So I went to the artist talk with Jimmy Baker the other day at the CAC. He is a local to cincinnati, went through the UC MFA program, teaches at the art academy, and is having a solo exhibition in one of the smaller galleries there. It was really nice to get to hear a little bit about his process and concept and also about his life and opportunities, which were fascinating to all of the grad students I'm sure. We want any sort of reassurance that we aren't spending all of this money so we can work at half price books and doodle drunkenly on bar napkins the rest of our lives.
His surfaces were worked beautifully. He took some great modernist concepts and put a very contemporary spin on them with his process. His work is super methodical and planned out. He creates a photographic composition from images researched from the internet, projects them, paints a layer, takes the canvas to the printer and gets an image digitally printed on the painted layer, then goes back and reworks the surface painting in other areas. Then he coats the surface with a high gloss type of light clear resin so they have an incredible shine. I thought this process was super interesting and the layering went great with his concept of how we receive information and the different ways of "seeing". The collage elements were really strong and I was fascinated with what he chose to reveal and conceal, what he decided to render photo realistically and distort. The play of comfort and discomfort within his landscapes really drew you in and kept you there. The only thing I found a bit stale were his images involving war. I know this is a relevant topic for everyone in the world, it goes with the ideas of modernism he is playing with, etc. but it is just not my thing seeing guns, soldiers, and military landscapes. I get it in relation to classic war paintings, the color scheme and allusion is totally there, but that subject doesn't really do it for me. If you are talking about the information people in society take in this (maybe even though it should be) is not high on the list. Although I do enjoy his cryptic nature in the handling the imagery. He doesn't give it all away. You might recognize a piece of architecture, or a certain color scheme, or an internet meme line from the title, and then the viewer is let in on the specifics of the subject at different degrees. That is something I enjoy in painting and 2D work. Although I hope he elaborates a bit on that idea of pshyic in his statement, I am intrigued with how artists are talking about this more and more.
As far as his personal story goes, its also pretty fascinating. It was comforting to hear that his success was based on pure networking ability and luck. He went to a chicago art fair while still in school at UC, got lucky and pestered a tiny (like 12ft by 6ft, tiny) gallery in NY for a group show and got it. He showed a bit there but didn't get representation so he played the field and while in communication with an LA gallery got more attention and a solo show from the NY gallery and then from that solo show got the representation in LA. It seems like confidence, communication, and timing are really in his favor. He got lucky with a paris gallery and fully admits timing and luck have a big hand in his success as well.
It was really nice of him to do such a personal talk with us grads. Even though he has a bit of a reputation for not being the nicest guy in the world I thought he was very approachable and seemed reserved but very willing to help and talk if we needed.
Go see the show at the CAC, its worth it to see some strong paintings for a change.
No comments:
Post a Comment