MFAII

MFA part two, MGSA, March 2010
sidenote: Sorry for posting this so late, for those of you who missed the show, you can view some images from the show on the MFA blog at http://rutgersmfa.blogspot.com

This show revealed some powerful egos as shown in the very different large paintings, sculptures, and a mix of somewhere in between the two. It is an extremely cohesive show, partially because of the color palette. It also seems completely indulgent in materiality.

Some of the most interesting artists that exhibited in this show included Brian Bulfer and Paul Demuro. Some of the works in this show frustrated and confused me, yet they seemed to work within the context of the other paintings and sculptures.

Brian Bulfer’s paintings were extremely tedious and process related; they included text that was steadily written/drawn onto the buttery canvas with graphite. The text involved stocks figures, which added a political or current events feel to the seemingly effortless organic paintings. They had quirky titles (along with many of the other pieces in the show). The incorporation of text into the painting was seamless, especially from far away; when the viewer approaches the canvas, it becomes obvious the subtle written words onto the painting, thus adding another aspect to the artwork. The paintings are geometric, but because most of the lines are hand-drawn, it gives a more organic feel to the otherwise flattened work. I learned at a later time that the paintings were made from a system of mathematical equations. This completely changes the meaning of the work; the artist did not chose the colors at all, they were pre-determined by information that was not under the artist's control. To what extent does the artist have to make choices within the work before it is considered just a visual and not a painting created by the artist? In other words, does the more robotic method of color choice take away from the artist's right to say, 'I created this and it is a result of my choices'? That might be a question that is open-ended.

The stippled application of the paint mirrors the thick paint that appears in Paul Demuro’s paintings as well. Demuro’s work consists of extremely layered and sculptural paintings. The most intriguing piece to me is the purple painting that has the soft edges. To be frank, I could look at those paintings for a much longer, sustainable time then the paintings by Leticia Luevanos. I enjoy the indulgent aspect of the work; thinking about how much money and time it must have taken to layer that much paint is mind-boggling. Contrasting with that idea is the use of metallic paint. I enjoy the metallic paint because it reverses the ideal of the elite, indulgent aspect of the paint. It adds an aspect to the work that relates to some of the other works, like Marketa Klicova’s sculpture/installation. The paintings mostly deal with geometric patterns applied in a rough way through the extreme layering of paint. There is not much mixing of color, however, the paint is applied over and over until it can still alone as a painting and sculpture simultaneously. Demuro’s work made me debate the difference between sculpture and painting, and it blurs the line between the two very different processes.