June 30, 2007

para


what do you guys think about neo rauch?

5 comments:

erin said...

i just saw the show at the met tonight, and i'm feeling pretty blah about it...

anthony campuzano said...

non commital pastiche histronic neo history painting.
the fact his first name is neo just adds insult to injury

jay said...

I remember really liking his work when he first blew up about 10 years ago or so. Hasn't really shaken himself up much since then and his work doesn't have many surprises. He's just kind of created a distinct world that seems to have its limits and is familiar at this point. That said, I think he's a good painter. I'd love to see what he would do if he left early 20th century europe as his dreamscape. I have a soft spot for illustration lately.

Aaron Wexler said...

I've always thought the paintings look like
cut n' paste surrealism. Which sounds more
interesting then it is. I've never been interested in
the imagery... just not my cup of tea.

dan said...

i like the looseness of his work... he can render or get messy and it all fits together kinda nicely. sometime si like what he's doing with space, too. as far as history, etc., is concerned i can't really chime in. haven't looked hard enough. i get the impression that a lot of european artists have a much different relationship to history (somewhat deeper at times, and less about representation)-- it's something i'd like to develop, actually. it can be bad or good though, i guess, and the jury is still out on rauch, for me...