The NYTimes has a great article by Dorothy Spears on the work of Rackstraw Downes, a painter of landscapes and NYC streets. Downes works on location, his paintings are intricate, and have a delicate nature even though the subjects tend towards the industrial environments and desert wastelands. He incorporates a lot of detail in the work and spends much time on direct observation. A key feature is his use of optical distortion – rarely using straight lines but having horizontal elements sweep and bow across the canvas in a way that is somehow more true to life.

As an artist it’s interesting to see the work of someone who shares interests and to see the way similar subjects can be depicted in a completely different manner. Our work has only the most superficial commonalities – mainly that we both paint landscapes. However, there is a deeper link in that we both construct environments out of paint. In a way this basic truth connects all painters.

Whether painting abstractly or using representational images there are certain truths that need to be confronted when painting on a canvas. Matters of color, composition, and the means of directing the viewer’s eye all come into play. The types of marks used on canvas, scale, and depth of field (or not). These are the tools that unite us. With common subjects come even deeper connections: the use of perspective and atmospheric distortions, the portrayal of space and built forms.

So while there are obvious connections and differences in our work, it’s always interesting to see the approach of another artist. However, I don’t think I’ll be setting up my easel on the side of the BQE anytime soon.

Amy Sillman’s exhibit at Sikkema Jenkins struck a magical note for the art press. Seems like everyone has written about this show, but why? Beyond the quality of the work, Sillman has found the sweet spot. It’s abstract with figurative elements, it’s process oriented but narrative, she covers a lot of territory but somehow manages to keep everything covered. It never seems forced, her work evolves out of several unique lines of inquiry. Just look at the exhibit’s title “Transformer (or how many lightbulbs does it take to change a painting)”. The word ‘transformer’ is practically a manifesto, explaining her creative process as a reiterative and evolutionary approach. She’s not dropping a completely formulated “art brand” but is showing the steps that lead to the development of new visual forms. The parenthetical title, while being jokey, also reinforces the idea of art as being transformational. She is changing painting and inviting everyone along for the ride. While much has been written about obvious influences (including Guston) I wouldn’t describe the work as derivative. This would seem to be another element of transformation, of adapting and ultimately transforming source materials into a new line of inquiry. The most brilliant and bold manipulation of her work and this exhibit is keeping an element of lightness, the jokey-free spirited quality helps to alleviate what could be a crushing seriousness. It was the exhibit that gave you a little bit of everything, even a $1 zine… what more could you ask for?

Objectified is the new film by Gary Hustwit, maker of Helvetica. In this one he looks at the job of industrial designers, the people responsible for creating every manufactured item in the world – from computers and cars to toothpicks and gardening shears. Featuring interviews with top design stars and exploration of key issues such as sustainability and rampant consumerism, the movie is a thoughtful investigation of the people who create the objects that populate our lives.

http://www.objectifiedfilm.com

There’s a new season of the PBS art show Art:21, saw an episode featuring abstract painter Mary Heilmann. Heilmann views her works as icons that can lead to transformative states of thought. Her paintings use intense, jeweled colors and self-referential marks such as the “post-modern drip”. Beautiful, fun, and thoughtful paintings.

http://www.pbs.org/art21/artists/mary-heilmann

Monet’s Water Lilies are back at MOMA. They’re spectacular pieces. Pollock had to be thinking of Monet while dripping his buckets of industrial paint onto canvas. The scale is comparable – I loved when they used to hang the two paintings facing each other, creating a dialogue across the years. Somehow works of art, while being unique products of their respective eras, also have the ability to transcend time. Monet’s brushwork dazzles. The studies crackle with whips of paint depicting flowers and grass, swirling as if alive. Densely clotted surfaces serve as perfect grounds for shocking strokes of pink outlining flowers adrift on the pond’s surface. The Japanese bridge emerges from a tangle of rust and yellow. Monet elevates the brushstroke to the same level of importance as the subject, beginning the drift towards art for art’s sake.

Water is one of the more challenging surfaces for an artist to depict. The constant shimmer of rippled light does not lend itself easily to a static surface. Movies are another story. Last night I saw the animated film Ponyo by Hayao Miyazaki. The movie is freely adapted from Hans Christian Anderson’s “The Little Mermaid”. Miyazaki’s films inhabit the strange and wondrous space of fairy tales. He draws the ocean as a living being, magical creatures manifest themselves as waves, ancient sea beasts swim freely through the waters of modern Japan. The most beautiful landscapes you could imagine at 24 frames per second.