Visual Confections


Sometimes, an artist confuses me. That is what Sara Lutz’s work does. I’ll get back to that in a moment.

1. We all know some artists WANT to confuse us … it is part of their way of working, the very reason for working. Fine.

2. There are other artists who just don’t get what they are doing … and confuse us because they are, themselves, confused. I have done that. Come on, let us be honest, most of us have. Way to often.

But Sara Lutz’s painting do not seem to want to confuse us. They are richly layered, dense visual experiences. There are multiple thin veils of hue and tone washing over shapes. These are broken by thicker, viscous skins of color and value that barely cling to the surface or gloriously, happily, run and drip across it. There are shapes, created with dense slabs of paint … thick skeins, skittering across the thinner layers, globular masses lathered on with serious joy. On this level, I like them, love might be a better word.

detail Lutz, Pavlova

I see the tradition of Titian, Hals, Manet, Vlaminck, and Pendergast.  Looking at the surfaces it is evident that there is a mind at play with paint. It feels good, rewardingly good. Ms. Lutz’s work is a textural feast!

Then I get confused … confused and conflicted by my reaction to the color.

Yes, there is much here that reminds me of the serious and beautiful work of Kandinsky, Joan Mitchell, and maybe something of Niki de St.Phalle. But there is also something of Philip Guston in this work. And the decomposing fleshiness and wilting, sugary emulsions by Gusten have always repulsed me. Ms. Lutz has even named some of her work after frothy, sweet creations from the candy shop (Confection and Nonpareils). I am conflicted, caught between one structure that I am drawn to, another I am repulsed by.

Don’t get me wrong, 1) I like sweets. 2) On the art-history side, I have grown to admire much of  Rococo art (despite some of my teacher’s best efforts). My work sometimes plays along the with the joyous coloration of that period. 3) Certainly, on the painter’s craft-side, I like almost every variety of  the slippery, scruffy, gooey, lumpy, abraded, liquidity of painted surfaces.

Why can’t I embrace a painting that is structured like a Kandinsky or a MacDonald-Wright …  but with a color palette that could be from a licorice all-sorts bag? What is it that causes my confusion; why am I so very conflicted?

(Why don’t you check out this site (http://hyperallergic.com/86795/beer-with-a-painter-sarah-lutz/) … and see and read a bit more about her work. It is well written. Decide what you think for yourself. See if my visual sweet tooth has decayed or not.  And, please, let me know what you think.)

http://hyperallergic.com/86795/beer-with-a-painter-sarah-lutz/

Advertisements

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

2 Responses to “Visual Confections”

  1. jean sampson Says:

    Well, I checked Sara out and, though I could see Joan Mitchell in her work, Joan did not make shapes that could be identified with any object (like candy). From what I have seen of Joan’s work, she stroked or dripped color and let that define space and evoke feeling. Her paintings were her responses/reactions to specific poems with Nature as a main theme. I think the color and shape references to candies and sweets are not very appealing to me. You might be surprised by that statement, given the way I use color! And, it is late, so maybe I am not thinking straight or seeing straight.:) 🙂

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: