« get a life: state of the union edition | Main | more Schutz and such »

January 23, 2006


Matthew Nash

whoa, I guess since I'm on the spot I should defend my comment a bit. For the most part I really enjoy Dana's paintings. The "Google" piece is fantastic, and the "Frank as a resus monkey" is the type of portrait I wish someone would paint of me.

What I was left thinking, though, about some of the work, was that there are things we consider 'novice' painting techniques (or lack thereof) that dominate some of her work. This isn't necessarily bad, only that it reminds me of tons of novice work I see by art school freshmen. One or two pieces (like the hand in the woods) seemed to rely too much on this.

Dana's work is cute and fun, and I enjoyed the show a lot. I occasionally struggled with the painting style of pieces like "Devourer" and "Self-Eater" but Dana is a smart and savvy artist, working with a visual language she has developed. It was a mistake on my part to conflate a visual language that I don't speak with 'bad art'.

Matthew Nash

Oh, and did you catch my interview with James Elkins yet? I know you're a fan.


I did see it, intending to link to it. Busy day, unfortunately.

The comments to this entry are closed.

From the Bookshelves


  • Send email to modkicks at yahoo dot com