Quote, “John Currin’s new show draws a sharp distinction between sex and sexiness. There is more explicit erotic action on view than in any images hitherto by this avid courter of controversy, and there is sexy paintwork to boot. But, instructively, you don’t find both in the same places… A controlled, super-knowing nastiness used to typify Mr. Currin’s bodies — women with sagging, almost tumorinflicted posteriors, absurd basketball busts, and protruding, bony hip joints — and still comes across [in some pictures]. But there is a different dynamic between Mr. Currin and chinaware. If anything, the elusive, recalcitrant objects inflict a certain cruelty on the artist trying to fix them to the canvas while getting across their homey American rococo.” From an interesting piece by David Cohen over at Art Critical about Currin’s new show at Gagosian.

Meanwhile over at David Zwerner Lisa Yuskavage has a new show (looking for all the world like it was separated at birth from a group of Julie Winter character sketches for Sam Kieth’s The Maxx.)

12.07. filed under: art.


Oddly, it does look like Sam Kieth sketches.  It is strange to see a gallery showing of what would normally be leftover sketches that would only appear tossed into a trade paperback of comic issues.

posted on 12.07 at 10:10 PMJustin Sherrill


i agree with David Cohen. i was at the Currin openning and found the work to be very uptown artsy and stiff. graphic poses of penatration mixed with still lifes of chinaware. the erotic work i think is ok, Currin’s figurative paintings have always had a distorted sexuallity, but i didn’t get the connection to porcelain dishes. and i also enjoy the sublteties of his earlier pieces, whereas with these new paintings he’s getting overly narative. they remind me, only in style and lighting, of Lucian Freud’s paintings, but come up short. the most striking piece that i saw, which i have not been able to locate online, was in the right hand corner. a nerdish couple drinking wine in a park. that one got me. the other pieces, not so much.
that same night before making my way to gagosion, whom i shared an elevator ride with and felt the power of an art giant and it scared me, i accidentally stumbled upon the Yuskavage show. it was empty, the gallery was minutes from closing,  intimate. wonderful paintings. sweet and subtle and so much “sexier” then currin’s work. perhaps its the adolescent innocence of sexuality, the allure, the soft colors, that come through in her paintings.

posted on 12.07 at 10:32 PM.(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)


@ Justin: Yeah you know it was the first thing I thought of when I saw the painting above. Course, that’s not necessarily a disparagement. What might be more a criticism is rather to say “they look like more Lisa Yuskavage paintings.” I like her work but it seems to have remained almost totally the same for as long as I’ve been aware of her.

@ James: I haven’t actually been to the show so anything I say is purely intellectualized hogwash, but Currin has thus far been for me a really good reminder that great Art is not a quantity made up of great painters (let’s say) but of great paintings. What I mean is that there are very few artists around who I would say, flat out, that I “love their work” in the plural. Lucian, coincidentally, is one of the last I’ve been able to say that about. I pretty much love everything he’s done. Currin on the other hand is a strictly painting-by-painting case for me. Some I really enjoy, others I am almost totally ambivalent towards.

As for this show, I can see how there must have been a disconnect between the two groups. Looking at the painting pictured above (which was evidently[?] the only one in the show to combine both subjects) I do “get it” a bit more. It evokes something which I can only describe as “English” or (considering it’s American all the way) “wasp.” There is a certain similarity between the (un)sexuality of that bony woman and the infinitely breakable serving set. I imagine her sex is a lot like the “good china.” Kept behind glass, taken out only on special occasions, and to be dealt with carefully.

(good to hear from you.)

posted on 12.08 at 01:17 AMjmorrison

return to the front page