Intellectual Discourse on the Art/Hype/Hate/Love of Shepard

[MunkeyPants]

Wow, when the Financial Times starts writing art reviews, back up and consider your career direction.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/7d912e22-6429 ... um=twitter

[admonkey]

I get my art review insights from the Financial Times and my 401(k) investment insights from Juxtapoz.

[SHT!]

SCHMUCK/SCHMUCKS!

[kingburdy]

Nothing new there, wait till she see's MBW's icon's show..lol..

[mose]

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/21/arts/ ... ref=design

[DunDun]

You can see the diff in two completely different publications. At least the NYT is actually critiquing the work, whereas the FT is just a character assassination. The writing in the FT is pretty bad and ironically comes off as "juvenile" while trying to sound "real". At least you get a feel for the art in ole Roberta's piece(i.e. why she didn't like it) and not for the writer's personal feelings for Shepard's political associations. A half decent writer could've come up with something better to describe his work than, "...but mostly it falls back upon the comfortable conventions of fan magazines." I would expect that summary in a post on the Banksy board or coming from Mark Vallen.

[Solar]

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/21/arts/ ... ref=design

Student Number One?

[toyroom]

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/21/arts/ ... ref=design

Student Number One?

Parapraxis?

[mutant]

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/21/arts/ ... ref=design

Student Number One?

Hopefully that's just a typo. Very interesting and telling article, nonetheless.

[mose]

I think that could be viewed as a telling slip, as Roberta makes it clear that she views Shepard's latest work as student-level.

[spiff huxtable]

You can see the diff in two completely different publications. At least the NYT is actually critiquing the work, whereas the FT is just a character assassination. The writing in the FT is pretty bad and ironically comes off as "juvenile" while trying to sound "real". At least you get a feel for the art in ole Roberta's piece(i.e. why she didn't like it) and not for the writer's personal feelings for Shepard's political associations. A half decent writer could've come up with something better to describe his work than, "...but mostly it falls back upon the comfortable conventions of fan magazines." I would expect that summary in a post on the Banksy board or coming from Mark Vallen.

I thought it was a pretty good line. I liked reading those critiques and find myself persuaded to a degree by some of their points. For example; "Hendrix, John Lennon, Neil Young and Iggy Pop appear more or less as they did in innumerable carefully curated photo shoots – that is to say, in exactly the way they wanted to look." I think that is an interesting perspective. Also, I don't think it is coincidental that the Ali portrait is considered the favorite piece by most, or at least the most appreciated. For me that appreciation stems from the artistic commentary and emotions Shep was able to infuse with this piece.

For me (and only from pictures), the Dietch show represented more of a cerebral or stylistic progression with the collaging, than anything else. Except for the Ali piece, which, for me, demonstrated far more emotional editorializing and progression than the other pieces.

Although I think all the pieces are great, and the collaging progression is wonderful, Ali is the standout primarily because it did not, as the FT's reporter critiqued, present the icon "in exactly the way they wanted to look."

[QKocur]

agreed ^

[MunkeyPants]

Although I think all the pieces are great, and the collaging progression is wonderful, Ali is the standout primarily because it did not, as the FT's reporter critiqued, present the icon "in exactly the way they wanted to look."

Actually, if you look at the original photo of Ali, the collage work not withstanding with what Shep did to interpret and add to it, I think that is exactly the desired effect. This is not a snapshot, but a studio produced shot. I'm not trying to argue against you, just trying to understand what we are really looking at when we look at this work.

[DunDun]

You can see the diff in two completely different publications. At least the NYT is actually critiquing the work, whereas the FT is just a character assassination. The writing in the FT is pretty bad and ironically comes off as "juvenile" while trying to sound "real". At least you get a feel for the art in ole Roberta's piece(i.e. why she didn't like it) and not for the writer's personal feelings for Shepard's political associations. A half decent writer could've come up with something better to describe his work than, "...but mostly it falls back upon the comfortable conventions of fan magazines." I would expect that summary in a post on the Banksy board or coming from Mark Vallen.

I thought it was a pretty good line. I liked reading those critiques and find myself persuaded to a degree by some of their points. For example; "Hendrix, John Lennon, Neil Young and Iggy Pop appear more or less as they did in innumerable carefully curated photo shoots – that is to say, in exactly the way they wanted to look." I think that is an interesting perspective. Also, I don't think it is coincidental that the Ali portrait is considered the favorite piece by most, or at least the most appreciated. For me that appreciation stems from the artistic commentary and emotions Shep was able to infuse with this piece.

For me (and only from pictures), the Dietch show represented more of a cerebral or stylistic progression with the collaging, than anything else. Except for the Ali piece, which, for me, demonstrated far more emotional editorializing and progression than the other pieces.

Although I think all the pieces are great, and the collaging progression is wonderful, Ali is the standout primarily because it did not, as the FT's reporter critiqued, present the icon "in exactly the way they wanted to look."

You didn't get my point. The FT is a right leaning publication and they couldn't get past the fact that Shepard used his creativity to help Obama win the POTUS. There was very little substance in the review about the actual show itself with much more time spent discussing Shepard's background. At least Roberta rips him apart and says why.

I don't see the merit of that critique you mentioned. She's basically saying that Shepard is a hack, who takes a photo and traces in Illustrator. This has been said so many times before and is not a new idea by any means...she has just rephrased it. She should leave the actual critique of the work to real art critics who don't let their personal politics influence their writing.

[spiff huxtable]

No I got your point Dun Dun and I mostly agree with your general assessment. I just don't care about interpreting the writers intentions or speculating about her political leanings. It is a pretty large jump to conclude that she has a personal distaste for Shepard or believes he is a hack who only uses illustrator. I see no evidence for those claims and strikes me as pure conjecture because you don't like her stance.

I thought this was a pretty good line, "...but mostly it falls back upon the comfortable conventions of fan magazines." And a fair critique. This is not critiquing Shepards medium or methods, but whether or not his appropriation and work adds a new dimension, insight, or perspective on the subject. To me they do not the way Ali does. To me they are just phenomenal tribute pieces that cast the subject in a positive light much akin to the "comfortable conventions of fan magazines." That is just fine by me, and I appreciate them for what they are.

Again, what I appreciate more about the Ali piece was Shepards ability to convey and impose a strong new emotion and message regarding Ali. For me it was the sorrow, yet quiet confidence of a charismatic champion, who triumphed over so much physical adversity and now ironically seems trapped by a dark physically debilitating disease. It is more than a tribute, it invokes paradox, compassion, triumph, irony, empathy, and courage.

Would like to see the source photo for the Ali MunkeyPants. Has it been posted?

**edit**

Upon reading it a 2nd time, I also think the author was critiqueing Fairey for what she saw as a failure to do what he did with the Obama image. That is, take the mundane or 'fan magazine' image and ad a new dramatic perspective: "Fairey elevated dull fact into noble metaphor. Zones of red, white and blue shade a graphically stark face, conjuring up a future leader who gazes towards his and the nation’s destiny."

[rumspring]

These articles didn't do much for me. My time would have been much better spent reading someone's thoughtful analysis and critique of the stencil collage technique that Fairey uses. It is my impression that it is fairly unique and personally I love it.

[MunkeyPants]

Again, what I appreciate more about the Ali piece was Shepards ability to convey and impose a strong new emotion and message regarding Ali. For me it was the sorrow, yet quiet confidence of a charismatic champion, who triumphed over so much physical adversity and now ironically seems trapped by a dark physically debilitating disease. It is more than a tribute, it invokes paradox, compassion, triumph, irony, empathy, and courage.

Would like to see the source photo for the Ali MunkeyPants. Has it been posted?

"

I finally found it again in the Deitch thread posted by truthiness. The photograph by Michael Tighe is titled Muhammad Ali, Scar.



You can buy it here: http://www.photographersgallery.com/photo.asp?id=1245

Now compare it to the print:

And the Canvas at Deitch: Photo by MunkeyPants.

BTW - Shepard also acknowledged that he wanted to do an Ali portrait for years but was afraid of the copyright. He was asked by the Ali foundation (proper name escapes me) to do this portrait. It would therefore seem that while the Ali canvas is a new level for Shep's work, it wasn't entirely his concept which gives a bit of merit to some of the commentary above.

I started this thread with a bit of a joke, but in the back of my mind, I really hoped for a discussion of the artistic merits of the work. As fans, do we become blind to critics and the views they present? I'm not saying I agree with the two articles, but I'm hoping more of you will find other reviews of the show and post them as well. I'd like to see this thread continue as a discussion of the art of Shepard, not just the 'oh, love it because the (insert subject/appendage) is drawn accurately.'

[EFE]

The first Ali has something to do with a ADIDAS collab isnt it??

[admonkey]

The first Ali has something to do with a ADIDAS collab isnt it??

Not originally, no.

[robotoil]

I haven't seen the show yet. I hope to see it soon. From the pictures, it looks a lot like the show at Levine's, only less cohesive. For the time being I'll just say this. If you had told me 10 years ago when I started buying $30 prints that 10 years later Shepard would be having a show at a major gallery and receiving a bad review from the NYT I would not have believed you.

[halopigg]

I just found out how to link people directly to a point in a youtube video so here you go.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9USqGsV9gk8#t=0m24s

chapelle classic!






Sorry for the clapping over the main line but there are no versions without it. "Haters wanna hate, lovers wanna love....."

[ca77]

The first Ali has something to do with a ADIDAS collab isnt it??

Not originally, no.

Really? I was under the impression that he was commissioned to do it directly for ADIDAS

[admonkey]

No, the portrait came first. The license, later. That's what he said, anyway.

[brintoul]

I haven't seen the show yet. I hope to see it soon. From the pictures, it looks a lot like the show at Levine's, only less cohesive. For the time being I'll just say this. If you had told me 10 years ago when I started buying $30 prints that 10 years later Shepard would be having a show at a major gallery and receiving a bad review from the NYT I would not have believed you.

Quoted for good stuff.

[conartstudio]

I haven't seen the show yet. I hope to see it soon. From the pictures, it looks a lot like the show at Levine's, only less cohesive.

out of curiosity... why do you think the levine show was cohesive let along more cohesive than the deitch show? i was at both levine locations and there was nothing really cohesive about it, or at least there wasn't anything that was more or less cohesive versus the deitch show. i thought maybe the deitch show was a bit more cohesive.

deitch was a great show but there wasn't anything that separated the work from the 2007 show at levine.