Saul Chernick, An Autumn Ride, 2008, Ink on Paper, 20 x 32 inches (click on the above image to supersize)
Brian Sherwin interviews Art Fag City IMG MGMT artist Saul Chernick, and through the course of the conversation, the artist discusses the relationship of cinema to his work. While I don’t have much to add to this, I found this passage of particular interest;
I think of many of my drawings as period pieces in a way. In film, the production crew may take great pains to simulate the past as accurately as possible but the lens through which we see it is inextricably tethered to moment of its creation. A film about the Renaissance from the 70's inevitably looks like a 70's version of the Renaissance. A present day film on that same period might appear more authentic but as it recedes into the past it will begin looking increasingly of its particular moment. In this way my drawings never attempt to slavishly imitate the past, nor are they nostalgic, in fact they are just as much about the present as they are about the past. It will take the distance of time passing to truly see what this means.
In some respects I'm trying to see what happens when an older model of drawing is infused with contemporary ideas. In An Autumn Ride, [above] the proportions of the paper are the same as a flat screen TV. This creates a visual tension because the artists who developed and practiced the graphic style I use would never have composed images to work with these dimensions. I had to use many of the conventions of cinematography to make it work. The tree bisecting the horse is influenced in equal measures by photography and Modern painting like Barnett Newman's zips. The narrative is similarly altered—it doesn't quite hit the same notes a typical demon slaying might.
{ 26 comments }
And what notes might a typical demon slaying hit?
I’ve never heard of this artist before, but I like what I see. Thanks for sharing!
And what notes might a typical demon slaying hit?
I’ve never heard of this artist before, but I like what I see. Thanks for sharing!
And what notes might a typical demon slaying hit?
I’ve never heard of this artist before, but I like what I see. Thanks for sharing!
The tree is actually derived from Japanese art, something Cezanne used quite frequently. Newman took just one small sliver of Cezannes apple and worked it to death. This guy used one part of that art and used it as that, which is as it should be, not separate. But not really that interesting, except in its quirkiness. The TV dimensions are irrelevant, so what? But at least means this guy studied the past, something so few artistes do nowadays, the past for them starting sometime in the 60s. Interesting, but not really relevant stuff. But better than most these days. Damning with faint praise.
Art collegia delenda est
The tree is actually derived from Japanese art, something Cezanne used quite frequently. Newman took just one small sliver of Cezannes apple and worked it to death. This guy used one part of that art and used it as that, which is as it should be, not separate. But not really that interesting, except in its quirkiness. The TV dimensions are irrelevant, so what? But at least means this guy studied the past, something so few artistes do nowadays, the past for them starting sometime in the 60s. Interesting, but not really relevant stuff. But better than most these days. Damning with faint praise.
Art collegia delenda est
The tree is actually derived from Japanese art, something Cezanne used quite frequently. Newman took just one small sliver of Cezannes apple and worked it to death. This guy used one part of that art and used it as that, which is as it should be, not separate. But not really that interesting, except in its quirkiness. The TV dimensions are irrelevant, so what? But at least means this guy studied the past, something so few artistes do nowadays, the past for them starting sometime in the 60s. Interesting, but not really relevant stuff. But better than most these days. Damning with faint praise.
Art collegia delenda est
Donald: You need to provide links for the examples your citing because your comments don’t mean anything without them. Also, you need to provide rationale for why you think work isn’t relevant if you’re going to make that claim. Finally, Chernick tells you exactly why the TV dimensions are important so just because you’re not interested in it, doesn’t mean the distinction between old master and contemporary composition is irrelevant. It directly affects how a picture looks, which is something that is discussed with regularity here.
Donald: You need to provide links for the examples your citing because your comments don’t mean anything without them. Also, you need to provide rationale for why you think work isn’t relevant if you’re going to make that claim. Finally, Chernick tells you exactly why the TV dimensions are important so just because you’re not interested in it, doesn’t mean the distinction between old master and contemporary composition is irrelevant. It directly affects how a picture looks, which is something that is discussed with regularity here.
It might be hard for others to grasp Saul’s work due to the fact that the crux of it really lies in the time-consuming technique of making marks to assemble beautifully elaborate drawings. Adam Dant’s work, currently on view at Pierogi Gallery, reflects a similar fascination with the mark and how it can be used to create very surrealistic imagery.
It might be hard for others to grasp Saul’s work due to the fact that the crux of it really lies in the time-consuming technique of making marks to assemble beautifully elaborate drawings. Adam Dant’s work, currently on view at Pierogi Gallery, reflects a similar fascination with the mark and how it can be used to create very surrealistic imagery.
Waht do you mean? Look at any Japanese art and Cezannes landscapes, and you see this used frequently. What DO they teach in art school these days?
And who cares about dimensions? It matter within each piece of art, as in modern art the borders are reinvorced, and rhythms created in space. His is simple composition, abd while mildly important in creating each work, over all and to the viewer it is meaningless. HE must provide evidence, or is a flat earth Statement. It is up to the person making their case to document and suppport it. What he states does not equate. The dimensions are different than woodblock prints, mostly, but bet I CAN find many similar. Just dont have the time, he is making a blanket statement, as I believe I have many my mother bought with very similar dimensions. Just not as a standard. So what?
And really, why would it matter? Besides, wide screen TVs are NOT those dimensions, Movie theater screens much wider. Still, irrelevant.
Waht do you mean? Look at any Japanese art and Cezannes landscapes, and you see this used frequently. What DO they teach in art school these days?
And who cares about dimensions? It matter within each piece of art, as in modern art the borders are reinvorced, and rhythms created in space. His is simple composition, abd while mildly important in creating each work, over all and to the viewer it is meaningless. HE must provide evidence, or is a flat earth Statement. It is up to the person making their case to document and suppport it. What he states does not equate. The dimensions are different than woodblock prints, mostly, but bet I CAN find many similar. Just dont have the time, he is making a blanket statement, as I believe I have many my mother bought with very similar dimensions. Just not as a standard. So what?
And really, why would it matter? Besides, wide screen TVs are NOT those dimensions, Movie theater screens much wider. Still, irrelevant.
Its actualy kinda intersting, just dont see any merit to the arguments he makes. Who said artists had to make sense?
Its actualy kinda intersting, just dont see any merit to the arguments he makes. Who said artists had to make sense?
To Jill’s point, I just saw the Dant show and definitely see similarities between his work and Saul’s (though Saul’s work seems more preoccupied with decoration and surface, hence the elaborate mark-making and significance of the flatscreen).
I also think that the Durer show at the MoBIA was one of the best NYC exhibits I’ve seen in some time, which reinforces why I find Saul’s anachronistic style so appealing. Then again, “anachronistic” doesn’t quite feel like the right word, since he’s definitely tapping into something both contemporary and–dare I say it?–timeless with his drawing. But that kind of praise really is anachronistic these days…
To Jill’s point, I just saw the Dant show and definitely see similarities between his work and Saul’s (though Saul’s work seems more preoccupied with decoration and surface, hence the elaborate mark-making and significance of the flatscreen).
I also think that the Durer show at the MoBIA was one of the best NYC exhibits I’ve seen in some time, which reinforces why I find Saul’s anachronistic style so appealing. Then again, “anachronistic” doesn’t quite feel like the right word, since he’s definitely tapping into something both contemporary and–dare I say it?–timeless with his drawing. But that kind of praise really is anachronistic these days…
I can admire the depth that Donald Frazell attempts to convey, but the practice of art does not rest on the dichotomy of right/wrong. It’s more about what works and at what time; about what people are longing to see and when. There have been many points in time in when contemporary artists bring back elements that have appeared earlier in the history of visual art. But that’s not a taboo. However, I also believe that Donald Frazell is entitled to his opinion so while I don’t agree with it, I think it’s a valid element to the many dialogues on contemporary art. It would, however, be more interesting if Frazell could be a little more clear in his explication.
I can admire the depth that Donald Frazell attempts to convey, but the practice of art does not rest on the dichotomy of right/wrong. It’s more about what works and at what time; about what people are longing to see and when. There have been many points in time in when contemporary artists bring back elements that have appeared earlier in the history of visual art. But that’s not a taboo. However, I also believe that Donald Frazell is entitled to his opinion so while I don’t agree with it, I think it’s a valid element to the many dialogues on contemporary art. It would, however, be more interesting if Frazell could be a little more clear in his explication.
Who cares whose hip and who isnt? Gerome and Meisonnier and many others were the Hirst and Emin(em) of their time. And look where they ended up. Creative art is outside of time, universal, and about Gauguins cry. Who are WE, where are WE going? How will WE get there? Not I. Eveyone, every single last post modern, contemporary or whatever you call it has been consumed by ME. Guess what? No one outside the art world gives a shit.
And why it needs to go. Now. Their time of raping the earth of its bounties is over. Back to WE. Its really simple. But art school types will come up with myriad versions of MEism to avoid confronting the truth. Art sucks over the last forty years, and its their fault. Because no one will say no to the children. No one will take responsibility. What is going on in Washington and Wall street and Main street is Arts fault as much as the economic rapists. After all, who are YOUR benefactors? YOUR patrons? YOUR market? YOUR subjects? YOUR perversions? More often than not, YOUR parents.
J’accuse
Who cares whose hip and who isnt? Gerome and Meisonnier and many others were the Hirst and Emin(em) of their time. And look where they ended up. Creative art is outside of time, universal, and about Gauguins cry. Who are WE, where are WE going? How will WE get there? Not I. Eveyone, every single last post modern, contemporary or whatever you call it has been consumed by ME. Guess what? No one outside the art world gives a shit.
And why it needs to go. Now. Their time of raping the earth of its bounties is over. Back to WE. Its really simple. But art school types will come up with myriad versions of MEism to avoid confronting the truth. Art sucks over the last forty years, and its their fault. Because no one will say no to the children. No one will take responsibility. What is going on in Washington and Wall street and Main street is Arts fault as much as the economic rapists. After all, who are YOUR benefactors? YOUR patrons? YOUR market? YOUR subjects? YOUR perversions? More often than not, YOUR parents.
J’accuse
Thanks Paddy! I would have responded sooner, but I was busy observing marriage ceremonies and all that jazz over the weekend.
Thanks Paddy! I would have responded sooner, but I was busy observing marriage ceremonies and all that jazz over the weekend.
And what better to counter such rampant “MEism” than a self-righteous, rambling, worldview polemic? Though the cynic in me agrees with you, like, 300% or so.
And what better to counter such rampant “MEism” than a self-righteous, rambling, worldview polemic? Though the cynic in me agrees with you, like, 300% or so.
Hit a spot, didnt I?
Hit a spot, didnt I?
Comments on this entry are closed.