YYYYYYYYYYYYES!

I love the painting in the first photograph. Who is the artist? Are all of these paintings by Erik?

As many of you know, I am CERTAINLY no prude when it comes to art (or anything!!) but I seriously don't "get" art like that first painting...

And before you get all "Yeah, well if it was a painting of a GUY, you'd have a different opinion" on my a$$, let me tell you no, no it would not. Still wouldn't get it.

I don't get it either, but good for them for picking it & showing it to the world. I have to give them credit for that. I dont have a single piece of art at all, so I always applaud others' efforts.

I'm also in a strange mood today, probably due to having lost a little faith in my fellow man last night, but *sigh* that's for a different type of therapy group :)

I'm pleased that you like our collection, Joey and Cindy, although it seems that many do not.

The first painting of the naked lady with the fingernails is by Derek Mainella. You can find his work at:
http://www.greenerpasturesgallery.com/artists.php?artistId=23

The sunglasses are Peter Coffin's and the dollar bill is Jonathan Meese.

The guy getting stuff thrown at his head is by Peter Saul.

In the next photograph, the Teddy Roosevelt scupture is by Brian Coleman, the woman with the flute is by Shintaro Miyake, and the Men painting is by Larry Mullins.

The last two paintings, Sunflowers and Sneeze are by Dana Schutz.

We don't have any of my husband's work up in our house, but he has a show up until March at Galleri Farschou: www.faurschou.com

I don't get it either Patrick. what I'm realizing in this contest is that for me, what I might appreciate in a gallery is not the same as what I want on my walls. I really do love modern art, though i am not very knowledgeable about artists or anything...the odd thing is that I don't think I want it in my place. In my apartment, I like things that evoke calm, are meaningful to me personally, or fit a design need, which is not how I would evaluate art outside my own walls. I'd be interested to hear others' takes on art in their apartments...

I dunno... something about the first painting (apart from the buxom breastes-es) caught my eye. Maybe it's my love of '70s exploitation film imagery or my slightly-skewed pop/cult sensibility. Though its appeal may be niched and very specific, the first painting is pretty cool.

p(too): A friend has a series of pastel-drawn male portraiture on wood planks from the late '70s by a not-completely-obscure illustrator who worked in gay erotica (pulp paperback covers, illustrations for nudie mags, etc). The illustrator's name escapes me. Very period: mutton-chops, handlebar mustaches, big hair. You don't think that subject matter would appeal better to you?

Overall, I really like the envelope-pushing ballsiness of the pieces shown. It makes me want to see the rest of their collection.

I LOVE IT!

I'm with Christine. It would be very unsettling to me to have "edgy" art in my home, even though I can appreciate it in galleries. The sneeze actually bothers me more than Bosom Lady.

It's very effectively displayed, though -- the pink frame on the pink wall particularly struck me for how it makes the monster pop.

E--
Hmm, handlebar mustaches and mutton chops... lemme get back to you. (Tom of Finland, maybe? of whom I am a big fan...)

But seriously, "erotica" as art is almost a different thing to me (although I'm sure that sounds like a backkpedal)... and as you know, I collect male portaiture, and although many smoldering looks and shirtless beefy toughs among the subjects, nary a nude (mostly faces only). Part of me just doesn't want to impose something like that on guests.

And part of me thinks the sexiest part of anybody is the face. But that's something else entirely.

But I guess I tend to segment some of this (personally) and I like my porn as porn and art as art, served up separately, I guess...

It's why I never went to see Naked Boys Singing. While I loves me some musical theater, if I want to look at naked boys, I don't want them singing... ;)

Brooke--
While I do not "get" that one piece (actually, that genre, male or female), I do like the collection, and I like/support anyone who collects art, even if my own tastes vary, in total or piece by piece.

Joey--
Try us!

I too saw the first pic as a 1970s pop piece, and it really appealed to me. Again I applaud such boldness. The sneezing girl one is interesting as well, sneezing is cathartic and that girl got her some catharsis goin' on.

In terms of having non-serene art in the home, I can only say I think it comes down to a function of who you are and what you like. That's whats so great about art, it's something different to everyone. Look at how much discussion has evolved from these little images on a screen nary the size of a piece of paper themselves.

Again, not having any 'traditional' art myself, hello, my loft changes colors. It's a constant kinetically changing piece of artwork, in my opinion. It may not be serene, well I guess it can be, but I can shut if off or dim it with the flip of a switch. It's not for everyone, but it sure makes people talk, and I like that about it the most.

I absolutely love the first painting, to me it stands head and shoulders above the rest. I think I am on the other end of the spectrum in that I expect any art in my home to do double duty, i.e. be pleasing aesthetically and to provoke interest and conversation.

The buxom lady in the picture is as interesting for her obviously aggressive facial expression as she is for her breasts. She presents a direct challenge to any audience viewing the painting...fantastic!

I am curious though Brooke, what kind of reception does the painting usually receive?

First painting -- absolutely brilliant. Best of the lot! I want!

wait. is it erik or andy?

danae, Michelle--
What do you like about it? What makes it brilliant? (Not arguing, just curious).

I actually have a small oil portrait on copper, a painted reproduction of the face of a man taken from 70s porn video box... THAT, I get, because it is beautifully painted, the imagery is layered, the statement about the various media represented is interesting, etc... and, above all, I repsond to the face... and, if you didn't knwo it came from porn, it holds its own as an oil portrait.

To me, this first painting works too hard to say "hey, look, how edgy we are!" And yes, I am the same way about (pardon the expression ) "in your face penis art."

I personally thought the Dennis Oppenheim photo of father/daughter in Melanie C's entry was much more provocative, edgy and disturbing (in a good way) and (to me!) visually pleasing than this. But, there is no right or wrong, and that's the cool thing.

I was just hoping someone could let me in on the secret here, since I seem to be missing something.

I have to second Patrick on this one. An ex-boyfriend of mine owned an art gallery and had an exhibit of an artist who is quite edgy (can't remember his name), and I loved that art.

Not sure why, but this just doesn't do anything as far as I'm concerned. (And PS - I love 70s blaxpolitation films, but those ladies were seriously cool.)

Pardon me--blaxploitation. :)

I don't really see it as edgy, but then again you are talking to an Italian guy from the North Shore of Massachusetts who grew up with fuzzy wallpaper and 'color themed' rooms, not to mention a GIANT oil painting of Don Quixote over the parlor couch, the parlor being the room with the full-wall mural of the Roman garden, complete with fountains. Nothing really shocks me decor-wise as a result :)

Why I like it is because it's fun. It's unexpected. It's not to be taken seriously. It's over-proportioned and provocative, and if you look at the right way, her endowments look like giant eyes shocked to see the matador lamp on the table.

Firstly, Seema, it is Erik. I have no idea who Andy is.

Secondly, it's pretty exciting the variety of responses to only a small portion of our collection. If you could see some of the rest of our collection, I'm sure the reactions would be even more extreme. That said, my husband and I don't buy art to elicit extreme reactions.

Because art is our main source of income and the art world is our main social outlet, we're pretty well versed in contemporary art history and our tastes reflect that.

Danae, the reception to the "bosom lady" painting is generally predictable. Frequent gallery goers are not in the slightest bit put off by it's erotic or exploitist elements. The painting is in our upstairs bedroom so it's not immediately visible to guests.

What should be mentioned and may put a lot of people with kids at ease, is that we have 2 kids, the youngest is 3 1/2 and we've always had art all over our home. We are careful not to have anything explicitly vulgar, but I don't consider the "bosom lady" vulgar.

P2,

The painting brings to my mind certain words/reactions best summed up as:

beauty
crumpet (don’t ask :-)
Betty Davis
the cool films of the 70s
power through sexuality

If anything this contest as shown is that art is overwhelmingly individual. Each of us will have different reactions to a piece and see (or not see) different things.

I agree that the bosom lady isn't vulgar. I've found some traditional nudes that would make me WAY more uncomfortable than that. Even though this isn't my "decor" style, I am totally envious of people who can really talk about art and know it.

For the record, I don't find it vulgar.

I guess my point is I don't find it "anything".

And (without knowing ANYTHING about the artist's intent, which can *sometimes* change my mind about these things...) I think it a one-note punchline kind of piece. By trying to make art titilating (pun, of course intended) or titillation art, I think it ends up being a great example of neither.

imho

From some of these responses I wonder if some people buy art to go with their couch or buy art for the love of it. I've seen shocking, vulgar art and that first painting isn't near it. I find it beautiful. My art has extreme painful images of below the belt. Kids have walked through my home and I also held my wedding amoungst those pieces. No one, even ones that never been in the apartment, batted an eye. That painting is something I would put in my apartment in a heartbeat. This whole contest has been a trying one, but entertaining. I love seeing art in people's homes. What's different about this contest is no one's wrong. All and all I find it inspirational.

Dani quoth: "From some of these responses I wonder if some people buy art to go with their couch or buy art for the love of it."

False dilemma. :-) What we display (most of ours is more crafts than art, but anyway) is chosen because we love it. There *is* some consistency in color scheme, but that's because the sofa was chosen to go with the other stuff we collect, not the stuff to go with the sofa.

My personal preference is to surround myself with images that do not show pain, bodily fluids, and other things that make me nervous. Maybe it's because I have some issues with depression and think it unwise to stare at anything grim (I also work primarily at home). Maybe it's because I just like a more toylike, playful environment.

If my unwillingness to buy images of pain or pieces that are "challenging" puts me in the same class as people who buy landscapes to match the sofa, I suppose I can live with that. I've often said real designers should look at me and ask, "Who invited those tacky people?"

lol wende. I know what you mean. That's why I think no one's wrong in this contest. Everyone's responses helped me see all sides. I'm probably one of those designers who judge tacky people, but don't know she's just as tacky.:)

I don't think anyone finds the picture shocking or vulgar, at least judging by the comments. It's like any other piece of art--you like it or you don't. I'm not really sure why some of the responses are implying that if you don't happen to like this one piece, you know nothing about art and you must buy a landscape that picks up on the pattern in your chintz couch.

I agree with Patrick in that it just doesn't really do anything for me either way. If it does for you, that's great.

Yeah, I think the reaction to "not loving this" being "your landscape matches your sofa, you sad heathen" was a big jump, and largely unfounded.

But not surprising, since some people who live and breathe the gallery life are sometimes more dedicated to insulating their world through ridicule and exclusion than to opening it up to a broader audience.

Luckily, there are still plenty of gallery people to buy from who DON'T operate that way...

One of the most well put description of what I like about Mainella's work comes from the Gay Guide Toronto:

"It would be easy to dismiss these paintings as simply trendy, but their execution is totally spot-on. It would not be too far out of line to compare Mainella’s current work to 17th Century Dutch Renaissance paintings by the likes of Vermeer, in which realistically capturing light and shadow were paramount concerns. The young women portrayed here are like sexed-up, contemporary versions of ‘Girl with the Pearl Earring’. The shadows in Mainella’s paintings are so deep and rich that you’d swear the canvas was actually velvet. The texture of the skin is such that you can almost smell perfume mixed with cigarettes and sweat coming off them. (And in the case of the painting of Kate Moss, the coke, too!)"

Still, I'm surprised that this discussion has centered on that painting and only one person has mentioned the "Sneeze."

Oh wow, Brooke. I just clicked over to your link above to see more of Derek Mainella's work. I'm blown away. Totally loving the high/low vibe going, especially in the pieces that tap into hip-hop culture.

p(too). I asked my friend about the vintage male portraiture I referenced in my last comment. Here's what he told me: "His name is Bob Cox (or Cocks) and he was/is an LA courtroom artist who
worked in oil and pastel (as far as I know) from the late 50s to the mid 80s. I had a few oil canvases of his (one late 50s, one early 60s and one 70s hair parted in the middle guy) but they are long gone. My triptych comes from a series of pastels on matteboards he did of athletes from the
late 70s/early 80s (culled from a whole portfolio of this work I bought at the Pasadena City College Swap Meet).

OFF THE CHAIN! I love it.

Thanks for the tip, Enrique. I'll look into it.

PS to Fiona. If you love '70s female blaxploitation ("Cleopatra Jones and The Casino of Gold" is my personal fave), you should check out the '70s "Sukeban" exploitation films from Japan. Nicknamed "violent pink" in the States, this genre features girl gangs and female juvies who give the best US grindhouse tough chicks a run for their money. (You'll notice similar imagery in the "Kill Bill" movies.) I picked up this set and have made it through the first 2 discs so far... http://www.panikhouse.com/archives/2005/08/the_pinky_viole.html

love your dana schutzes, and I am a fan of your husband's work. it's always interesting to see what artists collect.

could you tell me more about the Jonathan Meese? I've been researching artists using currency for awhile and haven't seen any other bill pieces by him - is this a one-off thing or do you know of any ongoing interest on his part?

so what was the reaction to the New Yorker article a few weeks back?

Liz,

The Meese was a one off. He was just popping them off at a bar in Hamburg when Erik first met him.

We have a lot more in our collection than what's reflected in these photos: Bjorne Melgaard, Gedi Sibony, Keegan McHargue, Tom Sanford, Alison Fox, Josh Smith, Ann Craven, Simone Shubuck and a bunch more. I wish we took more pictures for this. But I think the crowd prefers a safer bet for stuff on their walls.

Of course I like that you like Erik's work, so I'm totally digging you Liz. The New Yorker article went over really well. And it was really exciting.

Speaking of the New Yorker, I remember that there was a piece a while back about an artist who worked exclusively in currency. I can't recall who it was, though. I bought the CDROM of the New Yorker, so if I have a chance to check tomorrow I'll post in this comment section who it was.

Well, I love the first painting for personal reasons (plus I'm already a fan of Mainella's work. I also love the x-d out dollar underneath it. In fact that whole first grouping is dope. The sneeze is where I had to check out. LOL! But I like the variety and daring in the art that I'm seeing. It makes me want to see the rest of the art in your home which for me is the sign of a successful collection (when you want to see it whether you love every peice or not).

- Tania :)

"But I think the crowd prefers a safer bet for stuff on their walls."

Do you ever stop the condescension? Jesus.

If it is edgy, it's in a jokey adolescent way. And without the wit of someone like R. Crumb. It's not my cuppa and couldn't live with it and probably wouldn't go to see it, although I've been to some really weird shows.

Art makes all of us react (which is a good thing).

Here is what went through my mind when I saw the first picture:

Hair in picture: indicates presence of gravity.
Necklace in picture: indicates presence of gravity.
Bracelets in picture: indicates presence of gravity.
Breasts in picture: indicates absence of gravity.

Why does mainstream American society put so many expectations on women to have bodies that are not natural?

Thanks for the Meese info, I'm still intrigued by the impulse to alter currency even when it isn't an ongoing interest on the part of the maker. And if you can track down the NYer article that would be fab - the only thing that comes to mind is a recent art news thing on artist-envisioned US currency...

Wow, Enrique, as usual, your suggestions are great! (I did manage to track down a copy of the extravagant apartment book you recommended a while ago, btw)

That looks so fun. Definitely checking it out. Thanks!

Thanks for the big link to many artists. Regarding "difficult" art, several years ago I picked up a documentary film called "Sick" that I always reccommend to people open to learning about someone else's experience. It deals with a masochistic performance artist who among other things, hammered a nail through his penis, (how's that for difficult?) By understanding his lifelong battle against cystic fibroisis, something shocking and gross was also something courageous and meaningful. I felt great admiration for him, which is not what I would have ever imagined before watching that. I am living my charmed artist/ soccermom life here in the countryside, but art can teach me something about what it might feel like if I weren't so fortunate. When I go to NY, I like to see as many galleries as I can and try to understand what mood/statement seems to prevail. "

Umm Patrick (the other one), why don't you get off my back?

When I said that "I think the crowd prefers a safer bet for stuff on their walls," I was referring to the, as of right now, 49 people on the survey who posted that "this was not their cup of tea," and a bunch of the comments.

liz, I found the Newyorker article. His name is J.S.G. Boggs and here's a link:

http://www.jsgboggs.com/whois.html

It's pretty interesting stuff. And I wish I had one of his bills.

See? You assumed they didn't like it because it was "too challenging" for the masses here...

Why did you not assume they didn't like it because... they have purely different tastes... they are MORE sophisticated than you... they prefer photography... they don't like the way it's displayed or works with the interiors, as per the contest...they like something less cartoony...they hate snot...?

It could have been any number of reasons.

Again, Patrick (the other one), why don't you get off my back? Here are some of the comments made about the work shown:

- "As many of you know, I am CERTAINLY no prude when it comes to art (or anything!!) but I seriously don't "get" art like that first painting..."

- " don't get it either Patrick. what I'm realizing in this contest is that for me, what I might appreciate in a gallery is not the same as what I want on my walls."

- "I'm with Christine. It would be very unsettling to me to have "edgy" art in my home"

You are reading too much into what I'm saying I'm not making any judgements about anyone not liking our collection. There's a real difference in tone between - "the crowd prefers a safer bet" and "because it was too challenging for the masses."

The condescension towards people not liking the work seems to come from you, not me.

Hmmm, I don't understand how a defaced dollar bill is considered art. Why? Is it because the person who sat at a bar with a bunch of paper money and a magic marker studied art and/or is already officially known as an artist? If I did the same thing, would people hang it in their homes and have others asking where they could get some? It makes me wonder also, if the artist could be in some trouble because defacing currency in order to "alter the bill to gain a benefit" is illegal. This usually applies to making counterfeit bills, but I wonder if an artist selling defaced currency for profit would be considered doing the same thing. As "art," that dollar bill doesn't appeal to me at all, but it brings up some interesting (at least, to me) questions.

It's rough when the crowd - any crowd -
doesn't vote for you. But who cares? Don't pick fights.
Or get defensively condescending, which is certainly what I'm reading here.

as for accusing people of chintz sofas and landscape prints . . .

I voted Not My Cuppa because, it's not.
yet
I'm not looking for the safe bet.
go figure

Thanks for showing your apt/collection.

My final comment on this: the condescension is sooooo not coming from me. Remember, I was the one who thought the cowhide rabbit was art. You compared it to curtains.

Sorry to all if I was the one who brought this down from an attemtpt to honestly learn/dialogue to lame finger pointing. Not my intent. But snooty "art people" really irk me beyond belief.

I'd just like to reiterate that just because someone voted not my cuppa doesn't mean they prefer a safer bet.

Maybe some people just don't like any piece where a woman is depicted with breasts larger then her head, be it a post-feminist/modernist/ironic comment on the male gaze/the power of black female sexuality/ blah blah blah whatever or that it reminds them of the the local sign for "Nacho Mama's", the nabe trashy "mexican" restaurant where aging frat boys go to get drunk. Maybe they don't like how you grouped the Nara piece with the cactus. Maybe they think the dresser is ugly or that the pastel colored yarn doesn't work in the context of the arrangement. You never know.

regards,
trillium

And by the way, Brooke, you do seem very condescending. You obviously don't realize that you seem condescending, but that doesn't change the way you are coming off. However, it doesn't seem like any amount of exchange on this subject will be beneficial, since you are obviously determined to argue.

What does any of this has to do with a the art? Who cares if I sound condescending? Lets just get back to a discussion of the collection.

I'd love to hear more people talk about what they think of the work.

I made a comment on the art itself and what I thought about it (see above). Does anyone one to react to my comment?

"one" = "want"

Lori, I'm not sure that gravity is the concept that the first picture brings to my mind. The "issue" of the painting, for me, is the emphasis of circular forms. Breasts, nipples, eyes, nose, shape of the ring (although this is side view, so I could be mistaken). I could then discourse on the meanings of circular: female, absence, presence, beginnings, emptiness, etc., etc. but I think I'll leave at that.

I laughed out loud Patrick the other one - about your snooty comment. I cringe at many of your comments because you seem to be so know it all ( and, uh, a bit snooty) And then, you suddenly turn self righteous, which always takes me aback. I appreciate your comments though because i am not in love with the painting, but it is beautiful in a way just as I wasn't inlove with the style of your apartment either (beautiful in a guy kind of way I guess too.) but I truly didn't get it when so many other's loved it. There were other apartments I thought that were far more beautiful and different and creative. Just my opinion and we know you love opinions - atleast your own.

Well, you've chosen an apt screen name.
Sorry to offend. Glad I made you laugh.

ebrown -

Gravity really isn't the first thing that comes to my mind either. "Porn tits" is what I see in this picture.

Thanks Brooke - I know Boggs's work but hadn't seen that link. Appreciate it.

Diane - those are good questions. it isn't typically Meese's intent to work with currency but many artists who do have those kinds of questions at the core of their projects. as an example, one artist uses currency as a kind of communication, thinking about the circulation of the bill and its ability to share whatever axiom she writes on it. your point about gaining a benefit is an interesting one, because there are several artists working with currency that refuse to make any gain on the sale of their work, keeping the value stable.

anyway - there's some good debate here amidst the flames.

Well, Catty, when I die and go to heaven I hope there's a room as beautiful as Patrick's for me. In other words, witty, comfortable, thoughtful, and livable for the long hall. over. and out.

That's good e. ebrown. you have the right. very nice. I just don't agree with these fawning opinions of some people's apartments and their judgment. that's all. and i feel that if people can dish it they can take it. I also feel that we are not as creative as we think. some of this stuff i've seen that everyone liked so much - you can see in any pad in chelsea.
My only issue is that some people - patrick one of them - must weigh in all the time. they get nasty, they judge as if their taste was biblical. taste is subjective. and when someone calls them on it they act sanctimonious. we all can't sit on the couch and blog all day and judge all day. we have jobs not trust funds. That's all i am saying.

catty--

Yes, I stoop to take your bait. Argh.

I weigh in because:
I am passionate about what I weigh in on, and don't get the opportunity to do it (on these topics) at my day job (yes, I have one). Yes, I LOVE sofas, and talking about them. I love Pottery Barn. So what? (and why does that mean you have to slam my taste, btw?)
I like MOST of the community here, and enjoy the discourse. Very much so. I count MANY among my great friends now.
I weigh in because, unless I misunderstood the mission of this site, I thought it was a forum for exchange, for sharing info, sharing ideas... MANY of which, people ASK for opinions and help on.
I weigh in to encourage others to do. I greatly look forward to what Curtis or Enrique or Fiona or Jamie Pup or RR or jimkk or Frank or Lori2 or MANY others have to say. And guess what? Their class and insight and research and experiences (and ABOVE ALL, humor) have taught me MANY MANY things, and I (and the community) are the richer for it.
I weigh in beacuse I have fun doing it. So, maybe this is my hobby. Big whoop.

I think I do indeed have something to offer when I weigh in (or else I wouldn't). Is it bible? Is it gospel? Deargod no. If you knew anything about me (which you soooo don't... and I refuse to get into a "credentials" pissing match with you or Brooke or whatever...), you would know my tastes are WILDLY eclectic, and you'd understand I love visual variety more than just about anything else in all of life. SO much here excites me (USUALLY in a good way) that I can not contain my glee and enthusiasm. So %#%@$ing shoot me. Or, better yet, just stop reading what I post.

And for the record, I stoop to the level of others when they insult others, insult me (IN THAT ORDER), or are just outright rude. If you follow the threads, it usually takes A LOT of someone's attitude before I react accordingly.

And thanks so much.. you've succeeded in making a really crappy day MUCH worse.

ps: Sincere apologies to anyone else here who has interpreted my contributions to AT in the same way catty has.

It's all of our hobby. you are no different, you are no special. there you go again, after you judge you try to be so sanctimonious, naming names to make sure everyone knows you area good guy. i just dont buy it. we all love furniture and this site. its perfect, great. I read it several times a day when i have a break from work. its a wonderful wonderful site and so are most people who read it and so are you, i am sure. just dont dish it if you can't take it. i am just saying i dont care for your taste like you don't care for others. nothing is wrong with that. and so what if many of us like domino the place YOU want to work for but diss and criticize. just stop being so two headed. just stop acting so sanctimonious after you diss us. i just dont buy it. I love comments from curtis, fiona and especially enrique too, these are people who never seem mean or judgmental just passionate. and if they criticize - they dont shy away from it. they criticize. so what. i love that. i just say face up to it. dont try to back peddle and act like the good guy. words dont lie. i dont mean to be harsh, but i am just dishing it back. somebody needs to. You can't act like that and think no one can say anything back and act like you are the good guy. You are not untouchable. believe me.
peace.

by the way, we all have crappy days. you are no different patrick. we dont want to get personal. All i am saying is that its hard to put ourselves out here everyday. and yes, you probably have helped many people but i read these threads and i cringe sometimes when you get all grand as if you are the all knowing god of taste and furniture. taste is subjective. but what really irks me is when you get all sanctimonious as if you hadnt just slammed someone. that's not right. either you criticize and be done with it. that i respect. anyways, I am done. I so don't want to ruin your night.

Sometimes these AP confab transcripts read like ramblings from the mental ward. Art collecting as an expensive habit/addiction. It's worse than coke and makes people snarky. But it's oh so much fun.