Stephen Feather
Hey Matthew, incase you don't get to see the Ryan Mosley show I have done a bit of a blog if you get time/ interested - I thought you might like as he has painted some beautiful colour relationships. Cheers
Matthew Collings Thank you. Paintings look listless and pointless. He should be shot.
Stephen Feather Pity. I enjoyed them. Saved you a trip at least. How do you mean listless?
Matthew Collings Lacking effort and energy.
Vanessa Graham-dixon yup.
Art Ful Where would you like him shot ?
Art Ful No...I'm not offering to do it but someone should.
Stephen Feather How can you say covering and reworking a 220 x 190cm canvas lacks effort and energy? Having him shot is just an immature, brick wall comment - unless you back it up. Similar criticism could be applied to covering a canvas in (@ MC) triangular forms or (@ Art Ful) randomly toy attached, blobbed pictures...
Matthew Collings Covering a canvas is meaningless Stephen, as I'm sure you know. The problem is the laziness of the decisions in the creating of the paintings. Colours pointless contrasts not amounting to anything more than the sum of the different parts. The aim of the work appears to be entirely mannerist, imitating children's book illustrations, fantasies, etc. Fine for totally unserious context.
Stephen Feather
Sure I'm aware of that. I felt his decission making in terms of shape, form, brush marks and including colour were good and part of the success of the different parts which make up the entire picture. Sure he must use pre-existing images bu...t I think thats a fairly common practise. I would say it seems that he is aiming to do more than immitate - although can't say for sure without seeing him work or the sources he uses. The seriousness of the contemporary gallery context is always up for debate - infact they are not always required to be serious places
Phil King
I was a having a discussion with an artist/gallerist here (Oakland) who was bemoaning the lack of critical rigour (rigor) or people (artists are the general audience) bothering to put their criticisms forward even if potentially hard to ta...ke. He felt it's more useful to be blunt and generate a longer term vitality than just either keep quiet or be emptily positive. Having been guilty of both for most of my artistic life I could see his point.
To some extent its about pruning and if an artist doesn't do it by themselves then it's going to be noticed ... + these look like they need some serious pruning to find any energy at all.
One of the great things about painting is that you can keep working things out to find the most vital elements where the pictorial force is starting to work. This isn't a reductive process and takes time and lots of energy either directly painting or thinking very hard about what you are doing. It's best not to do this in public in the initial stages. It's like comedy to a large extent, you'd better not get on stage until you are ready, or if you do you'd better be prepared to learn by your mistakes.
These 'painting' are flacid colouring in of alarmingly inert Victorian or Edwardian style Illustrations without any sense of questioning mentality at work. These paintings yawn 'no problem'.
The fact that you felt the need to think at such length about them might indicate that the painter couldn't be bothered to.
Just as the lazy unprepared comedian (probably used to accolades from friends and family) runs a serious risk of dying on stage so too the lazy artist.
Art Ful Very well put PK. As artist we need critical feedback. One of the hardest lessons to learn is to take it constructively but be grateful at the same time, as it is far worse to be not even noticed.
Stephen Feather
The thing is there is physical evidence within the layers of overpainting and rehashed elements that Mosley has struggled to arrive at his final decissions. And all this does create an energy - the conflict - along with the painterlyness an...d shapely elements. They may be derivative and that may be the problem here but like fashion trends things go around in circles. I havn't studied Victorian/ Edwardian or children's book illustrations in detail so I'm not aware of that but they seem like starting points rather than imitations. I like the colour - I think the dull mustard/ wine gum colours are unusual and unlike anything else I have seen recently. Although he doesn't seem to be so popular here Mosley does have some powerful backers so I'm not sure he will be dying on stage but I could be wrong - depends on the fickle art market. But his huge canvases and body of work would suggest to me he is not lazy
Matthew Collings This is an artist who doesn't believe in what he's doing. There's no knitting together of anything.
Stephen Feather I'm not convinced of that Matthew but thanks for the input.
Matthew Collings You're welcome. Good if you put some art that's more intense on your grand tour -- Toulouse-Lautrec show at Courtauld would be good to relate R Mosley to, to see how visual things at a very level actually work.
Mike Hinc
Nobody likes a lynching. I want to rush to defend the painter but if I thought the work bland I thought the blurb offensive. Pompous, pretentious, it makes too much of too little which only alienates. And it's asinine...more cliche ridden t...han the work itself. Oft used and much abused stalwarts like "painterly" and "organic" make me reach for a sickbag and WTF is a "nostalgic suggestion"??? Makes about as much sense as a radical artichocke. I thought the images lifeless and uninteresting but would have disliked them less had they not been wrapped up in artspeak verbiage. Spare the painter, save the bullet for his press officer.
Stephen Feather @ MC I will certainly try to check out the Toulouse-Lautrec show if you think it illustrates your opinion because otherwise I don't have a clue from what you have said - you have not been specific or clear which is disappointing. @ Mike Hinc thanks for reading. If you think you can do any better then fuck off and write your own blog you twat.
Mike Hinc Ha ha ha..did I hit a nerve? Thanks for the advice, Stephen .I might very well take it. Good to see you writing in plain English BTW. You might try it when writing about art. Your artists would thank you and you'd save Matthew a bullet.
Stephen Feather
No - I agree its not the greatest writing (to say the least). But its an attempt and at least it contains specific descriptions of what I genuinely think which is more than I can say for anybody else on this thread (apart from you regarding... my blog). But nobody has explained their comments about the painting to justify such ridiculous suggestions as shooting the artist or that he doesn't believe in himself! I mean who says that! And if so then why?...be specific and clear...please. If not then all you are not being constructive. There has been no constructive criticism here. Lynching is an interesting suggestion because it does seem like Collings and the cronies here....
Matthew Collings
I have been very clear. I wasn't expressing an opinion, except when I said he should be shot. Rest was objective, listing specific problems of the work. To summarise them: he should get more serious generally, believe in the elements he's w...orking with, be less mannered and flabby, and try and understand how colour works. I only point to the Toulouse-Lautrec show because it's someone who does some of the same things as him -- seemingly arbitrary colour, sinuous line, casually decorative -- but is genuinely ambitious.
Stephen Feather
@ Mike Hinc - actually after rereading it I think its ok and self explanatory - I'm sorry you have interpreted it as "artspeak" but thats your problem. @ Matthew - why would you say he should be shot in the first place? Thats just dumb an...d unintelligent. The rest has just been cryptic and creepy because they are just statements without any examples - you could point out which illustrations he has used, which colours show his lack of understanding etc.. build an argument. It is strange to arrive at the opinion that he doesn't believe in himself without thorough explanation because that is a strong statement to make. So far you have been harsh and unfounded.
Mike Hinc
Oh what a shame...and I was just warming to you, Stephen.The "problem" is that you make high flown and vacuous claims for the work which are not justified and in doing so you misrepresent the artist and alienate any potential admirers his f...rankly bland and IMHO uninteresting work might otherwise attract. If you don't think that's your problem then from the artist's point of view you have become an even bigger problem than his work. The work he can improve but will you continue to misrepresent it? For his sake, I hope not.
Stephen Feather I'll take that on board - I think you have represented your view and attachment to the bandwagon here very well - if you could highlight key examples to form a basis of criticism about the work in the way you have with my blog than you will be doing something no one else here has done
Mike Hinc You'd be well advised to do so. Are you asking me why I find the work bland and uninteresting? I thought MC had given the work a rich and fullsome appraisal,that mostly chimes with my own responses and reservations. Were I to comment anymore on the work you'd only accuse me of echoing MC. And heaven forbid I should do that!!!
Stephen Feather Yes to help me understand your point what specific examples are you basing your appraisal on? Which pieces are lifeless and uninteresting? What areas of the painting evoke this feeling?
Matthew Collings
@Stephen. It's dumb and unintelligent to say he should be shot yes. Cryptic means very hard to understand, whereas I have been very clear, even repeating the clarities. Creepy -- well I don't know. When I point out that the work looks l...ike children's book illustrations, that's not the same as saying he had a particular book he coped from. Your idea that individual colours show a lack of understanding of colour is a misconception about how colour works; it's a matter of the whole colour arrangement having a colour purpose or colour point. All these objective observations are not necessarly in the service of an argument as such, but they could certainly be the basis for one, particularly one about avoidance and denial. Your idea that I said he doesn't believe in himself is the opposite of what I actually said, which is he doesn't believe in what he's doing. If anything he believes too much in himself. When I say nothing in the paintings is knitted together, I mean everything is an isolated would-be charming sign, not a believable element in a construction. All my explanations have been pretty thorough. The only harshness is in not being willing to go along with the self delusions of the artist and the daftness of the collectors whose activities have impressed you. Everything I've said is founded in observation. In fact I'm back to thinking he should be shot again. But you could get out of this mess by going to see some serious art, and trying to relate it to Mosley. That's why I'm suggesting the Lautrec show. (But even, a long way down the pecking order, Jasper Johns, who was the modern artist who first did that trick RM is doing here, of negative/positive vase silhouettes.)
Stephen Feather
I have not been impressed by any collectors only by the paintings. And I have not formulated an idea about colour other than I admire the colours he has used - specifically I could say I enjoyed the red and blue squares painted on the leg o...f the figure in Heavy Bouquet - they are attractive colours and become part of the costume when viewed from a distance - You could say no this is rubbish because....... But none of your generalised points make this clear - they sit behind the aggressive suggestion that he should be shot which is subjective and not objective. There has to be some evidence to this profile you have built and that is what I want to observe in order to understand. I genuinely thought you would like the colour he uses otherwise I would not have shared this with you. Everything I have said is founded in observation. That is the point. I enjoyed the painting and I do not have any other motive other than to discuss that. I think you could get yourself out of this mess by providing evidence for such strong statements. Maybe other people are easily in awe of what you have said because of your media exposure and status (and I too have a lot of respect for your work) but I wouldn't expect to get away with saying what you have without justification. You have provided a couple of examples above re: Johns and colour purpose & point (although I don't know which work/ s you are referring too so it which leave the point in limbo)
Colin Gordon Davis
I aint on NO bandwagon but this is what you wrote..-
'Mosley has a preoccupation of painting figures from behind or the profile. Perhaps this is because he previously spent time working as a warden in the National Gallery and he was used ...to observing visitors engrossed in paintings from this position. It may also be a counter position to many of the canonical paintings in the National Gallery which typically present portraits from a full frontal viewpoint but I think Mosley deliberately wants to make us aware that we are observers, which are amongst an audience. This gives an extra dimension of distance, alienation and nostalgia to Mosley's rogue characters. And it also comes at a significant time for viewing art where an increase in the consumption of art since 2000 has had its support slashed in a series of arts cuts by the government.'
so his work is about a day trip to the national gallery? if he has a 'preoccupation' with figures why are they dominating the picture? Also a painting does not work because of others around it as you put it - a 'counter position', a painting works on its' own.
i dont know what worse the writing or the picture. If you even worked out the different stages of detachment and distance you say from the picture to the framing within the picture to the audience and then the backs of the audience; i feel so far away from the picture that anything the painter had to say would have evaporated by the time i had applied myself to even trying to understand what he was trying to paint. ah fck it i'll just look at poussin.
Mike Hinc Poussin is good to look at.
Stephen Feather
@ Colin Na it was a suggestion that is why he paints the back of peoples heads! I said Mosley has a preoccupation of painting figures from behind or the profile - he has done a series of heads in profile that is the subject that is why the...y dominate the picture. I was trying to say the National is mainly full of portraits depicting the front of sitters thats maybe why Mosley decided to be different and depict the back. Thanks for the comments.
Colin Gordon Davis these are not 'comments' per say; writing does not assume what it can find out; did you speak with the painter? even if he is dead, if it is worth its metal it will all be in the work .
John Robinson to quote the manics stephen "if you stand up like a nail you will be knocked down" jus
Phil King Stephen. i keep wanting to be emptily positive or keep quiet and then like Mike Hinc I look at the paintings again.
I've been thinking about being specific..to make my reaction into a helpful criticism ... its just really so difficult and time consuming to to pick out anything to focus on in weak work.. which is why I'm guessing Matthew suggested looking at T.Lautrec as a way of stepping out of the slough of despond you and the painter seem to be inhabiting.
I don't know whether to throw my rotten eggs at you or the painter or eat them myself for spending a moment on this... that'll teach me.
Just go and look at a good Van Gogh .. a colour theory book in hand + make some choices is what I would add. There are some decent ones at the National Gallery .. any colour theory book at all would help. Or just spend some time thinking about Paul Klee. Find artists you don't like and try and figure out why their work is so good.
If it's any comfort the paintings make me want to shoot myself I find them so unbearable and twee. And the idea that they might be OK because they include colours you've not seen used recently and like makes me want to stab myself, while the sensation that "Powerful backers' guarantee the quality of a painter leads me to reach for a rope. The figure thing you discuss leads me inexorably to the rat poison.
Empathy is an overrated and possibly dangerous quality when it comes to looking at art and can be positively lethal when making it.
Stephen Feather Hi Phil, I do appreciate your trying and sorry you feel like doing some violent things to yourself! It is unfortunate you have not had the time to think of any specific examples but I understand you have your own opinion. Obviously these paintings are not my own. I just like them and wanted to share them. I don't want to force an opinion on to anyone but if they have one I wanted to understand it - and unfortunately I don't feel any closer to that. Funnily enough I have recently been looking at Klee a lot. I am very familiar with Van Gogh and a regular visitor to the National Gallery. And I still appreciate these colours Mosley is using. I only mentioned "powerful backers" to suggest he may not "die on stage", not out of boasting or anything, I mean I have no idea anyway. I hope he doesn't, I Iike his paintings, I'd like to see more. Anyway thanks for taking the time to think about it. I just don't understand some of the language being used. Talking about shootings, being knocked down, using rat poison, throwing eggs!! very descriptive and emotive. Seems like there is something behind it...
Matthew Collings I haven't read some of the other comments. And I don't identify with the nastiness in some of the ones I have read. But the problem is not a conspiracy, or emotion, or violent language. That is, it isn't coming from outside. It's to do with a difficulty you are having in taking on critical perceptions. They have been formulated very clearly, partly because the people who have been having them are used to trying to be clear, but also because the problems of RM's work are extremely obvious.
Stephen Feather Thanks Matthew - I feel a bit guilty of being a bit nasty myself (swearing at someone, being a bit aggressive and critical towards you and others) Sorry. So I may be partly to blame for that. But its only come as I have tried to understand these critical perceptions. And because I am passionate about art and painting. You have to say you did start with the shooting idea though!? Anyway that doesn't matter now. Unfortunately I honestly don't see any obvious problems with RM's work - I like them. They have inspired me and thats what I sticking too. I'm not saying anyone else has to feel like that and I'm not saying I'm right, wrong or have any superiority over anybody else. But I have the freedom to say thats what I think. I am constantly trying to inform my decisions and improve so I will heed the suggestions here and report back with any new findings. I feel it has certainly been a positive thing that so much heat has been created by this topic and shows there is an underlying feeling towards certain art here - not sure what that is but I did not originally see this "debate" as a contest, competition, or that I have been "knocked down" as the loser. And I think its a bit strange of those people who do. Hopefully it is stimulating and open ended (at least that is how I have found it)
Matthew Collings That's the problem though, it's not a competition, it's an issue of bad versus good. Good doesn't compete with bad, it's its opposite.
Stephen Feather Come to the Dark side Matthew... ha ha Can that be objective though? Who is deciding on these categories? Do we all have to share the same idea of good and bad? Is that obvious?
Matthew Collings Yes it's obvious. The dark side isn't the dark side it's the naive side.
Stephen Feather But isn't that subjective? Are you saying there are golden rules that govern this thing? If I like RM's painting does that automatically label me as naive?
Matthew Collings Yes it does I'm afraid. No there are no golden rules. Naive isn't bad. Just drop defenses and take in new information.
Stephen Feather I have heard you use the term naive before at (I think) Oxford Uni talk in reference to how little you thought they had read on art. I am no expert but I have studied art and art history. I find you saying that discouraging
Matthew Collings The naivite of your support for RM has nothing to do with reading about art, but is to do with accepting the obvious bait that he sets out for the credulous (maybe even including himself).
Stephen Feather My support is founded in observation, knowledge and subjectivity. It is not definitive or an ending point, neither is the art work. It may change. In that sense it may be naive. In that sense we are all shifting from points of naivety.
Matthew Collings No I'm saying I don't think the thing you remember me saying in Oxford about "how little they had read about art" is the thing that has caused you to support a silly art-world hustler like RM. I'm saying that the things you're saying now regarding observation etc are deluded.
Stephen Feather Am I deluded because I'm not seeing your point view?