Dana Schutz

A few years ago Schutz had a showing of paintings at the Cleveland MOCA. Massive paintings of compelling visual interest and quirky narratives, offered something fresh to the viewer. Several weeks later Schutz gave a lecture at Carnegie Melon University, in Pittsburgh. The show in Cleveland had brought up a few questions regarding her work, and she was set upon to offer some illumination in regards to the evolution of her work. With narratives like “Self-eaters”, paintings of Michael Jackson on a surgery table, or even paintings of what a significant other should like for those without, there are obvious issues to warrant questioning. As the questions began during and after her lecture, it was apparent that her fame superseded her ambitions.

Schutz’s paintings are quite lavish in their use of materials. Paintings so boldly constructed, that black paint squeezed directly from the tube onto the canvas is used to create a line strong enough to withstand some of the supercharged surface beneath. In terms of physicality, you can imagine the variety of surface within any one painting. Figures within her compositions look happened upon, constructed with shapes and rendered in at times, garish pinks. The inventiveness of her color allows these choices to go on without question, and the facility which is at times clumsy, adds impulse and acceptability for that. The problem is that they are painted so expressively, that they carry assumptions about their content. Assumptions, that the work offers profoundity. When questioned by the viewer, Schutz’s paintings become ambiguous and fanciful, quite contrary to the promises the form is making to the viewer.

“Self-Eaters”, a narrative of strange implications in which people are doing just that, eating themselves. A concept that is vague, yet suggestive in its quirkiness, offers no conclusions. An imaginative plot that when unaccounted for, brings focus onto the artist.  It becomes a painting that is unable stand on its own without a synopsis. The audience viewing a painting like this tends to want authenticity. There is a want for profundity in something so visually stimulating. However, the slide lecture Schutz gave provided a different explanation. When questioned, she seemed at a loss for words as people threw out ridiculous interpretations of her work. It seemed to relate to its college venue since it was a graduate studies issue, the idea of being accountable for what you create. Not just paintings, but the contemporary artist should hold up under scrutiny. These are different times we live in. In Schutz’s paintings the formal language is advancing beyond the conceptual, and she may or may not be conscious of this or able to defend her paintings. When paintings start to become about an elaborate style, the style itself becomes more arbitrary, it is no longer connected with the meaning of the painting. The whole process starts to deal in abstractions, and the arbitrariness of the process can only be met with equally questionable content to work. The result is decorative, since Gauguin is an apparent influence, it is not surprising.

Despite some of the criticisms, she is an interesting talent worth noticing. A contemporary painter who makes big expressive paintings.