Critique Notes for January 13: Bethany Hays

Critique for Bethany
January 13th, 2009
Discussion of 4 (in progress) paintings
and two accompanying readings
A Little Bit of Loss, by Ellen McMahon and Maternal Rites, by ____

All in all a great response to the newest paintings, the more direct application, immediate/spontaneous quality is working for your viewers.

Some formal comments made about specifically the large horizontal painting: the composition seemed almost too considered to some, while others really liked its compositional aspects, how the objects began to be swallowed in places by the background.

The level of ambiguity was another talking point in the context of all of the work. The newer paintings seem to hover at the right balance of awkward confusion and legibility. There is just enough clarity to identify the ‘humbleness of the items’which seemed very important for people.

There were positive comments about the scale variations, sensual quality, the humor (“being sort of peripheral shots of a child’s job site as if this is what they do for a living.”) People were picking up and appreciating the idea of play, as an way to deal with the battling impulses of order and chaos. The vibrancy of color, the rendering of masking tape, were mentioned. The seems to be a unanimous desire, as viewers, to know that these are paintings of things your children made. There were also comments about the rhythm, balance, and change between all the paintings together, their varying levels of scale, ambiguity, consideration and energy are working. (almost as a sentence)

Some other specific comments:
“I appreciate when the urgency comes through.”
“I like the shaky backgrounds”
It gets across that “sometimes you pick up something and you drop another thing and you just have to move.”

Some conversation was devoted to the actual paintings’ backing/mounting. There seemed to be appeal in their utilitarian structure. They almost mimicked the scrapped together nature of Hollis and Kindred’s (did I get their names right?) sculptures.

There was a fair amount of dialogue about possible titles and/or supplemental text to accompany the work. Some ideas thrown around were:
titles...
-based on the time and date stamp on the back of the original documentation photo.
(though there was some concern expressed about this limiting the read to being about memory, and loss.)
-ask your kids to title the paintings.
-that somehow signify your children as the makers of the work
-that are really just a materials list for the ‘original’ sculpture. This could reflect some of the doubt you have about what some of the objects actually are that you are painting.

artist statements that...
-references the lineage of maternal feminist artists
-loss
-is just a list of materials
-alludes to the transient nature of these chaotic arrangements and the loss that is associated with this process of painting.

Whatever you decide, these things were said and nice to keep in mind:
“Let the viewers ask the questions.”
“Let them be documentary by association.”

There was the idea of casting the ‘sculptures’ in bronze.
People seemed pretty excited about this.
It seems to get across the idea of loss that is so clearly a part of works like that of Mary Kelly, Ellen McMahon, Mierle Laderman Ukeles etc.

Pat reminded/informed us about the reception of a watercolor painting from last year, and how people really responded to its spontaneity etc. She was saying how interesting it is to see that the process is still unfolding, or perhaps has come full circle, completed itself, in this new way that you have found to work that is quicker, fresher, more urgent.

Questions remained:

How much do you want a viewer to know?
Is there a way or an interest in involving your kids in this process more? In a way that doesn’t tip them off and make them self – conscious.
Would bronzing be a tautological addition to an exhibition? Unnecessarily negating your painting process as documentation?
How much of this is utilitarian?