Beauty
More than a decade ago, a friend (John Brooks, for those who will recognize the name) invited me to join him as he visited a friend, an artist, at the artist's studio/apartment.
As we were leaving I noticed a large and remarkable painting on the wall. I didn't own any fine art at the time and surprised myself by asking, with some fervour, if the artist might sell the painting. The answer was no. A couple of weeks later I ran into the artist at a party and revisited the painting and its availability and he said he'd sell it and named a price. I went to the bank about a loan (although the painting wasn't THAT expensive, I was relatively poor and short of any real credit limits) but in the end, for reasons I still don't understand (but surely it was about going into debt), I then informed the artist I wouldn't be buying the work.
In all the time that has passed since then I have thought of that painting with great frequency; regretted not buying it.
Recently the artist (Gerard Gauci) has been featured in an exhibit in the city as a result of his holding the day job of set designer for Opera Atelier. As a result of that exhibit I discoverd what Gallery represents Mr. Gauci, called the gallery, recounted my story with the painting so many years ago, wondered if the painting was still available and if so, at what price?
The gallery owner said he was aware of the painting, but doubted very much it was for sale. However, to the gallery's surpise, the artist agreed to part with the work. Hooray! EXCEPT, the new, current price is SIX times the price I had been quoted way back in the early '90s. Minus a sugar daddy appearing soon, I don't have that kind of cash.
The painting that got away. Last I saw it the work was hanging in the gallery where it was perched so I could take some pictures. I guess it'll be going back to where it was hanging before I called to disturb it.
Titled "St. Michael," the painting is oil on board (plus, note the spectacular gold leaf on the background); the frame is made and painted by the artist. 39x42 inches (if I remember correctly).
Enjoy, and know this work is much much more spectacular in its textures and colours, in person. Part of my awe with the work is that it has such a hold on me yet is utterly free of irony or darkness. It is just beauty, both in craftsmanship and artistic expression.
posted by Heipel at
3:50 PM
9 Comments:
St. Michael reminds me of Roger Federer for some reason! But believe me, Roger is heavenly--I've met him several times and he is a sweetie (congratulated me on my sister's victory over his girlfriend in a tournament in Palm Springs!!!!!) Enjoy your Tokyo visit!!!!!
who is roger federer. and Steve, you've no room in your apartment for this painting. however that is no reason at all not to buy it.
roger federer is one of the greatest tennis players in the world. not my type though. ha.
and it's a wonderful painting steve. get it. i want to see it on your wall.
it's beautiful.......absolutely...
but..
why don't you buy it when you buy new apartment???..
woops..!!...
You see, owning an art thingy is very cool though it requires a lot of attention and humidity control. And you sometimes might wanna pull your hair so hard to make the lighting right. Ergo, now owning one could be cool, too. But I know what you mean. I like the touch of the pain stroke and I wish I were able to see it in person to take a closer look to appreciate it more.
The painting is exquisite but then again I have a "thing" for archangels.I'd have them all over my walls if I could.
Time to get a new apartment and a sugardaddy.
Maybe not in that order. :->
Token Asian and Joe: Tennis, blah!.
Shigeki: Steve has the right lighting, the right humidity, but not enough walls left.
Maggie: thank god you said archangels and not unicorns, but seriously girl, you need to get out more! fucking archangels??!!!?
Beautiful painting!
It reminds me of the best of the artwork I saw in the Vatican, only the artist has added something by incorporating modern styles and non-traditional features -- like doing a good cover of a song that makes it new, rather than just "I want to hear it with my voice."
I find it impossible to not see this painting of Michael as erotic. I find the subject attractive. So that's me interacting with the subject. And this challenges my notion of "pure art" -- borrowed from Joseph Campbell, who cites James Joyce's definition of pure art as that which has no kinetic property: it doesn't repel us (like didactic, political art), and it doesn't move us toward it with desire (pornography, in Joyce's terms, like so much of advertising). It simply arrests us.
This makes me think of some of the art I've seen in men's homes we've been to, those black and white nude photos in the bathroom, the muscular sculptures in the living room: they're not just there for themselves, they have a pornographic quality that says of the owner "This is what I want".
There's nothing wrong with that, but it is an element about myself I wouldn't be comfortable making people think about in my home: my erotic preferences.
But this is still a beautiful painting, and it's hard to imagine anyone not appreciating it, regardless of the context. It's something that needs to be seen to complete the act of its creation.
Hm.
At any rate, here's the original Campbell essay here.
Mark: LMAO, I said all over my walls, NOT all over me.
I just think they are beautiful ethereal creatures.
Yes, I agree I have to get out more but I'm not ready yet. You know how it goes.......
PS I don't like unicorns, too corny!
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home