His statement that no one would care in a hundred years what the concepts were behind his work but would look at it just in terms of good painting was very refreshing to hear. I think there needs to be a return to the acceptance of art as being valid when it exists only for pure sensual pleasure. This doesn't exclude art with other references and purposes, but I often think the balance is so far in favor of the conceptual that the sensual is put in second place or denied having any value at all. I think it should be equal, at least!It would be great if some of his work could be posted here; the video system used didn't really allow one to see details to any degree.
Good observation, Dominic.
I wish his works had been more off putting in their devation from the old styles. I like the concept but it just wasnt intense enough.
i thought it was a bit refreshing to see an artist who paints mainly with acrylic instead of oil. Oil scares me to death as a medium, but it was interesting to hear his reasons for selecting this particular medium. I was also a bit overwhelmed when he mentioned his technique for painting that was similar to pointilism. The fact that he puts so much into his work and the size of it was hard to fathom when viewing his images on a small screen. I would really like to have seen his work in real life, much like Dominic suggested. Edwin's color palette also caught my attention.. so versatile.
I like his paintings,the execution was great and the elements from other artists' pieces come together well, what I don't like is that he copied other artists' pieces instead of creating new using their style. Heidi
edwin's presentation was unclear to me. his concept was interesting and clever, not to mention that the viewer must know about the paintings that he takes from and pay attention to detail in order to fully understand his concept and paintings. it was good to see a contemporary artist that cares for more than a concept. it seems to me like he cares about painting a good painting. like everyone else, i would've rather seen the paintings in front of me than in video format. the glare of the paintings was making it impossible to see what he painted. from what i was able to see and remember, i prefer his darker paintings over the more colorful ones. the color in the more recent work seemed..i can't find a word for it, like color used in front cover art of romance novels.what edwin said about why he does this or why he does that was very unclear to me. it wasn't making any sense and i was confused as to what his reasons were for doing what he was doing? also, i got the impression that he DOESN'T take a look at what is out there now--he doesn't care for other contemporary art. it's one thing to not paint and do what everyone else is doing, and it's another thing to not even take a look at it out of close-mindedness. that's the impression that i got from edwin.the labor that he puts into these paintings is incredible. but personally, it doesn't impress me. i don't understand why someone would choose to do such tedious work (referring to the technique he implements) and be able to keep themselves interested in it for half a year!i can't help but keep comparing edwin with the first artist that came in...the first painter. the first artist just feels so much more fresh.
Ana, you have good points, My only observation is that paintings have to be seen live to really be appreciated. I wouldn't go too much by what he saw in that monitor as a standard. I think Edwin has a show next year at Kevin Bruk.
i agree with ana about the clarity of his work. it might have had a lot to do with the piercing headache that i had during class, but i didn't feel like his work had any union. i like the idea about recreating classic paintings with something just a little different in the scene, but i don't remember seeing a lot of that. kinda disappointing really, but i remember that he was having problems with his cd. as far as the time he puts into each piece...wow. i've done a few stipplings and each took me about 40 hours to complete. the drive that one has to have to finish such a work is just draining. it takes so much out of you and you question yourself the entire time you're doing it. i can see a lot of people saying that it's just representational art, but until you actually do it, you don't realize what it actually takes to finish something like that. the end result is so rewarding.
There was some things I liked about Edwin's work and other stuff that threw me off. The concept for one wasn't appealing to me. When he mentioned using photoshop to set up the composition for his pieces, I started looking at his his work as a "cut and paste" exercise. On the other hand, the fact that he wasn't trying to render the personal styles of the artists he copied was good because his work at first reflects his style then subtley reveals source of his paintings.The limitations he had given himself such as using sunlight only to get the right colors,was interesting to me. I think it shows that he was trying to be true in his method of developing the paintings and producing quality over quantity, even if it takes along time.
I think he was quite clear on why he does what he does; the results give him pleasure. He enjoys looking at his own work!! It's self-satisfying.The assumption that he is "narrow-minded" is to me unjustified; if he has seen contemporary art and has other values motivating his work, I see no reason for him to discourse on it when talking about his own work. Why must it be included? Why does he have to demonstrate that he is "open-minded"? Our contemporary artists will probably not be talking about "traditional" art in discussing their works, and I don't think anybody would insist that they do.
I liked Edwin's work. The first thing that came to mind when I saw it was the kind of exercises that teachers would have me do when I was in art classes in middle school. The exercise was taking pieces of different works of art and rearranging them to see wha fit and what didn't so the student could understand what worked well together. It seemed to me that that is what his artwork was about, like a study in composition of the Old Masters and making a new idea out of it, a new concept and existing purely for the sake of art-like Diminic said.
The main issue i was drawn to in his work was composition. The idea of collaging a painting with others work is stimulating but mainly boring. Stimulating in that he successfully combines new technology(photoshop) with archaic compositions, which also reflect ironic touches of todays fashion. The blending of these touches are done so well that one can hardly notice(at least on the slides) i find them boring mainly because of how he plans out each detail of his composition. what about spontinaity?? i feel that is a major part of any art work...asking yourself what am i doing exactly? to me that seems lost in his art***of course that is the impression i got, he could very well make spontaneous decsions as he goes along, i just dont like the idea of having such a set idea. I feel that taking from others work limits your freedom to rapid change.
I felt like edwins work was full of irony. Photoshop for clasic work cut and paste and spending 6 months with acrylic paint. I really cant say much about his work because i couldnt really see it. as long as edwin isnt painting like the artists he copies then i think his idea is clever. i can see myself doing something like that if i was having an artists version of writers block
I can’t believe the amount of effort he puts into his paintings. To spend so much time on one work, he must have so much patience to wait every time a section needs to dry. It is incredible to see an artist who paints in such an old style. We don’t get to see that at all now days. It really makes him unique.
to see edwin montalvo's workwww.edwinmontalvo.i8.com
Post a Comment