In this AFC comment-thread, I make a comparison between WANGA contestant Abdi Farah's floating, textured, green biomorph blow-up painting and Alexander Ross's floating, textured, green biomorph blow-up paintings. I'm sure that Farah was unaware of Ross's work (though I've already had to clarify that I'm not accusing Farah of "copying" or "appropriating" Ross's style), and I even dropped a paragraph from Mira Schor's essay "Trite Tropes, Cliches, or the Persistence of Styles" (the essay is included in her new book, which I just got in the mail):"Old styles never die, they just continue to permeate the substrata of American art, lurking under the radar of the mainstream art world. Mutating and merging, they form new subspecies of styles with recognizable characteristics and a persistent life of their own. Yet, made up of cliches from styles whose original radicality, purpose, and lineage are lost, they are unconscious of their own existence as specific and historically based style types."Obviously, Farah (and Ross, you, me, etc.) aren't the only artists who rehash (knowingly or not) existent and well-worn tropes. This press release for Peter Stichbury's upcoming show at Tracy Williams -- and the work itself -- seems to revel in the trope-tripping that Schor's essay indicates.
Before I even dove into the press release, the appended image of Stichbury's painting (a slight variant of these) immediately called to mind a host of other artists' works: Lucien Freud, John Currin, Alex Katz, Brian Calvin, Margaret Keane, and above all others, Tamara de Lempicka (hat tip Molly Porter). There's something about the big-eyed, pared-down, slick caricature style of these artists' portrait paintings that makes it fairly easy to situate them as close cousins. I'm even inclined to liberally trace the style back to the Fayum paintings and those gaga-eyed Sumerian statues.
The press release fails to address how Stichbury's work has clear stylistic affiliations with any of the abovementioned artists (though his Wikipedia page does associate his work with Freud and, nobly, Ingres). Instead, it launches into an exegesis of the show's epic-sounding title: The Proteus Effect. Suddenly, his kitschy, creamy Keanes "reflect the metamorphosis that occurs through digital self-representation via the use of avatars and invented personas." Instead of speaking about how or why Stichbury is employing this particular style, the press release instead opts for the "let's make it about the internet" and then "let's also make it about Greco-Roman myth" in order to justify the "relevance" and "novelty" of Stichbury's anything-but-new portrait-painting style. Did they lift the title and content from this dissertation? Because there's no mention of that, either. As mentioned in Schor's subsequent essay "Recipe Art," the Stichbury press release employs this formula:
"Recipe: something from popular culture + something from art history + something appropriated + something weird or expressive = useful promotional sound bite."Update: Artist Angela Watters posted this photo of her textured, green biomorph lamp in reponse to Farah's painting. It's great (I especially like how she approximated the background of Farah's Chaos). Watters also refers to me as a "frequent, impish commentator," which I guess is better than being called a "noble troll." Or maybe they're equally awesome? I am a fairytale being.

