|
|
Post by commandax on May 31, 2010 23:07:17 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by svenman on Jun 1, 2010 0:59:58 GMT -8
had not heard of Aron prior to your post amanda. i like the charcoal pieces a lot.
enjoyed the interview too - thanks!
|
|
|
|
Post by |peetov| on Jun 1, 2010 3:12:39 GMT -8
thanks for sharing. this guy is rad.
|
|
|
|
Post by commandax on Jun 1, 2010 7:31:34 GMT -8
had not heard of Aron prior to your post amanda. i like the charcoal pieces a lot. enjoyed the interview too - thanks! Yes... like Inka Essenhigh, Thomas Woodruff and Julie Heffernan, Aron manages to create work that would fit right into our little corner of the art world while being represented exclusively by "highbrow" galleries. |
|
|
|
Post by chetzar on Jun 1, 2010 12:18:16 GMT -8
Wow! I love this stuff!
|
|
grit
Full Member
Posts: 139
|
Post by grit on Jun 1, 2010 13:55:21 GMT -8
This work is awesome!
Mind my ignorance, but why would Aron's work here be considered 'Contemporary Art' where maybe some one like Ken Kierns or Lori Early be considered Lowbrow/Pop Surrealism?
Obviouly they all have different styles, but Arons work seems to share some similarities to the artists I mentioned (as well as many others) who exagerate limbs or the human form.
This might be a stupid question, or just show my general overall lack of understanding of art analysis, but i thought I would ask.
|
|
|
|
Post by commandax on Jun 1, 2010 15:23:01 GMT -8
This work is awesome! Mind my ignorance, but why would Aron's work here be considered 'Contemporary Art' where maybe some one like Ken Kierns or Lori Early be considered Lowbrow/Pop Surrealism? Obviouly they all have different styles, but Arons work seems to share some similarities to the artists I mentioned (as well as many others) who exagerate limbs or the human form. This might be a stupid question, or just show my general overall lack of understanding of art analysis, but i thought I would ask. I labeled it "Contemporary Art" because he shows exclusively in "highbrow" contemporary galleries. He's not part of this scene at all... he managed to start his painting career "inside" the fine art world. There are plenty of contemporary artists and sculptors who depict exaggerated proportions who aren't pop surrealists... and they've been doing it since Parmigianino in the 16th century, at least. Anyway, most artists these days are annoyed by both labels — there is a trend toward calling the whole movement "new contemporary." Parmigianino " Madonna of the Long Neck," 1535  |
|
grit
Full Member
Posts: 139
|
Post by grit on Jun 2, 2010 14:23:55 GMT -8
Thanks for the explaination and history lesson ammanda  I had no idea this kind of style was being painted for so long! I do find the labelling/pidgeon holing of art pretty interesting as well as annoying, but Aron was definetally an artist I find difficult to categorise. Either way I do like the move towards using the term 'new contemporary'. |
|
|
|
Post by commandax on Jun 2, 2010 18:07:32 GMT -8
I mean no insult but iv never heard the term New Contemporary used by any of my artist friends, collectors or associates except here from a few newer galleries and collectors. I am proud to work with Lowbrow, Pop Surrealist and Contemporary Artist. Thanks for letting me rant. Tom I mean no insult, but a lot of artists I've spoken with and interviewed think the terms "lowbrow" and "pop surrealism" are limiting, inaccurate and even a bit demeaning in some cases. I don't care for "new contemporary" much either, as it's both meaningless and redundant, but at least it doesn't offend artists when you apply it to them. The art world has changed, and there isn't such a need for labels and categorization as there was 10 or 20 years ago, when all of this naming took hold. The movement is bigger than the labels now. |
|
|
|
Post by virtu on Jun 2, 2010 19:36:10 GMT -8
No insult but are you not just labeling yourself.
I think an artist would be insulted if you labeled them Lowbrow or Pop Surrealist or Impressionist or Figurative if they were an Abstract Artist and so on.
It might not be the term Lowbrow that artist dislike so much but that someone does not know the artist work by saying it.
The artworld has only changed gallery & artist names but is still the same as it will be in 10 or 20 years when you look back.
|
|
|
|
Post by commandax on Jun 2, 2010 20:14:25 GMT -8
No insult but are you not just labeling yourself. I think an artist would be insulted if you labeled them Lowbrow or Pop Surrealist or Impressionist or Figurative if they were an Abstract Artist and so on. It might not be the term Lowbrow that artist dislike so much but that someone does not know the artist work by saying it. The artworld has only changed gallery & artist names but is still the same as it will be in 10 or 20 years when you look back. By putting Aron's work in the "Contemporary" category (which is, of course, one of only three choices we are given), I am leaving it up to the viewer to decide what to think of his work. Since we are all "contemporary," you can't get much more generic than that. He shows in a contemporary gallery in Soho, and draws his influence from artists like John Currin and Edward Hopper. He is not in any way connected with this scene, except for the fact that people who like this kind of art sometimes like his work. I guess you could say the same of Lisa Yuskavage and Julie Heffernan, but that does not make them pop surrealists. I believe this part of the art world has, in fact, changed a great deal. I've been watching it for 20 years and it's come a long, long way from where it started. I see it evolving swiftly even as we speak. Anyway, imagine how boring it would be if the art world — and our perception of it — remained the same as time passed. We would all be so much poorer for it. |
|
|
|
Post by virtu on Jun 2, 2010 20:26:57 GMT -8
Aron Wiesenfeld would be Contemporary to me as well.
Really love his style and was thinking a little Hopper influence myself.
Good eye.
|
|
|
|
Post by hellofructose on Jun 3, 2010 9:11:09 GMT -8
Thanks for the explaination and history lesson ammanda I had no idea this kind of style was being painted for so long! I do find the labelling/pidgeon holing of art pretty interesting as well as annoying, but Aron was definetally an artist I find difficult to categorise. Either way I do like the move towards using the term 'new contemporary'. I agree with CommandX wholeheartedly that labels can be limiting. In March Annie and I changed Hi-Fructose's Magazine tagline from "Under the Counter Culture" to "New Contemporary Art" on our print mag covers and soon after on the site. We found that "Under the Counter Culture" and other such monikers limiting. A. The art we like and cover can come from anywhere, street, gallery, punk show, back yard, and yes even a high brow gallery as well! B. We never were a culture magazine (at least after issue 1 ) but instead, showed art. C. needed the word "Art" in our title for proper stocking on store shelves. D. Counter culture sounds underground, and the existence of "underground" anything is arguable nowadays. So we thought "New Contemporary Art" would fit for the time being. Second place was "post-contemporary," but that sounded lofty for the sake of confrontation. It seems like gallerists and many artists like the term and it temporarily solves a bit of the "lowbrow" vs. "pop Surreal" problem for some, especially when including amazing art from the street or spectacle created "for the internet". Is Mars-1 or Josh Keyes lowbrow or pop surreal? donno... Artists like Wiesenfeld, whom we showcased in Hf vol.14 (check out more info on him in the dec.2009 issue), and many others, seem to fit within the boundless "New Contemporary" as they don't reference pop iconography or surreal approaches (although Wiesenfeld's paintings could be surreal dreamscapes in my opinion). We personally like art from where ever, called whatever, seen whenever you possibly can. We love it all, especially when it is good. When it's good, it will move you someway, or at least give you something to think about/cry about/laugh about, or to talk about at dinner, making work and everyday stuff more barable, if only by knowing that there exists someone out there creating personal work that shakes things up. -Atta |
|
grit
Full Member
Posts: 139
|
Post by grit on Jun 3, 2010 15:08:46 GMT -8
Really intersting comments from all. I feel like a dont really belong in the discusion anymore with my mega amatuer status, but I really enjoy reading your thoughts on the subject.
I like the term 'new contemorary' because it is so broad a term that it feels inclusive, and you can throw as many sub genres under the 'new contemporary' umbrella as you want. However I think that 'Lowbrow' and 'pop surrealism' will always be relevant to expressing the types of art we enjoy, and I dont think that should change either (if that even makes sense)
|
|
|
|
Post by hellofructose on Jun 3, 2010 17:59:25 GMT -8
I like the term 'new contemorary' because it is so broad a term that it feels inclusive, and you can throw as many sub genres under the 'new contemporary' umbrella as you want. However I think that 'Lowbrow' and 'pop surrealism' will always be relevant to expressing the types of art we enjoy, and I dont think that should change either (if that even makes sense) Well said. My thoughts exactly! Big umbrellas are the whole point, not specific words to replace something else... everyone in the pool, the water tastes like kool-aid  p.s. no sweating your comments, great to hear them. discussions are good. -atta |
|
|
|
Post by svenman on Jun 4, 2010 4:00:18 GMT -8
interesting perspective on your use of the term 'new contemporary' atta. i quite like that term myself. it's not too genre defining, polarizing or stigmatising to use when describing either the work or 'a movement', within the wider art world. i dread the day that someone starts using nu-con  - i'm sure it will happen. glad to see you joining in the discussions here. hi fructose has been a breath of fresh air as a publication... i sort of regard jux as a 'lowbrow' mag, but h-f as 'nu-con'.... oh, shit i just did it. shoot me now! |
|
|
|
Post by chetzar on Jun 4, 2010 8:30:54 GMT -8
I don't care for the term "New Contemporary" myself. It's redundant for one thing. It's like saying "New New". It's also not descriptive at all and just sounds really bland to me. It reminds me of when the record industry started trying to market punk rock as "New Wave". The "Lowbrow" and "Pop Surrealism" terms have a more irreverent feel to them, which is what a large part of this whole alternative art scene was originally all about. It also feels to me like it's trying to fit in with the establishment, and that's a sure way to neuter a movement.
While I am sure most of us want a certain degree of mainstream acceptance, I think it's important that we don't give up our core identity in exchange for that.
But it doesn't really matter what I think, labels aren't really that important. It seems like some just stick and you can't do anything about it anyway. I still don't feel like I have found an appropriate label for my own work, so I'll go with whatever sticks. It's the artwork that's important, not the label.
Just my own dumb opinions...
P.S. And to agree with Svenman, thank God for HF magazine. I was bummed when Juxtapoz took it's new direction. HF came in and saved the day! Thanks, Atta!
P.P.S. I love Aron Wiesenfeld's work!
|
|
|
|
Post by sleepboy on May 12, 2011 21:45:49 GMT -8
Not for his show this weekend in New York ( showthread), but still a pretty nice piece. I think it was a recent commission.  |
|
|
|
Post by commandax on May 13, 2011 6:53:06 GMT -8
Not for his show this weekend in New York ( showthread), but still a pretty nice piece. I think it was a recent commission. That piece was in the Arcadia booth at the L.A. Art Show in January and sold there for $40,000, I believe. It was pretty huge, something like 8x6. |
|
|
|
Post by virtu on May 13, 2011 9:41:08 GMT -8
Absolutely brilliant artist.
|
|
|
|
Post by sleepboy on May 27, 2011 12:52:59 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by sleepboy on Oct 23, 2011 15:08:15 GMT -8
Something new maybe.  |
|
|
|
Post by juggernut3 on Oct 23, 2011 17:12:32 GMT -8
Apologies, for I am very late to this discussion. But Chet hit it on the head in regards to "New Contemporary". The term is redundant as it means New-New. Everyone feels the need to coin a term for the period we are in and honestly, we can all throw in what we want, but it's up to the art historians to determine what ultimately fits for this period. We live in the Contemporary period of art. Like it or not as Commandax stated, blue chip contemporary artists Lisa Yuskavage and John Currin have styles that are in the same range of (what has been called) Low Brow artists such as Joe Sorrin, Audrey Kawasaki and Lori Early. The former group has been doing it a decade or two longer than the latter and of course with more substantial financial success and higher level gallery representation. But in the end it's all in the same period of art... which is contemporary art. If you want to lump their style in with a term, then maybe you can say surrealist or pop surrealist art style. But the as a category, I think it's wrong. As a definition of period of time for art, it's definitely wrong because as mentioned before, it's really up to the historians to define when a period of change has occurred in hindsight. We as artchival or some other representative entity can't say that a new era in art has occurred. By definition: Modern art = 1860's -1970's Contemporary art = 1980's - current date Remember sculptural, abstract, optical, performance, painterly and sound based art that is created under this current period (late 1970's to now) all fall under contemporary art. Not all contemporary art is sculptural, abstract, optical, performance, painterly and sound. Don't worry so much about genre/style labels as many artists consider them simply marketing labels; so most artists will complain about the labels if it limits their ceiling/marketability. You will never please all. I personally think it's very confusing to use new contemporary. The main stream art market just doesn't take our niche seriously when we start coining terms to justify this segment. '' I don't care for the term "New Contemporary" myself. It's redundant for one thing. It's like saying "New New". It's also not descriptive at all and just sounds really bland to me. It reminds me of when the record industry started trying to market punk rock as "New Wave". The "Lowbrow" and "Pop Surrealism" terms have a more irreverent feel to them, which is what a large part of this whole alternative art scene was originally all about. It also feels to me like it's trying to fit in with the establishment, and that's a sure way to neuter a movement. While I am sure most of us want a certain degree of mainstream acceptance, I think it's important that we don't give up our core identity in exchange for that. But it doesn't really matter what I think, labels aren't really that important. It seems like some just stick and you can't do anything about it anyway. I still don't feel like I have found an appropriate label for my own work, so I'll go with whatever sticks. It's the artwork that's important, not the label. Just my own dumb opinions... P.S. And to agree with Svenman, thank God for HF magazine. I was bummed when Juxtapoz took it's new direction. HF came in and saved the day! Thanks, Atta! P.P.S. I love Aron Wiesenfeld's work! |
|
|
|
Post by pricklypete on Oct 24, 2011 12:46:10 GMT -8
Something new maybe. This was from the Small Works exhibit at Arcadia Gallery. According to their website it's sold. His work is amazing in person. If anyone is on the fence about picking up something from him I would recommend going for it. I've been lucky enough to see a few and I was quite impressed. |
|
|
|
Post by sleepboy on Nov 6, 2011 8:06:25 GMT -8
|
|
I had no idea this kind of style was being painted for so long!
- i'm sure it will happen.
