The Walker’s first survey of contemporary
painting in 12 years, Painter Painter explores
new directions in abstraction in the work of 15
emerging artists from the United States and
Europe. While deeply invested in studio practice
and in developing their own personal modes of
making, the artists also approach abstraction
as a means to engage with the world. Through
online writings, a series of lectures and events,
and the exhibition itself, Painter Painter offers a
unique snapshot of the evolving role of painting
today. Walker staff writer Julie Caniglia recently discussed the exhibition with co-curators Eric Crosby and Bartholomew Ryan.
Julie Caniglia
What makes this an opportune time for a show
on contemporary painting, and how did the two
of you make this not just another show about
this topic?
Eric Crosby
There has been so much attention
paid to abstract painting recently, but few museums
have attempted to take that on. It’s easy to select a
group of new paintings and say that this is the next
chapter in the history of the medium, like we’re
expected to write a new afterword to the history
we’ve all inherited. But that way of thinking feels
contrived right now and disconnected from the way
artists are working.
So we set out to make a show based on our
shared interest in painting and some questions
about abstraction in particular. And we knew we
would focus on the present, of course, not only in
terms of new artistic practices but also how we
imagined our work as curators. The idea was to
follow our instincts and see where the process
would take us.
That’s why regular studio visits became such
a key part of our process. The more modest
scale of the show helped with that. Painting at
the Edge of the World, the Walker’s last group
painting show in 2001, featured some 30 artists
and had a more global reach and historical scope.
Our parameters allowed us to create a different
kind of exhibition, one that could emerge organically
from conversations and relationships that
developed in artists’ studios—which became more
important than the typical relationship between
a curator and artworks on a checklist. The artists’
enthusiasm about the medium really guided
key decisions about the show.
Bartholomew Ryan
From the beginning we
wanted to go into the conversation without making
too many presuppositions. Painting has always been
a somewhat fraught medium, and particularly so
over the last 30 to 40 years. Both Eric and I avoided
bringing the more trenchant dogmas associated
with it into our conversations with the artists. We
wanted to be more attentive to the work on its own
terms and try to figure things out from there. So our
earliest questions were really simple, for instance:
why choose the materials of painting today, at a time
when artists can work in so many other ways?
We were also interested in a question related
to some of the work being made now, which one
often hears from older generations of curators,
historians, and even artists, which is “Where is
the criticality?” There is a certain expectation
today that if a painter is to continue as a painter,
there has to be some basic level of self-reflexivity,
some wry acknowledgment of the problematic
status of continuing to paint in a postmodern
era, when painting itself has been toppled from
its lofty perch. I think that’s been a good thing
up to a point, but it has become deadening and
knee-jerk. Many of the artists in our show have
consciously sidestepped that way of framing their
work, and they find more interesting things to
think about.
Caniglia
So if painting itself is a fraught medium, as
you said, what does that mean for abstract
painting? And what does abstraction mean to
these artists?
Ryan
While we are talking about very different individuals
with very different ways of working, for
them the idea of abstraction isn’t writ as large as it
once was. While abstraction with a capital A carries
with it a series of strong historical references,
the conversation today is not simply art-historical.
Abstract painting can and does allude to a lot of
other visual cultures, styles, and contexts, and the
artists, of course, are aware of this. I think they
prefer that their work hovers in some area where
it can’t quite be located, but still invites viewers
to make their own associations. The work is less
about abstraction than being open to the world
and not wanting to lock things into a defined moment
of meaning.
Crosby
One way the thinking about abstraction has
evolved is that it isn’t necessarily a condition of the
image, but rather the result of context. In organizing
this show, we’ve come to know these artists as
creating possibilities for painting both in and out
of studio. Inside, they’re pursuing all these new
methods of formal invention and new techniques.
Often they’re working with what’s at hand or what
the medium gives them. In this sense, while their
images or creations may take on the appearance of
abstraction, what happens in the studio is very real,
particularly in a material sense. So the way I see it,
abstraction sets in when the work leaves the studio.
Circulating out there in the world, creating networks
with other images—that’s when this very real
thing hanging on the wall in front of you develops a
second life.
Caniglia
You’ve both said that this is an exciting time for
painting, and described a spirit of reinvention
in the field right now. Can you talk about where
that’s coming from?
Ryan
One thing that’s opened up a lot of possibilities
is changes in how we look at art history
today. More specifically, it’s the way these painters
tend to resist the hierarchies of the past in
their interpretation of the medium. For instance,
Molly Zuckerman-Hartung and Dana DiGiulio
made a list a few years ago called “Painters you
should know,” with well over 100 names that span
centuries. At other times, these painters would
have been pitted against each other, with people
siding with some over others. But to Molly they’re
all part of the conversation. That’s partly due to
the Internet, which has created the opportunity to
be inclusive and, of course, exclusive, and to let us
explore a topic on our own terms. So in looking at
how these artists relate to painting and its history,
it’s not a matter of making either/or choices—it’s
a both/and situation. And maybe it’s because of
that lack of limits that there is, on the other hand,
this desire to work with a medium that does have
limits, as painting does—but to see the potential or
the possibilities within those limits. This finding
freedom in restrictions is almost necessary in a
world with so much access to everything. And as a
strategy, it is something every artist today needs to
contend with.
Crosby
There’s also something about the resolute materiality
of painting that continues to attract artists.
These are objects that follow deeply subjective and
individual ways of thinking, as expressed through
specific materials. In this show you will see works
that are stained, collaged, sprayed, cut up, stitched,
assembled, glued, smeared, rubbed, and so on—
some works are years in the making.
Painting offers a frame for contact with this
very physical presence. It’s a vivid contrast with
our daily routine, where we experience so many
images by using a cursor, linking to them, altering
them, navigating away from them. Painting
resists this kind of experience. A lot of artists
today embrace that notion to an extreme. They
go where the materials take them, not where the
history of painting tells them to go. I think that’s
why the more we talked with artists in the show,
the more sense it made for them to create new
work specifically for this occasion. We saw that as
giving the show a sense of timeliness and presence,
even if it does mean relinquishing some of
our control in the process.
Ryan
It’s not about our playing a perfect hand as
curators, working from a predefined checklist, but
about creating an exhibition as a continuation of the
conversation with the artists—and hopefully imparting
some of that quality to the people who come to
see the show.
Crosby
Besides, it’s more fun to leave it open-ended.