You can't say "Fuck" in The Times.
Which, I suppose, is reasonable.
That said, they did an extremely nice photo essay on me in yesterday's Sunday Times. Although it's not as good as reading the thing in the paper, you can get a taste of it on the slide show here (I think. If you can't get through, go to nytimes.com and look for a slide show).
Much of what you see is what you've seen already. People standing in front of one of my paintings; other people annotating them. Me, to a less frequent degree, throwing paint. What you don't ever see, really, are the paintings themselves, bereft of annotations.
You can see four of them on the slideshow, and it's a matter about which I have some ambivalence. I mean, it's like they're naked.
The reason for this is that the raunchiness of the annotations on my typical paintings exceeds The Times' standards and practices for naughty shit. So they asked me to send along shots of unannotated paintings (except for Fuld. All I could find was the shot of it with my initial annotation, reading "I am Spartacus.").
Ain't this the way. There's a part of me that looks at some of them and thinks, hmmm--it'll look better after the annotators weigh in. Fuld is like this. Cayne and Bernanke, however, I feel a lot better about, just sitting there in a sea of white canvas. I like both those paintings, period.
I also really like this portrait of me, taken by Times photographer Ruth Fremson:
Portrait of the portraitist. What is this, Hamlet?
That said, they did an extremely nice photo essay on me in yesterday's Sunday Times. Although it's not as good as reading the thing in the paper, you can get a taste of it on the slide show here (I think. If you can't get through, go to nytimes.com and look for a slide show).
Much of what you see is what you've seen already. People standing in front of one of my paintings; other people annotating them. Me, to a less frequent degree, throwing paint. What you don't ever see, really, are the paintings themselves, bereft of annotations.
You can see four of them on the slideshow, and it's a matter about which I have some ambivalence. I mean, it's like they're naked.
The reason for this is that the raunchiness of the annotations on my typical paintings exceeds The Times' standards and practices for naughty shit. So they asked me to send along shots of unannotated paintings (except for Fuld. All I could find was the shot of it with my initial annotation, reading "I am Spartacus.").
Ain't this the way. There's a part of me that looks at some of them and thinks, hmmm--it'll look better after the annotators weigh in. Fuld is like this. Cayne and Bernanke, however, I feel a lot better about, just sitting there in a sea of white canvas. I like both those paintings, period.
I also really like this portrait of me, taken by Times photographer Ruth Fremson:
Portrait of the portraitist. What is this, Hamlet?
posted by Geoffrey at 10:33 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home