saatchi:
"Still Life is a monument to this inadequacy of language. Made initially for the 2002 Documenta, Luc Tuymans was expected to present paintings of images relating to 9/11 to coincide with the exhibition's theme of political and social engagement. What he decided to show was a giant still life. The sheer scale makes the contemplation of this painting almost impossible: a vast canvas representing an absolute nothingness. Luc Tuymans chose the subject of still life precisely because it was utterly unremarkable; a generic 'brand' of 'object' rendered to immense scale; it is banality expanded to the extreme. The simplicity of Luc Tuymans's composition alludes to a pure and uninterrupted world order; the ephemeral light, with which the canvas seems to glow, places it as an epic masterpiece of metaphysical and spiritual contemplation. In response to unimaginable horror, Luc Tuymans offers the sublime. A gaping magnitude of impotency, which neither words nor paintings could ever express."
My Words:
Oh my god, I am in love with the words above. I am in love with what Luc is doing....I'm still not attracted to his work visually....although i haven't seen it in person (that i remember) -- but it is purposely unremarkable and i respect that. With the above words of "In response to unimaginable horror, Luc Tuymans offers the sublime." -- I wonder if the sublime is the aesthetic way to deal with the unimaginable - the result or the tactic? I am thinking of my previous post about Eve Sussman and my video piece, Ave maria. I couldn't talk about something directly, or thought i couldn't, and the work ended up being sublime. I don't even know if it was purposeful or not... But it does make sense that those things that are unimaginable can only be spoken of in terms of something else unimaginable (or only imaginable to a degree) and that would be that definition of sublime I had mentioned before via Gina: the moment of peacefulness when confronting death - that split second...
Saatchi:
If media images inadequately depict the horrors of reality, then Luc Tuymans's paintings are even more disturbingly detached. Often taking his imagery from published photos (of war, violence, subjugation), the paintings are the antithesis of this historic iconography: dull tones, vague, nondescript scenes, stripped of emotional propaganda.
"Maypole suggests only the mistiest remnants of a memory: men in lederhosen raising a mast (Cross?), with flags waving in the distance, they could be scouts, pioneers, morris dancers or Hitler Youth. Though it's painted with the faded language of nostalgia, Maypole is strangely empty: void of sympathy or moral, Luc Tuymans renders a scene twice-removed, making it impulsively human. Without context of history or source, the viewer is left to engage with the painting on a purely instinctive level; being drawn into the evils of history, he adopts his own role as a silent and willing observer."
My Words:
oh my god again. The comparison of his work to that of propaganda and media's depiction of war (horror)!!!!! Yes! I am excited about this! It is so pertinent. Once again, an image and even words cannot - CANNOT - depict what it really is - the horror, the humanness-- (only touch it slightly here and there in a partial and removed way in good art). I like that Tuyman's is talking about that impossibility - that failure of ours to not be able to fully express something from our lives.
From Saatchi:
Luc Tuymans paints the indescribable. His dark muted scenes seem vaguely familiar, distant, like haunting memories. Drawing his inspiration from grand themes, Luc Tuymans taps into a universal social guilt: from the Holocaust, or imperialism, to child abuse. By minimalizing his images, he creates a raw emotion through paint; each painting linking spiritually, somehow instinctively, to the rest.
Within is a tranquil vermin metaphor for contamination and disease. A close-up detail of a birdcage, this painting more than conveys feelings of hopelessness and isolation: through its sheer size and potency, it literally traps the viewer, swallowing him into a prison of collective consciousness.
I am going to have to go see his work in person - i think there is something up in Chelsea right now... I wonder if i'll be as moved by viewing his work as I have been about the IDEA behind his work. I may not.... It is difficult since his work is purposely about the failure to express something...it makes it purposely 'unappealing' in some kind of way 0--- i mean it isn't going to grab me, is it? Maybe i can still be a fan of his work and not be attracted to it aesthetically... We'll see.
No comments:
Post a Comment