Caio Fonseca @ Corcoran

The Caio Fonseca show currently up at the Corcoran had me worried before I saw it. I thought for sure it was ultimately going to remind me of the kind of above-your-couch decorative abstract painting you might find at Crate & Barrel. Truth was, the work is a little bit better than that.

The exhibition is titled "Inventions" and this was the greatest diappointment of the show. Sure, Fonseca has found a composition that is "Fonseca." However, after seeing the show I have to think a better title would be "Mass Produced." After seeing the first work they all pretty much felt the same. In that sense, they could have been larger versions of Crate & Barrel paintings for all I cared. My favorite piece (above), was a clear outlier in this show. It is quite different than the keyhole window paintings.

The writing about this show frequently talks about "rhythm." I saw very little rhythm in these works... save for my favorite piece above. The composition of the works is disconnected. The keyhole forms don't flow among each other. Fonseca has tried to tie the keyholes together with the background coloration and scratches in the paint. Most of the time, this feels too forced. The Corcoran Web site states:

Caio Fonseca’s monumental canvases and works on paper are among the grandest and most profound contemporary statements in the abstract genre. Using his own vocabulary of elemental forms, Fonseca’s paintings—with their sensuous color, tactile surfaces and structured compositions—present an alternative universe; one that is surprisingly resonant with the everyday world that surrounds us.

This is the biggest bunch of baloney. Yes, he has his own vocabulary - although this even feels like a stretch - but his work doesn't come close to acheiving the other claims. The paintings aren't profound. The colors aren't always sensuous, instead they're clinical. The compositions may be structured but none of the forms work well with each other. There is no alternate universe and it doesn't resonate with the everyday world.

The fact is, as I write this I'm getting more and more bored. The work just isn't interesting enough to warrant spending much time with it. And I really tried, I promise. There just isn't much there. I don't know where Fonseca can take this style next. Where could he possibly go? Surely he has leveraged the magical power of the keyhole shape enough. What's next, a dead bolt lock?

Caio Fonseca leads a wonderful life. He parties with the fancy folk and he has lots of money. He dates beautiful women. But ultimately his art doesn't measure up to his life.

Comments

[Joseph Barbaccia]

I wouldn't mind dating beautiful women; but my wife might object. What does that have to do with the art?

[J.T. Kirkland]

Absolutely nothing... When Vanity Fair wrote a large article on him they focused a great deal on his lifestyle. The reason in my mind is that it's far more interesting than his art. If that's the case I hoped it would make my post more enjoyable because it was certainly boring me to write about such BLAH art!

[Matt]

While reading your review it became quite obvious that you know little or nothing about painting, abstraction, or art in general. If you wish to take a specific stance against someones work you should at least be able to back it up with some sort of logic. Just saying something does'nt work because it just does'nt is juvenile and meaningless.

[J.T. Kirkland]

Matt,

Please accept my sincerest apologies. I should have taken the time to write a 10 page review as to why I find Fonseca's work shallow. I apologize for having an opinion. In fact, I'm sure that you've never said about something, "That just doesn't do it for me," and left it at that. I bet you always justify your opinions.

What do you think of this review: http://thinkingaboutart.blogs.com/art/2004/07/gabriel_orozco_.html

I guess this proves I know little or nothing about photography.

The funny thing is, I never claimed to know more than a little or nothing about art. In fact, I frequently admit that I don't know nearly enough. Should I not look at it or am I allowed to look but never talk or write about my experience with art? Whatever you tell me to do, I will. I promise.

[Catherine]

Painting has become a secret language...especially abstract painting, where there is no object or narrative to anchor our reading of it. I think this is somewhat unfortunate, but the fact is that you need to know quite a bit about how that language works in order to find meaning in the work. It's a bit like understanding someone's culture before you can make any judgment about what kind of person they are.

[J.T. Kirkland]

"the fact is that you need to know quite a bit about how that language works in order to find meaning in the work."

I agree that this is true in some cases and when it is true, I think it's very unfortunate. Why? Because, well, it's a secret. I believe Art should be able to communicate with the viewer on its own. Meaning, no specialized knowledge is required to "get it" on a basic level. All artists have a unique language and having knowledge of that language - and other things involved with the artwork - certainly adds to the experience of the work.

For me, though, Fonseca's work falls flat in terms of what I can see. It doesn't even tempt me to learn more about his language.

[Chris Rywalt]

I agree with you, J.T., to some degree. But I do find there's part of me resisting your argument here.

Back in college (and before that, actually) I disliked the poetry of T.S. Eliot. I thought it was deliberately obtuse. You often needed to know three or more languages to make sense of it, not to mention have a good grasp of ancient mythology and a bunch of other things with which even I, with my vast erudition, had little contact. I thought Eliot was pretentious and anyone who liked his poetry liked it because it made them feel smart.

I won't say I now know I'm wrong. I will say I no longer agree with that. I find some of Eliot's poems very moving. Have I learned more so I can appreciate them more? Maybe. Maybe it's just the phase in my life and it has nothing to do with maturity. Maybe I'm more open now. Maybe I'm more pretentious. I'm not sure.

So I agree that art should not involve secret knowledge -- as I discussed in another thread, I think art should contain everything you need to understand it in itself. But I also think, sometimes, that what appears to be secret or hidden or obscure to one person is sometimes obvious to another.

[Chris Rywalt]

Oh, and by the bye: "the grandest and most profound contemporary statements in the abstract genre" sounds like a load of hooey to me, too, and the paintings as well.

[joel sorge]

J.T.
I think that more important than your opinion of Caio, is the fact that he has pioneered a new expression in absrtact art. Can you, off hand, refrence me to anyone who has produced anything that can equate Caio's work to "not adding up"? I don't mean "better" artists....I mean any artsit who defrauds Fonseca's work. The fact of the matter is that his level of reverse painting is quite extrodinary. I challenge you to produce anything that compares to his work usinng his techniques. To me, what he does to his top layers of paint alone is more diffficult than you may know. To exercise faux techniques (which is basically what he does on many pieces) around shapes and colors the way he does without diminishing the quality of those shapes and colors is quite difficult. The bottom line is that you may have your prefrances, but you judge a tree by its fruit. What I mean is that he has done something you and I haven't........he has brougght soomthing to the table that no one has seen. He makes around $100,000 on a painting, and he has the confrimation of brilliant art minds. You are on your second solo show with some cool, but non-difficult work. You are good, but your critique of a extremely successful, LIVING artist exceedes your reality. Your opinion is far to harsh and absolute for your own good. There is stuff that we all like and dislike, but I would not dare post my arrogance as you have.

[J.T. Kirkland]

Joel,

I really enjoy commenters such as yourself. Let's see if we can't address some of your issues:

1) "...but I would not dare post my arrogance as you have."

Really? Let's see what other quotes I can pull from your "post":

a) "is more diffficult than you may know"
b) "You are on your second solo show with some cool, but non-difficult work."
c) "Your opinion is far to harsh and absolute for your own good"

Hmmm... are you sure you wouldn't post your own "arrogance" like I apparently have?

2) I prefer not to be forced to like work because its creation is difficult. What does that mean? Why should I give a rip how hard it was to make? All I care about is the final product and what it looks like. Give me an "easy" Pollock drip painting over Fonseca's "difficult" faux painting any day. I mean really, do we want to start assigning a level of difficulty (like figure skating or diving, perhaps) to every artist's work so we know how much we SHOULD like their work? I think not. I judge what I see. And Fonseca is blah.

3) "He makes around $100,000 on a painting, and he has the confrimation of brilliant art minds."

Well, ok. Let's just get rid of our inadequate opinions and let billionaire collectors and museum curators to tell us what we should like. Let's let them give us our opinions. Cause, you know, there are no bad pieces of art in museums and there has never been a bad piece of art purchased for a lot of money. Exactly how far do you propose we take this? Does Janson's art history book become our Bible?

4) "You are good, but your critique of a extremely successful, LIVING artist exceedes your reality."

Perhaps this one should have gone up with the arrogance part. Thanks for saying I'm good (at what exactly?) but what exactly is my reality? Given my reality, who am I allowed to critique so that I don't exceed my reality?

5) "Your opinion is far to harsh and absolute for your own good."

Yeah, back to this one... it's a great one. How is an opinion harsh if it is true to one's self? Is it harsh because it is negative? And as for my opinion being far too absolute... are you kidding? Caio's work does practically nothing for me visually... how do you propose I make that less absolute?

6) "...pioneered a new expression in absrtact art"

Really? A new expression? Or do you mean a new technique (not sure that is true either)? There's a big difference I think.

7) "Can you, off hand, refrence me to anyone who has produced anything that can equate Caio's work to "not adding up"? I don't mean "better" artists....I mean any artsit who defrauds Fonseca's work."

Um, who cares? I thought we were talking about his paintings? Do we want to discuss someone else's paintings? I'd be glad to take a look at them.

8) "I challenge you to produce anything that compares to his work usinng his techniques"

I'm sure I couldn't. I ask again, what's your point. I don't use the "I could make that" logic for evaluating artwork. I use the "does it do anything for me visually" logic. After all, he's been painting this way for years... surely he'd be good at the technique by now. Good for him.

9) "he has brougght soomthing to the table that no one has seen"

In and of itself that means absolutely nothing. Unless, of course, we're giving out gold stars for being first at something.

10) So, with all that said, I'm still stuck with MY opinion that his work is blah. That's the best way I can describe it. It does nothing for me and by stating that fact it shouldn't hinder the amount of joy you find in the work. Imagine that... I can dislike the work, you can like it, and the Earth doesn't stop spinning. It's a good thing we're allowed to think for ourselves and speak our minds freely, don't you think?

Thanks!