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?