April 2007 Archives

Does everyone here know what Chris Rywalt paints? Why the fuck are you painting woman with their legs splayed open?
If you want to be a participant in a feminist blog, I think you need to explain your work. It's not strong enough to really be offensive, it's just kind of dumb. I've had enough of this in art history, and contemporary art, men painting womens bodies and making up some bullshit as to why it's not about objectification.
The bottom line Chris is you are part of the problem not part of the solution.

the work(rywalts)really is quite awful-

Anon asks:
Does everyone here know what Chris Rywalt paints? Why the fuck are you painting woman with their legs splayed open?

Because sometimes, in real life, women spread their legs. Because vulvas are great. Because I like women. Because women actually are objects -- they're not just objects, but they are certainly objects in addition to a lot of other things. Because the world is full of images of idealized women spreading their idealized legs and showing their idealized twats, and I'd like to add some images of more realistic, more beautiful, more lovable women showing their regular twats. Because I want to capture those little glimpses, those small moments between two people who love each other, those brief flashes that go by so quickly you might not even notice them. Because nude women (or anyway one particular nude woman) are what I see nearly every day and I paint what I see.

Mostly because I feel like it.

Are you kidding?
You come on this blog which is for and by women who are questioning this kind of stuff and that's your answer:"Mostly because I feel like it."

I think your going to get your head handed to you on this one.
As for your comments on I'd like to add some images of more realistic,... your not serious are you? do you think your work is realistic? I mean in a the context of realistic painting both historically and in general the work is not anywhere close to being in this genre.

So your failing on a lot of levels here, not be mean but you kind of opened yourself up to this posting here.

The paintings are kind of nice decorative images on a mundane level, they are not realistic at all. You need to define how they are because I don't see it.

Second they are all objectifying women and if you don't get that in the context of feminist theory, which this blog seems to deal with, than your either a complete idiot or your just trying to get a reaction.

Your last post is a bit juvenile in both form and substance.
You can't see that saying things such as women actually are objects and Because the world is full of images of idealized women spreading their idealized legs and showing their idealized twats are statements designed to get harsh reactions? I assume that us your agenda, and from reading your past posts here it seems to be a theme.

anon 7:46 is right your always trying to turn it around to the "other", it's not about you or me it's about the context and meaning of what you say and what you paint.

sorry for the typos...

One more thing Chris I think you need to think real hard before posting, it's your call, but I can see this getting ugly.

So before you post some smart ass response to me or anyone else, read the threads carefully with your hands away from the keyboard. Try to think, try to use your brain, I know your a smart guy but after seeing your work and reading what you write it's leading me to think your not thinking in a logical way.

As disagreeing with post-modern feminist theory that's your right and privilege. But what's the point of making banal comments.

Guess what? You don't have to like my paintings.

Anon, you can decide my paintings objectify women if you want. You can decide they're not realistic, although what I said was that they're more realistic than other images. You can decide they're decorative and mundane.

I'm not fishing for harsh reactions, not in general. I'm just writing whatever I'm feeling and thinking at the time.

I post here because Edna and Nancy are interesting writers and people. They are both far less dogmatic and far more thoughtful than the commenters, who tend to be self-righteous chuckleheads.

I also post here because it helps me to meet interesting people. I would never have met Kelli Williams, or gone to her show in Chelsea, if we hadn't both been involved in conversations here.

What does that have to do with the questions being asked?

Ok if your going to post on blogs and people make comments about your work do you not think you could have something slightly interesting to say about the work?

You did use the word realistic which to most people mean a certain kind of painting.

The paintings you are doing don't even come close to being realistic, so why are you saying they are in this genre, By the way that was the question.

I am not being dogmatic I am trying to get your to define your last posting. On one hand it's a bit flippant and then you go on about 2 people loving each other, which is interesting as there is only one person in the paintings.

It's great that you have met people and this is serving a kind of social need for you. That's nice and it's ok with me. However your making these statements and then when you get checked on it you start in with it's "all about you routine". That is your turning it around again, your calling me names.

I called you work mundane, I can tell you have not been to art school, because if you had you might have something more interesting or educated to say.

In a crit you can't get away with I do this because I like it. It's very 'high school' don't you think?

Everything has a context like it or not. Calling me names is also very 'high school' as well.
Well I have to go to work now. I'm not trying to be dogmatic I'm trying to see why you say the things you say.

You can decide they're not realistic, although what I said was that they're more realistic than other images.
What images? Yours, another painters, some other genre?

How do you see your work in context to realism?

Why do paint the female form without heads or complete limbs?

How do make the color choices for your paintings?

Why do you think that vulva's represent your love of the female form?

If your paintings are about relationships, as you stated, than how come there is only one person in the paintings?

How do make compositional decisions?

What kind of process do you go through in developing your work?

I could go on, Chris if you where in a grad program these are some of the kind of questions that you would be asked by your fellow students and the professors.

I'm not saying you need to take heed of this but it's just good to debate the work sometimes.

If however you want to remain in "high school" and discuss the work and your ideas in that context that's fine with me.

me and my nappy hos would like to inquire:just who are these women?they dont seem to be anyone,or come from any real place,any emotion,or actual lust-they are doodles-with bubble gum vaginies

Hmmm.
I was trying to be constructive, but yes they are as you saydoodles-with bubble gum vagina's

Hey guys, I think what Chris meant by "realistic" is that the woman or women depicted in his work has a more realistic body type (fatter) than most of the objectified female bodies we see. And yes, it's obvious from his discourse (or lack thereof) that Chris hasn't gone to art school, but I for one find that refreshing. I'm glad he's not intimidated by all the artspeak and into cowed into thinking that he doesn't have anything to say because he doesn't speak the language.

On the other hand, he does deserve to get questioned on a feminist blog for playing in an arena in which he can't really compete. Chris, it's not a level playing field. In this instance you don't have the knowledge (history of feminism, contemporary art history, etc.) to fight this battle. But, here in this space, women are responding to the fact (you can call it opinion or experience, but we, as women, have experienced it our whole lives, so it feels like irrefutable fact) of being at the low end of the unlevel playing field. So you can understand why we get a little testy when a straight while male (yes, not all of you are the oppressor, not all of you have had all the advantages, we don't need to be lectured on that, so save your breath) barges in, or drops in, however you want to see it, and tells us in a not very well thought justification, why he paints female nudes. To not be aware of the cultural history and implications of men painting female nudes is to be pretty clueless at this point in time, in this space.

And yes, in spite of my "name", I'm a woman. I guess I'll have to get a new name anyway, now that the mystery is solved. Maybe I'll be the nappy-headed ho. I think we should wear buttons saying "We Are All Nappy-Headed Hos". But I digress.

>then you go on about 2 people loving each other, which is interesting as there is only one person in the paintings.<

wait there was one painting with a figure and the back of another figures head right infront of the crotch -impling a blow job?
Nice chris, is that one of the small moments between two people who love each other, those brief flashes that go by so quickly you might not even notice them you want to capture?

Chris you've got to be more aware of what you are doing, and what it's affect is, what the history of the imagery you are workign with means, art historically, socially, politically, otherwise it's just you in a bubble: Masterbation Man. Which leads me to another question, do you get turned on sexually by your work?

This post should be called "The Unwitting Sexist & Bullying in the Blogosphere"

I don't know why I'm going to bother with this -- waste my time, really, because almost no one who reads this blog is going to care what my answers are; they either think I'm a jerk and a poor artist or whatever else.

I will also note, Anonymous, that I am the one putting myself out there. My name is on these comments; my paintings and drawings are up for critique. In fact I'm not just Chris Rywalt here, I'm Chris Rywalt across the entire Internet, for everything I've done, for the last 19 years I've been online. As much as you seem to think I'm avoiding your questions and acting ignorant and being flippant, I'm actually here. Which is more than can be said for you.

Now let's go point by point and I'll try and answer best I can.

Anonymous said...
What does that have to do with the questions being asked?

People had asked before why I bother posting here. I was answering them -- a little late.

Ok if your going to post on blogs and people make comments about your work do you not think you could have something slightly interesting to say about the work?

I'm really not all that interested in saying something interesting about my paintings or drawings. The work speaks for itself. If you don't like what it says, or think it says it badly, or whatever, that's up to you. I'm not going to make up your mind for you. And if you don't like a given painting, does it matter what I say about it? Can I say something which causes you to like it? Even if I could, I don't want to. Bottom line: Look at the painting. See how you feel. That's all.

You did use the word realistic which to most people mean a certain kind of painting. The paintings you are doing don't even come close to being realistic, so why are you saying they are in this genre, By the way that was the question.

I didn't say my paintings were in the academic realist tradition. Most of them aren't. I'd say I do have a few on there which are realist paintings, but I'm no realist painter, so I don't think they're of that caliber.

What I meant when I said my paintings were more realistic was that the women in my paintings are based on real women. Mostly on one real woman. I don't always work from life but sometimes I do. Ultimately, they're all aspects of one person. And they're more realistic than many other images of women because I try to paint and draw what I see without editing out things like sagging breasts or big bellies or large thighs.

My most recent work has been -- not inspired by, or working against -- my most recent work has been done thinking of Tom Wesselmann and Peter Stanick. My figures are more human and less idealized than either of them. Just as two examples.

I am not being dogmatic I am trying to get your to define your last posting. On one hand it's a bit flippant and then you go on about 2 people loving each other, which is interesting as there is only one person in the paintings.

And when you're having sex with someone, can you see two people? Do you often look at yourself when you're having sex? Personally, I don't.

It's great that you have met people and this is serving a kind of social need for you. That's nice and it's ok with me. However your making these statements and then when you get checked on it you start in with it's "all about you routine". That is your turning it around again, your calling me names.

I didn't call you names. I said the commenters tend to be self-righteous chuckleheads. If you think that applies to you, so be it. You actually sound more reasonable than most of the people around here, though.

I called you work mundane, I can tell you have not been to art school, because if you had you might have something more interesting or educated to say.

I've spent the last year immersing myself in the output of MFA programs as chosen by Chelsea gallerists and I can tell you, plenty of people emerge from art school with nothing interesting or educated to say.

In a crit you can't get away with I do this because I like it. It's very 'high school' don't you think? Everything has a context like it or not.

I actually don't care too much about context. I care about paintings.

How do you see your work in context to realism?

I don't. Not usually. If pushed, I might say I'm not an academic realist because I'm lazy. But then, I also think we have enough realists already, so there's no sense in my working very hard to become another one.

Why do paint the female form without heads or complete limbs?

I have a few reasons for this. One reason is that faces are difficult to paint. Another reason is that viewers are more able to identify themselves with figures in paintings if the faces are less defined. Once you paint a face -- especially a particular face -- you make the figure into an individual person, a specific instance. I'd rather my figures be more flexible.

Another reason is perception. When you're with another nude human, you rarely see their bodies entirely. We don't usually get undressed and then drape ourselves across a sofa like a model in a drawing session. Again, maybe you do, but I don't.

How do make the color choices for your paintings?

I have a very weak color sense. I go by intuition. I'm teaching myself as I go along.

Why do you think that vulva's represent your love of the female form?

Because vulvas are cool. Because when a woman has no clothes on -- and if you've been to session with a nude model you know this -- she's still not really naked until she exposes her vulva.

Vulvas are the symbol for life the world over. What do you think the Pope wears on his head? What do you think is on top of the ankh?

How do make compositional decisions?

Mainly by intuition.

What kind of process do you go through in developing your work?

The drawings are entirely process-free. That's the process. Approach a piece of paper with Conté and see what comes out. The drawings were my attempt to work loosely without worrying about the final product too much. As a former airbrush artist, I was accustomed to planning my paintings very carefully. The drawings were off the cuff, meant to be as simple as possible.

My latest paintings are extensions of the drawings. A couple of them, I've used my drawings as reference.

Now, you can decide -- as an art school proponent, which you seem to be -- you can decide that since I have no process, no theory, no art historical precedent in mind, no verbiage with which to "defend" my paintings, that my paintings are therefore worthless. Feel free.

However, I've made a conscious decision to reject words as the foundation of painting. Painting isn't about ideas that can be expressed in words. I'm not interested in theory, especially postmodernism. I've explored it and rejected it.

And, again, you may think that's stupid. You may think that's ignorant. You may think I'm dead wrong or making excuses or whatever. And again, feel free.

Since I wrote this up there were some more comments. Might as well add them in here:

dannielynn's daddy said...
I'm glad he's not intimidated by all the artspeak and into cowed into thinking that he doesn't have anything to say because he doesn't speak the language.

I've tried and tried to understand the language. I've spent countless hours trying to unravel postmodern jargon. And I've failed. People might decide that makes me an idiot; but while I'm unsure about a lot of things in the world, one thing I am certain of is that I'm not dumb. (I know the difference, for example, between "your" and "you're.") I was still willing to assume I was just not smart enough to understand postmodernism until I read -- and here's a logical fallacy, argument by authority -- I read Noam Chomsky, who also had tried to understand postmodernism and failed. And if Chomsky -- who is certainly one of the smartest men in the world -- couldn't figure it out, then I felt pretty secure deciding it was crap after all.

Chris, it's not a level playing field. In this instance you don't have the knowledge (history of feminism, contemporary art history, etc.) to fight this battle.

Who says I don't have the knowledge? Isn't it possible I have the same knowledge but have reached different conclusions? I'm no art historian or feminist, but neither am I wholly ignorant of either.

...we, as women, have experienced it our whole lives, so it feels like irrefutable fact) of being at the low end of the unlevel playing field.

My wife has also been at the low end of the unlevel playing field. She's as female as any of you. Yes? But she's done very well in not one but two male-dominated fields. Without any feminist ideals or claptrap. How can that be? Certainly she couldn't have done it without many, many pioneers who faced much worse than she did. But after that, she did the work. And she didn't whine.

Not that you, Dannielynn's (Female) Daddy, are the one whining right now. This isn't directed at you personally.

Anonymous (the same one?) then asks:
Which leads me to another question, do you get turned on sexually by your work?

As a rule, no. Well, I think there's a sexual component in creating art for me. But that's unrelated to the subject of the work.

And another Anonymous (I assume) asks:
wait there was one painting with a figure and the back of another figures head right infront of the crotch -impling a blow job?

I can't even imagine which painting you're thinking of. Do you mean a drawing? There might be one like that, but it's not ringing a bell right now.

Anyway, what's wrong with blowjobs being a small moment between two people who love each other?

you remind me of the kids on Amarican Idol who get critiqued by Simon and inevitably reply "think what you want, I know I'm good"

I realize you are being attacked here but now we are talking, why not listen and learn? Try not to just be defensive. What would the point be of going to SVA this summer if you are just going to shirk off valid criticism.

I think your work is simplistic. It seems to comes from the heart which is sweet but it says nothing to me about the actuality of being an over weight woman and the experience she has with her body. That is a complicated relationship. You'r paintings dont seem to express any conflict or tention, they seem impersonal, almost mechanical. Why not paint about something you know. Why not show yourself in your work? In the end you're just making more pictures of naked women exposing their vaginas. You render your subject completely vunerable, passive and powerless. Personally, I find it offensive.
"and if you've been to session with a nude model you know this -- she's still not really naked until she exposes her vulva."
honestly Chris you just come off sounding like a naive pervert who uses art to validate his obsession with vaginas.
PS. I dont read art magazines and use fancy language, "believing" in Postmodernism is not what this is about.

Anon sez:
you remind me of the kids on Amarican Idol who get critiqued by Simon and inevitably reply "think what you want, I know I'm good"

Simon who?

Okay, I'm kidding. But I don't actually watch American Idol. I need to assert that to maintain my superiority right now.

I'm not saying I know I'm good. I don't. At all. Why else would I be 36 years old before I submitted to the SVA? Part of jumping into the art world as I did a little over a year ago was to start to find out if I am any good. For years I was the best artist -- at an engineering school. Doesn't say much.

So I'm not saying I know I'm good. You asked, I answered. You don't have to like my paintings. Your liking them or not liking them doesn't tell me if they're good or not. In fact I'd be hard-pressed to think of anything that'd tell me that. Even if I become rich and famous, I'll still be wondering if I'm good. And if I'm like John Currin, everyone else will be saying I suck, too.

I realize you are being attacked here but now we are talking, why not listen and learn? Try not to just be defensive.

I'm trying not to be too defensive. I am trying to listen. I'm not just dismissing you. In fact this conversation was mentioned to me by a lurker friend ("Good grief, you sure were getting smacked around") and I asked her if she thought my paintings objectified women. (Unlike you, she's seen my work in person, which I think is a prerequisite for serious criticism.) If I wasn't listening, I wouldn't have asked her. But I am and I did. (Her answer so far: "I'll have to think about it.")

I think your work is simplistic. It seems to comes from the heart which is sweet but it says nothing to me about the actuality of being an over weight woman and the experience she has with her body.

Well, honestly, I can't say anything about being an overweight woman, because I'm not one. I can say what it's like to see an overweight woman and think she's beautiful. That may be simplistic. I'm not really aiming for complexity of subject.

You'r paintings dont seem to express any conflict or tention, they seem impersonal, almost mechanical. Why not paint about something you know. Why not show yourself in your work? In the end you're just making more pictures of naked women exposing their vaginas. You render your subject completely vunerable, passive and powerless. Personally, I find it offensive.

You're projecting when you say my subject is "completely vulnerable, passive and powerless." There's nothing in my paintings to suggest that at all.

Personally, I find it offensive that you assume because a woman has spread her legs she's passive.

But I'm willing to assume you misunderstand my paintings because of a lack of my own skill. I think you're projecting, but I admit it's possible I've failed to express what I intended, and that I instead expressed, I don't know, contempt for nude women, or that I want to dominate them.

I'm being open and serious here. I believe it's possible it's my fault.

I have done an occasional self-portrait -- figure self-portrait, anyway. I don't paint myself mainly because it's very hard for me to see myself -- I don't have prehensile eyes or a big enough mirror -- and also because I'm a big fat hairy guy and no one wants to see that. I mean, I don't know what I look like. No one really knows what other people see.

I did have a male model write to me once and offer to work for me for free. I keep meaning to take him up on it but I don't have the facilities, really.

"and if you've been to session with a nude model you know this -- she's still not really naked until she exposes her vulva."
honestly Chris you just come off sounding like a naive pervert who uses art to validate his obsession with vaginas.

If you say so. It's probably healthy for a male of reproductive age to be obsessed with vulvas, but maybe not.

"- and also because I'm a big fat hairy guy and no one wants to see that"

That might be at the heart of what is problematic. Women, even us fatties, are used in art (i.e. Rubins) to satisfy the desire that lurks behind the male gaze. In essence the female is reduced to an object of desire which is ultimately a way of controling the woman. You are simplifying a complex life form into a one dimentional representation of what you desire, as a feminist I dont care for men depicting me as a flattened out sex symbol, it gets old. I would rather see you push the envelope and show us YOUR big fat hairyness. Paint it so beautifully we can't not want to look at it.
You seem like a good guy Chris and I apologize for being harsh. I hope you continue to talk to your women friends about your work and specifically these issues.

Anon sez:
Women, even us fatties, are used in art (i.e. Rubins) to satisfy the desire that lurks behind the male gaze. In essence the female is reduced to an object of desire which is ultimately a way of controling the woman.

What you are saying here is that it is never good for a man to look at a woman with desire. And that's flat-out wrong. Because the desire of a man for a woman -- and of a woman for a man -- is what perpetuates the species.

Desiring a woman does not necessarily imply controlling her -- or even the wish to control her. It's possible -- maybe not in feminist rhetoric, but it is possible -- to desire someone without caring to control them.

And there are women who like to be desired. Just as there are women who like to be tied up, women who like anal sex, women who like being beautiful, and so on.

You are simplifying a complex life form into a one dimentional representation of what you desire, as a feminist I dont care for men depicting me as a flattened out sex symbol, it gets old.

I haven't depicted you at all. Are you asking for modeling session?

It's not my intention in any way shape or form to create a flattened representation of what I desire. I may not be a good enough artist to make this clear to you -- it may be no artist exists who could -- but that's nowhere near my intention.

In fact I strive very hard to make what I paint and draw not a representation of what I desire, but a representation of what I see, and how it feels.

It seems to me, even more now, that you're projecting. Not only to me but also onto poor Rubens, who was, after all, just a humble craftsman.

I would rather see you push the envelope and show us YOUR big fat hairyness. Paint it so beautifully we can't not want to look at it.

Honestly? I think it's beyond my powers as an artist. A truly great artist could maybe do that. Maybe Lucien Freud could make a painting of me worth viewing. But me? I don't think so. Not right now, anyway. Maybe someday.

I mean, there are lots of things I'd paint if I could. If I could capture the crow's feet around the eyes of a really old person, that'd be great. I'd paint telephone poles marching off through the reeds in the Meadowlands. I'd paint baby birds fallen out of their nests being devoured by ants. I'd paint the visual version of Dave Matthews Band's "Crash into Me."

But there are things which are beyond me. I don't only paint what I want to paint; I also paint what I can paint.

wow those paintings sucked

Historically, the female body has been represented by men. "Control" is in the representation. Representation = Power.
Desire us all you want but when you, a man, make images of a sexualized female body, it functions like propaganda that says woman are sex objects. Your work is part of a historical continum wether you like it or not. It doesnt matter if the female body is abject or dominent, both attitudes can be in service to a fantasy. This is basic feminist theory 101. Maybe someone else can explain this better then I can. Or maybe you should take the initiative and read something on the subject yourself, this is afterall your life work, get your head out of the sand or your ass or wherever it is. Take it seriously, be intellectual. Playing the dumb painter who just paints but doesnt care where the work fits in the timeline of history and in a larger social context is well, niave.

I should get paid for this.

Gracious, people, do all you educated artists know the term 'process artist'? Chris, my dear friend, is a process artist who is just beginning his process art career, and this is how I assess his paintings. They are not Mature Anti-Feminist Objectifications; they are sincere works by an artist who makes art with his hands, not his intellect.

The fact that he is then able to come up with a large number of eloquent sentences about what he thinks he is doing is as much a handicap as an advantage. He should be in the studio, not wasting his time arguing with you people. Ahem.

Back to the original discussion--the Kathy Sierra affair struck me as noteworthy because Kathy herself was not engaging in controversial discussions; she is just about as sweet and harmless and technical a blogger as they come. The vicious nature of the comments and the threats, then, seemed to me to be indicative of a potentially deranged mind, more so even than usual.

Personally, as a most decidedly feminine blogger, I have had little to no trouble with the type of misogynistic garbage that other ladies are subjected to. I do not know whether I have merely been lucky, or whether my ironclad politesse and insistence on using ludicrously formal language has anything to do with it. I suspect that tacky, low-class individuals simply find me both confusing and boring.

There are male artists who do paintings of sexualized female bodies to great ends. I like Ashley Bickerton for example. But he is so self effacing and the paintings are expertly done and most importantly, with humor! He is somehow ironic about power relations, the woman are "sexy" in an over the top kind typical way but you get the feeling he is painting them with drunk goggles on, and they become part of a narrative about corrupt flesh in a corrupt world.

chris is a "process artist" now I've heard everything

prettylady, your boy Chris is the antithesis of a process artist.
Process Art:

Lynda Benglis, Eva Hesse, Robert Morris, Bruce Nauman, Alan Saret, Richard Serra, Robert Smithson, and Keith Sonnier. Their interest in process and the properties of materials as determining factors has precedents in the Abstract Expressionists’ use of unconventional methods such as dripping and staining. In a ground-breaking essay and exhibition in 1968, Morris posited the notion of “anti-form” as a basis for making art works in terms of process and time rather than as static and enduring icons, which he associated with “object-type” art. Morris stressed this new art’s de-emphasis of order through nonrigid materials, pioneered by Claes Oldenburg, and the manipulation of those materials through the processes of gravity, stacking, piling, and hanging.

wow, thanks for the history lessons, all you anons & d's daddy. I feel a little bad for chris, but this is good, this is real discussion rather than griping and gossiping.

wtf did i just learn something?

changing the world, one dumb-ass at a time.

One of you anons, you're a friggin' academic literalist. "Process artist" in the sense I am using is merely a person who bothers to explore their medium, by learning how it works--for example, actually learning to draw, then developing a personal method of stylistic expression, instead of blueprinting an idea and executing it, with little to no kinesthetic, aesthetic or technical involvement in the act of making it. Reference Deborah Fisher's notion of 'maker/thinkers' and the recent Wired article on the two distinct types of creative genius, the 'young innovator' and the 'old master.'

Chris, if he is ever to be any type of master, is a young old one. In my opinion, he has not even begun to create any real art yet; this is not pejorative, it comes from my perception of his nature. I think that every single piece of art he has produced comes under the heading of 'technical exercise,' and I have told him so to his face. He still, apparently, likes me.

You people are wasting your time, jumping all over his art because you don't like his words. He is, at least, a better writer than any of you.

I think I understand what Pretty Lady is getting at, in that my paintings and drawings do come out of my hands and not my head. That's the point, really. I don't think very hard about painting because I don't want it to be overintellectual wanking.

However, if being called a "process artist" means being lumped in with that list, I'll take it as an insult.

Anonymous continues:
Historically, the female body has been represented by men. "Control" is in the representation. Representation = Power.

This statement is true if and only if you believe it. That is, it's true for you. You can make generalizations all you want, but I'm still not buying it.

Desire us all you want but when you, a man, make images of a sexualized female body, it functions like propaganda that says woman are sex objects.

Sounds like sexism. Women can make images of a sexualized female body (Kelli Williams, Nicole Eisenmen) but men can't without its being propaganda?

Funny thing about "historical continua": They change, but the paintings don't. I consider my paintings above all that: All that crap is for art history majors, theoreticians, poststructuralist professors, and other people who are irrelevant and incapable of creating anything worthwhile.

Playing the dumb painter who just paints but doesnt care where the work fits in the timeline of history and in a larger social context is well, niave.

Try this on for size instead: I'm the incredibly intelligent painter who doesn't care where the work fits in the timeline of history and who considers the larger social context as being for bean-counters and dogmatic sycophants. I've done my homework, and I've concluded that we live in a benighted age of academic darkness, wherein all that's nurtured mankind through its long and evil history has been undermined and defaced by a bunch of no-talent hacks and beady-eyed trolls with tiny brains and overdeveloped insult sensors.

Oh, and one more thing:

Anon also sez:
prettylady, your boy Chris...

And this isn't supposed to be insulting? That I'm Pretty Lady's property now? I'm not Pretty Lady's boy -- nor is she my girl -- thank you very much. This may be incomprehensible to most of the readers here -- especially the feminist commenters -- but I and my friends are beyond considering each other as possessions.

PL sez:
In my opinion, he has not even begun to create any real art yet; this is not pejorative, it comes from my perception of his nature. I think that every single piece of art he has produced comes under the heading of 'technical exercise,' and I have told him so to his face. He still, apparently, likes me.

That's mostly because I pretty much agree with you. What I can't figure out is how to stop with the technical exercises.

I give up. You are willfully ignorant, pompous and downright bizarre. It's too bad for you that you consider your paintings "above all that". You could learn something from art history.

I highly doubt we shall ever become bosom companions

Chris I told you this would become ugly...

To say that you don't care what people think and the work speaks for itself is very juvenile and you know it.

The problem here is that on one hand your being told that it might be helpful to have some awareness of history. That's not a bad thing.
To hide behind this vale of 'the un-educated artist' is not working for a lot of people.

As for process art that's the lamest excuse I have ever heard to justify undeveloped paintings by a guy who admits he leaves out the heads because he can't paint them.
WTF! Learn to draw better how's that for process.

Come on you say you have done your homework, but you just hide behind "I'm just a little naive painter making little paintings of that please me". That's such a copout.

holy shit.

chris - i like your paintings, the eight most recently posted to your blog anyway... and i would have no way of knowing from those paintings (and still am not clear) what your schooling is.

all that grad school talk was just that, grad school talk.

worse, some of these quotes -

"you come on this blog which is for and by women... "

"he does deserve to get questioned on a feminist blog for playing in an arena in which he can't really compete"

what?

nevermind that EVERYONE on this blog is completely anonymous and you really have no idea what sex they might be... but what do those statements mean? like, you can't support gay rights unless you're gay, or you can't decry racism unless you've been a victim of it, the wealthy can't support the poor, the poor shouldn't look at architectural digest?

fucking idiots.

his paintings display a high school art education...the last time i saw paintings of that skill level was in hs, but the kid there had better one because they were wierder. why'd you take it to "f^^^îng idiots"?

Anon continues:
Chris I told you this would become ugly...

And I told you I was wasting my time answering your questions. Looks like we were both right!

To say that you don't care what people think and the work speaks for itself is very juvenile and you know it.

First, I didn't say I don't care what people think. I do. However, I also realize that not everyone is going to like it. I therefore accept your opinions as valid, even if I choose not to act on them.

Second, I don't think it's juvenile to say the work speaks for itself. I think it's asinine to say otherwise. I think it's ridiculous that so much of the 20th century art world's energy was expended making excuses for bad art.

The problem here is that on one hand your being told that it might be helpful to have some awareness of history. That's not a bad thing.
To hide behind this vale of 'the un-educated artist' is not working for a lot of people.

I didn't say I was uneducated. I'm not. I do have some awareness of history. I discount it as unimportant to my painting. I've made a conscious, informed decision regarding art theory. You disagree, so you think that makes me uneducated and ignorant. You assume that anyone, given your knowledge, must reach the same conclusions you have. You're wrong.

As for process art that's the lamest excuse I have ever heard to justify undeveloped paintings by a guy who admits he leaves out the heads because he can't paint them.
WTF! Learn to draw better how's that for process.

I didn't say I couldn't paint them. I said I'm lazy and it's hard. I also explained other reasons for leaving fully developed faces out of my paintings.

In fact I'm a fairly good draftsman (albeit not a portraitist).

I mean, you sound as if you've looked at three or four of my paintings. Did you look at any amount of my work online? There are plenty of faces. Plenty of fully-formed figures with hands and feet and everything.

Now, you may not like them. You may think I didn't draw or paint them very well. That's fine. But don't say I can't do them.

Come on you say you have done your homework, but you just hide behind "I'm just a little naive painter making little paintings of that please me". That's such a copout.

I never said I was naive. I'm not. And I'm not making little paintings that please me. I answered your questions with a lot more than that. Ultimately, I do what I do because I like it, but there's a lot more to it than that, and I've gone into it here in more detail than I have anywhere else, including my own blog.

And my paintings aren't little. I'm aiming towards something big. I would never call myself a little painter or say I make little paintings.

Oh, and thank you, Martin.

Martin you can't support gay rights if you're homophobic, you can't decry racism if you are racist, you aren't a feminist if you are making pointless degrading pictures of women with their legs splayed open. Chris never claimed to be a feminist but as far as I'm concerned you are either part of the problem or part of the solution. And yes, woman can make porographic work as well. Kelli goes there but her work is inventive, interesting, often funny and well painted.

"I do have some awareness of history. I discount it as unimportant to my painting."

Chris has positioned himself as an outsider artist. He's attaches great importance to the idea of original creation and being self taught (not looking to history, being independent of culture to me is like being self taught, you exist in a bubble) he is reinventng the wheel. I'd say he's Ambitious for this. Cudos for your ambition Chris.

Anon (another one? the same one?) sez:
Chris has positioned himself as an outsider artist.

Oh god no. God no, no, no. I'm not an outsider artist. I don't want to be an outsider artist and I'm not positioning myself as one. No way.

Just because I reject a lot of what is accepted by many other people in the art world doesn't mean I want to be outside the art world. The art world is a big place and there are plenty of artists who have similarly rejected various 20th century movements. Kelli Williams, for example, wrote some great stuff on PainterNYC tearing apart Helen Frankthaler and Morris Louis.

An outsider artist, to my mind, is someone who doesn't even realize they're making art, like a schizophrenic. Or they're someone who has no talent trying to make excuses for why they've been rejected.

That's not what I want. If I get rejected by the entire art world -- and it could happen -- I will not be positioning myself as an outsider artist. I'll find something else to do and paint on the side, just like I've been doing for the past 20 years or so.

He's attaches great importance to the idea of original creation and being self taught (not looking to history, being independent of culture to me is like being self taught, you exist in a bubble) he is reinventng the wheel.

I attach great importance to the idea of original creation, yes. However, I don't attach great importance to being self-taught. I'm self-taught because I'm very bad at taking direction, terrible at sitting in classrooms, and because I was convinced by my parents that I needed to get a "real job" instead of starting out as an artist at 17. I applied and was accepted to New York's High School of Art & Design. I didn't go. I went to Stuyvesant instead, and learned math and science.

Yes, I'm reinventing the wheel. It's my nature. It's how I've learned everything I've learned. It's not efficient but it works for me as well as anything.

Normally, I don't mind a good meaningful comment by, or even a whole debate, with an anonymous person. But this is foolish. If you want to attack someone who is willing to publicly stand behind their words and work, then you should open yourself up to the same scrutiny. If you won't do that then your comments are meaningless and you are lower than a school bully, who is at least identified.

I must agree with Martin - fucking idiots - AND you can link to me on that.

"Or they're someone who has no talent trying to make excuses for why they've been rejected"

Tracy has wiped the slate clean. You are fools making meaningless comments.

End of discussion. Tracy has spoken.

Oh wait this wasn't foolish:

Chris: "But, really, I'd rather talk about labiaplasty."

That was good, the making of a great disscussion, too bad we got sidetracked actually talking about something that matters.

Anon sez (quoting me):
"Or they're someone who has no talent trying to make excuses for why they've been rejected"

Too bad I haven't actually been rejected yet.

New Anon sez:
Oh wait this wasn't foolish:

Chris: "But, really, I'd rather talk about labiaplasty."

That was good, the making of a great disscussion, too bad we got sidetracked actually talking about something that matters.

You really can't read, can you? Here, I'll put my sentence in context for you:

"But, really, I'd rather talk about labiaplasty than discuss Asperger's and autism on a blog about feminism populated by fuckwits who can't read."

By the way, the best comment so far, to my mind, was this one:

wow, thanks for the history lessons, all you anons & d's daddy. I feel a little bad for chris, but this is good, this is real discussion rather than griping and gossiping.

I'm actually happy to be part of a real discussion. Injecting content into the Internet!

New Anon, just my opinion of course.

One that I am willing to attach my name to.

Tracy it's good to see that your the appointed moral cop of the blog.

That people want to remain anon is there business and has no baring on what they say in my view.

That you and Chris seem to think that because your using your real names, not a good idea in this age of identity theft, but beyond that to call people names or invalidate them is just a load cow crap.

I think a lot of anon's made some valid points about Chris's remarks and his work.

Chris you say your a good draughtsman/person by who's standard?

This is very subjective, all of what is being said. Aside from the political comments which are dealing with something other than the technical, I would say your drawing skills are not that good when compared to say this chap:
http://eftstudiostracey.blogspot.com

For me there is a standard that relates to history and and to proficiency that your not really meeting, your not bad at what you do, your very good at gesture and you have a feel for contour.
But by your own admission you say your to lazy to do the work!

How on earth do expect me to take you seriously when your not doing the same?

This is painterdog, my login wont work ,I have to fix that.

I think we all agree, even Chris cant possibley argue his work is good.

Chris I hate to be the one to tell you, but you are sounding like an outsider artist when you say things like you "consider(s) the larger social context as being for bean-counters and dogmatic sycophants." What does that even mean? Wait, dont answer that. The thing is Chris, if you would engage with our culture, (THINK ABOUT CONTEXT) you would see it is saturated with sexualized images of women. The constant bombardment of these images reinforces stereotypes about women. I expect it from advertisers, the crassness of it, but I expect more from an artist, I expect art to run counter to popular culture, be an antidote for that shit, not mindlessly repeat it.

Tracy it's good to see that your the appointed moral cop of the blog.

Self-appointed moral cop, thank you very much.

When there is naked or semi-naked women in sexually provocative poses in painting, the personal becomes the political. The sexual is political. it is not the sexual nature of pornographic images that I object to, but the political messages that are automatically attached. the ideology behind the images is innocent, you just love vulvas, right? But in the context of our patriarchal culture and given the history of how women are represented in art, in their own very very veryvery small way, they are harmful images.

Hey, Jeff, so glad you arrived to beat me up some more.

Painterdog sez:
Chris you say your a good draughtsman/person by who's standard?...I would say your drawing skills are not that good when compared to say this chap:
http://eftstudiostracey.blogspot.com

Um, okay, compare me to a really good draftsman. Thanks. I said I was fairly good, not good, and I mean that by the current standards of the art world. (Which may not be saying much.) I'm not a prodigy, I'm not a great draftsman, and if you compare me to the best (or even the merely good) I look bad. I'm mediocre. I read somewhere that a great draftsman should be able to draw a person falling off a roof before they hit the ground. I'm nowhere near that good.

I would like to note, though, that EFT Studios -- whoever that is -- is drawing in a particular style, i.e. academic realism. I'm not interested in that style. Looking more closely at his drawings, actually, I think I could draw like that, aside from a few realist tics I don't have a handle on.

I mean, look a this. It's a good drawing, but no human on Earth has ever looked like that. We accept it as a "realistic" drawing because the tropes and symbols EFT used are ones we've learned "are" "realistic." But they're not.

Anyway, just because I don't put my more realistic done from a model drawings on my site doesn't mean I don't do them. Like this one. And I think the chimpanzee here is pretty realistic (that's gouache, 30x40 inches, by the way).

How on earth do expect me to take you seriously when your not doing the same?

I gave up on your taking me seriously a while back, Jeff.

Anon goes on:
When there is naked or semi-naked women in sexually provocative poses in painting, the personal becomes the political. The sexual is political...But in the context of our patriarchal culture and given the history of how women are represented in art, in their own very very veryvery small way, they are harmful images.

You assert these statements -- you're making these "is" statements -- as if they are absolute truth. But they're not. You believe this, but that doesn't make it so. People can and do disagree on this subject. I disagree with you. That doesn't mean -- as I've said a number of times -- that I'm ignorant, or that I haven't thought this out, or that I'm naive, or uneducated. It means we disagree, nothing more.

I personally think the concept of the "male gaze" is crap. It can't be supported by anything -- not evidence, not logical argument. The only argument for it is emotional -- "I'm a woman, you're not, you don't know how it feels, and you can't argue with me about this." That's the argument set forth above by Dannielynn's Daddy, for example.

The idea of the "male gaze" is one you get when you look at, for example, a painting by Rubens. Somehow you can't grasp the idea that it's not the idea everyone gets, and that people who fail to get it aren't missing it because they're less enlightened than you. They fail to get it because they're different from you, and think different things. If you automatically assume a different reaction comes from ignorance, then you're making the same gross mistake of the Dead White Males you're trying to depose.

Hey chris do you believe the holocaust happened?
Just because you are in denile about how women have been treated in history, and represented in art history doesn't mean it's not real. Arguing with you is like arguing with a block of wood.

take responsibility for the images you make.

the fact you're a shitty draftsman is a seperate issue

the male gaze is not a provable theory (you really are a dumb-ass) the defining characteristic of the male gaze is that the audience is forced to regard the action and characters of a text through the perspective of a heterosexual man; the camera lingers on the curves of the female body, and events which occur to women are presented largely in the context of a man's reaction to these events. The male gaze denies women agency, relegating them to the status of objects. The female reader or viewer must experience the narrative secondarily, by identification with the male... this is the concept Chris. Have you been to the movies lately?

Can you acknolage that something is wrong in our culture?
This brings me back to anons original point:
Women had 91 percent of cosmetic procedures done in 2006. The number of procedures performed on women was nearly 10.5 million

-Plastic Surgery Research. info

The issue of passive female subjects and the application of psychoanalytic theory ( rooted in biologism and misogyny) in 70's feminist film criticism and subsequent art criticism is by no means universally accepted as anything more than an opinion by all critics or all feminists. I'm a little amazed that people think they can dictate the content of a blog ( an inherently democratic format) or the parameters of feminism itself. There's a reason the Brooklyn Museum show and many writers pluralize the term. Edna has said previously she doesn't want to restrict the gender of commenters and it's HER BLOG not a blog "by and for women". If you want that start your own blog. Arguing with other commenters is one thing but all the anonymous griping directed at the people who STARTED the blog and WRITE the posts is especially rude. I'm still amazed that Nancy took so much crap for writing about Nan Goldin after people specifically asked her to when Goldin's name came up in conversation. It's not like Golden is some fringe artist, plenty of critics have written about her. I wonder if Edna posts so infrequently because of all the anonymous bitching everytime she does. None of you own feminism or have the right to dictate what people say or think particurally the people who WRITE and HOST and STARTED the forum. This could have been an interesting discussion on the topic instead of an illustration of it.

I was only explaining to Chris what the term "male gaze" means because he is clueless, i didn't mean to imply the male gaze is universally accepted but then again, have you been to the movies recently?
BLACK SNAKE MOAN looks really interesting.
Nobody seems to be trying to restrict gender here or is someone trying to do that? All the anons are engaging with Chris and Martin and Painterdog. And what aonymous griping directed at the people who STARTED the blog are you talking about? This heated conversation is directed at Chris. Did he start the blog? Chris are you really Edna? No one is
dictating the content of a blog, if you want to change to conversation bring something up, this happens to be the liveliest conversation I've seen here (or on any blog) for a long time.

lets talk about labiaplasty?

Anon 3:02 sez:
Just because you are in denile about how women have been treated in history, and represented in art history doesn't mean it's not real.

I haven't said anything about how women have been treated in history. We're discussing art. And I'm pretty sure we can argue about that all day. There's no right and wrong there, whatever you might think.

Anon 3:06 sez:
take responsibility for the images you make.

I do. I don't take responsibility for any given viewer's reaction to the images I make, however.

the fact you're a shitty draftsman is a seperate issue

It would be, if I were.

Anon 3:15 sez:
the male gaze is not a provable theory (you really are a dumb-ass)

The "male gaze" is based on the the concept of "the gaze" in Lacanian psychology. Lacan's work is in the field of psychology, which is a medical field. And not one shred of scientific evidence has ever backed up anything he wrote.

Anon 3:15 then goes on to quote the frigging Wikipedia page for "the male gaze." And I'm the dumbass.

this is the concept Chris. Have you been to the movies lately?

Are we discussing movies? I thought we were discussing my paintings.

Anon 3:19 sez:
Can you acknolage that something is wrong in our culture?

Sure can. A lot of things are wrong with the world in general.

Would I be happier if everyone felt comfortable in the bodies they're in? Yes. Do I think it's all the patriarchy's fault? No. Would I be happier if everyone could spell? Yes. Do I think it really matters? No.

I'd also be happier, I think, if I had a bigger penis. The only reason I don't get the surgery is the current state of the art is so horrendous. If I were a woman, maybe I'd want bigger breasts. The state of the art on that's pretty horrendous, too.

To me, the main argument against plastic surgery is that it's so ugly and doesn't work very well. If there was a magic wand which could transform people into beautiful, physically perfect people -- inexpensively -- I think that'd be great. Then everyone could look exactly the way they wanted and looks wouldn't matter so much any more.

Kelli sez:
The issue of passive female subjects and the application of psychoanalytic theory ( rooted in biologism and misogyny) in 70's feminist film criticism and subsequent art criticism is by no means universally accepted as anything more than an opinion by all critics or all feminists.

Thank you. I was starting to think I was the only one who thought the matter wasn't settled.

Anon 4:19 sez:
I was only explaining to Chris what the term "male gaze" means because he is clueless...

Except I know very well what the phrase means. I don't believe in it. Two different things. Again, you seem to think that anyone who understands a given concept must also agree with it. You're wrong. I understand it, I just think it's wrong. I don't think there's any evidence or argument to support it except the one you seem to like, which is "Have you been to the movies lately?" Why, yes, I have, and I still don't think "the male gaze" is a useful or accurate concept. Do you have another argument to support "the male gaze" or are you just going to quote Wikipedia again?

Jeez, guys, let's move on to something else. Chris has his own blog; maybe those who are interested could move this discussion over there.

Chris has vulva envy. But he's man enough to admit it, so right on, Chris.

Another anon sez:
Jeez, guys, let's move on to something else. Chris has his own blog; maybe those who are interested could move this discussion over there.

I was thinking that about 10,000 words ago. I feel a bit bad about hijacking Edna, but then again, I didn't start the hijack. I did go along, though.

Hardly anyone would follow over to my blog anyway. I think the discussion is about dead. It smells that way, anyhow.

Nappy-headed Ho sez:
Chris has vulva envy. But he's man enough to admit it, so right on, Chris.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: I'm a lesbian trapped in a man's body.