. 22 PLaner OF THE ARTS / FEBRUARY - MARCH 1996 | reviewed the second year painting show and LEditor’s note: portions of this article were omitted all | got was this fousy Se ieeunadat their negative personalized The Art of Mary Pratt: The Substance of Light Vancouver Art Gallery Dec. 20- March 3 1996 headache Ah, the joys of fourth year- you can roam the Concourse Gallery, look at art with a whole new appreciation (or is that spleen full o' bile?) and really slag some morons who truly deserve it without having to care about the consequences of your actions. To start on a positive note, Matt Penner put in a commendable painting. He showed control over the medium, a sense of composition and colour, and an ability to paint. Ken Singer's Cambodia demonstrated good consideration of content and visual tex- ture. Lisa Birke also made a good showing with her whimsical Surreal Crowd ina Surreal . Landscape, and Catherine Gardener's Untitled (a red abstract) became more interesting the longer | looked at it. Well done, the four of you. You gave us paintings that looked good, had some tech- nical polish, rewarded the viewer for paying attention, and weren't insulting. As for many of the rest of you, per- haps you should think about day jobs. My friends and | were inspired to rename a number of your works, as follows: Don Bury Before and After: (to Pink Teeth or Guy with Boobies); Quin Martens’ Untitled (to Spew is Cool [insert Beevis and Butthead laugh]); Jane Thomsett's Floor 1 (to Twister!);and Jane Thomsett's Frank's Hams (to What the Fuck?). Other works in the show lent them- selves to very fast critiques. Beth Jankola's Frank (“looks like the one with the hams"); Catherine Gardener's untitled figure ("I don't want to know where the other foot went...(pause, someone else speaks) “EWWWw...'). Okay, enough of that. Let's get on to the paintings that really deserve some abuse. Whoever painted the velvet Elvis, put your name on it. Then go to Mexico and learn how to paint a good Elvis! Lore: | really liked your velvet Jesus, but then | got closer and found it wasn't velvet. Bummer. Then | find out the image is. you! Not Jesus! What a rip-off. Where's the crown of thorns, or is that one of those things we just don't want to know? And speaking of the Holy Trinity, | think Michael Gauley needs some remedial Sunday school. And while he's at it, he can learn to fucking paint. Trying to offend Catholics by taking a shot at the Pope? Trying to offend the rest of us by painting a big dick squirting blood? Hey, you're funny! | hope nobody missed this. It's a picture of the Pope, but he's got a big dick! And big balls! With hair on them! What a riot! The Pope with a big dick, get it? Get it? On purely formal grounds, | can't say anything good about this work. Nothing. Zilch. Nada. It's a chartreuse turd of a painting. And speaking of turds, I've saved... oh, no, | just looked at my notes, and it seems Mr. Gauley is a winner again., for the large “self portrait’. with excretions and cheezy metallic paint. Let me guess, Mike. You're making poo- poo jokes because baiting Catholics is too much of a challenge? Thinking of making a career of this sort of thing? May | suggest retail sales instead? It will be more rewarding, believe me. se BY DAVID FRANSON Luly Galway °94 tone outweighed any possible redeeming ele- ment.] Mary Pratt's paintings are filled with light,out a light without warmth. Pratt's subjects sit in the cold, clear light of early morning; the cold analytical light of an operating room. This effect stems partly from her use of slides and a light box from which she paints. Pratt says this technique "gives me the time to say what | have to say.” This freezing of time serves to distance Pratt from her subject. She removes herself from the reality of the flesh, and constructs her sub- ject entirely as a vehicle for light: "The fact that light seems to come from behind the image seems to be very important, not just caressed, but given life by this light." Both her messages and her images speak of control. Her subjects are forever in full bloom, and her photo-realistic style sets up definite boundaries between painter, painting, and viewer. There is a very precise naming that takes place in these images. This is an apple-point finale. We are not given any clues to Pratt's relationship to this apple. She states, "| want my paintings to be sensuous experientially."Although there is a sexiness to them, it is somehow dis- connected from flesh and bone. They speak of an eroticism of the mind, not of the body. Pratt's “fire” paintings of 1989-95 signify an important shift in her work. In these paintings she is much more present. The light has become both physical and active. From clear, cold, and still, it emerges here as a beautiful cathartic destruc- tion, a purification through burning. Pratt says of these works, "when | look at these paintings it seems | should have fallen apart, but | didn't, | came together." There is both darkness and honesty in Pratt's fire paintings. As she becomes more willing to investigate the shadows of her work, Pratt becomes stronger and much more human. “@ BY CONCHITA GALWAY 22 raver or ri ants | Feo - ARO 1996 | reviewed the second year painting show and #trsot:portion of thisoricte were omitted i nthe round that thei all | got was ue Nousy Bee coon tone outweighed any eadache ms redeeming ele- Ah, the joys of fourth year- you can — ment) roam the Concourse Galley look ta with 3 hole new apreiation os that spleen flo Bile?) an ely ig some morons who tly deserveit without having to care about the consequences of your actions. To tart ona postive note, Mat Fenner putin a commendable painting. He showed contol over the medium, sense of compesition and colour and an ability to paint Ken Singe’s Combodia demonstrated 9004 consideration of content an visa tex- ture Usa Bite aso made a god showing with her whimsical ure! Crowd na Sure landscape, ané Catherine Gardens Untied (ae abstract) became more interesting the Tonge looked at it Wel don, the fur of you You gave 4s paintings that looked good, had some tech nicl polish, warded the viewer fer paying attention and were isting {As for many ofthe tof you, pet= haps you shoul thnk abou dy obs My fend ad | were inspired o rename a number of your works, 35 flows: Don Bury Before and ‘After: Pok Teeth Guy with Bodies) Quin Martens’ Untied (to Spo is Coolinsert Bevis and Butthead laugh); Jane Thoms’ lor 1 to Twister: and Jane Thomstts Fant’ Homs (to What the Fuck? (ther wor in the sho lent them= selves to ver fastetques. eth Janola’s Frank Cooks like the one withthe hans" Catherine Gardeners untte figure ("dont want to kaow wher the other foot went. (pase, someone es eas) “Ea! (Okay, enough ofthat. Lets get ono the paintings that realy deseve some abuse Whoever painted the vet Eis, put your name ont Then go to Mexico an learn how to paint a good Eis! lore eal liked your velvet Jesus, but then got close and found i was’ vee Bummer. Then find out the image is you! Not Jesust What a i-of. Where's the crown of toms ors that one of hase things we just ont want to know? ‘And peaking ofthe Holy Ty think Michae auley needs some remedial Sunday choo. And while he's at it he can ean to fucking paint. Trying to offend Cathles by taking a shot a the Pope? Trying to offend the rest of us by panting a big oiek Sauirting blog? Hey, youre funy hope nobody missed ths ts a picture ofthe Pope, tut he's got a big dik! And big bas) With hair on them! What aot! The Pope with aig ick, gett? ett? On purely formal grounds, | can't say anything good about this work. Nothing. Zih Nada. Ita eharreuse turd ofa painting ‘And pean oft, ve save. no, just looked at my notes, and it seems Mi Gauley isa winner again, forthe large “sei port with excretions and cheey metalic faint Let me gues, Mike. You'te mating po- 00 jokes because baiting Catholics is too much ofa cholenge? Thinking of mating a carer of this sort of hing? May i suogest retail soles instead? It wil be moce rewarding, bleve me ~ 1 Davb FRanson Lito Galway ‘94 The Art of Mary Pratt: The Substance of Light ‘Vancouver Art Gallery Dec. 20- March 3 1996 ‘Mary Pratt's paintings are filled with We ae not given any clues to Pratt's lightbut alight without warmth. relationship to this apple. She states, Pratt's subjects sit in the “I want my paintings tobe sensuous ‘cold clear light of early morning; the experientially“Although there is a old analytical light ofan operating sexiness to them, itis somehow dis- oom. This effect stems party from connected from flesh and bone. They her use of slides and alight box from speak ofan erctcism of the mind, which she paints. Patt says this nat ofthe body. technique “gives me the time to say Pratt's “fre” paintings of what | have to say" 1989-95 signify an important shift in This freezing of time serves her work. In these paintings she is to distance Pratt from her subject. much more present. The light has She removes herself from the reality become both physical and active. Of the flesh, and constructs her sub- From clear, cold, and stil it emerges Jet entirely asa vehicle for ight: here as beautiful cathartic destruc~ The fact that ight seems to come ton, a purifieation through burning. from behind the image seems to be Prat says of these works, when | very important, not just caressed, but look at these paintings it sems ven life by this light.” should have fallen apart, but | didnt, Both her messages and her came together” There is both images speak of control. Her subjects darkness and honesty in Pratt’ fre are forever in fll bloom, and her paintings. As she becomes more photo-realistic style sets up definite willing to investigate the shadows of boundaries between painter, painting, her work, Patt becomes stronger and and viewer. ‘much more human, “® There is avery precise ‘naming that takes place in these BY CONCHITA GaLway Jmages. This is an apple-pont finale.