Two new paintings by Amy Crehore

Amy Crehore posted two wonderful new paintings on her blog, Little Hokum Rag.

• [skeptacally]

  she seems to have a predilection for the pubescent and pre-pubescent nude — a trait that might seem anywhere from suspicious to downright horrific in other people.

  it raises some interesting questions: how would her art be accepted if it were created by a man? by a lesbian? by a sex offender? a priest?

  how would it be taken if it were hung in a prison cell or dorm room?

  how do we separate the artist from the artwork? should we separate the artist from the artwork? taken out of context, what do these works say?

  i don’t know that i have the answers to any of these questions. but i do know that the juxtaposition of themes makes for some potentially explosive material.

  • [Jack C Rump]

    You seem to have a predilection for the noticing of the pubescent and pre-pubescent nude, something which you mention here despite there being a lack of nudity.

    Are these traits that might seem anywhere from suspicious to downright horrific in other people?

    Also please can you explain who you define as ‘other’?

    How far would art progress if it was surrounded by questions and no expression of an opinion? Careful not to make a judgement call – why?

    Do you have an opinion on this work or are you happy to play with empty rhetoric and hope that you can dissect the responses of those who actually have an opinion?

    I think one of the purposes of art is to inspire originality. It also unavoidably generates countless reworkings of tired, pedestrian, hackneyed and sensationalist topics.

    The reader of art brings their own framework for interpretation. Maybe explore and share why you chose the salacious to discuss and not for example the nature depicted here?

    • [skeptacally]

      uh, jack. if you take a look at more than just the one work featured here, and more of an overview of her work, you’ll see that the adolescent nude is perhaps THE dominant subject in her work.

      that is less a predilection than a fairly obvious observation.

      as for “other,” i think i followed it up with a fairly generic list.

      i’m no troll, my friend. i’m genuinely curious.

      i take a look at a picture, say, from her “lolita” series http://amycrehore.blogspot.com/2007/07/lo-and-behold-amy-crehores.html or “backstage” http://amycrehore.blogspot.com/2007/06/free-shipping-amy-crehores-limited.html and am introduced to work that presents the teen/pre-teen in a potentially sexually charged/voyeuristic light.

      i’ve shown her work to friends, colleagues, and family, and asked what they thought. and the response ranged from delight to discomfort. some liked the juxtaposition of innocence with sensuousness, some were uncomfortable with the sexuality. there was, for the most part, curiosity about the artist. understandably, i think.

      i’m no stranger to art. i attended a fine arts school growing up, am former chair of the only art collective in my city (in which there were no shortage of wonderfully subversive artists), and write fiction that, i believe, can often be uncomfortable to read. in one piece, i attempt to conjure a fairly erotic description of a young teen who is trying to lure a pedophile/rapist into a trap with her sexuality. it was incredibly difficult to write. and i often fear to share that writing because of the passage i just referred to and how i would be viewed as the creator of it.

      i held back my opinion of her work (which is similar to the one given above by thad — though i am less impressed with her execution than her intent), because i wanted a blank slate of discussion, not just a knee-jerk response to my post (which can obviously tend to happen).

      childhood sexuality is a controversial and divisive theme. presented in art, it invites strong debate — or at least it should. passing her work in a gallery, i would be sure to ask my fellow audience their feelings on it. the same way i would with any picture worth discussing.

      my hopes is that my fellow patrons would enter the discourse and not shoot down the questions. they usually don’t. and, as a result, it usually makes for a richer art-viewing experience.

  • [Antinous / Moderator]

    she seems to have a predilection for the pubescent and pre-pubescent nude

    Like every Greek and Roman painter and sculptor in classical antiquity and then again in the Renaissance.

  • [Mark Frauenfelder]

    Have you ever set foot in an art museum?

    • [skeptacally]

      indeed.

      and have a minor in classics.

      and was careful not to make a judgment call on my feelings towards her work — which, i must admit, i find interesting, at times challenging in tone, and very original.

      my question was one of context. in an age where depictions of pubescent sexuality spark no shortage of debate, i am wondering aloud about the relationship between art and artist. i was also commenting that, in the context of 2010, her work could cause for heated debate. which, i would think, is one of the purposes of art.

• [agave]

  Yikes!

  I mean no comment

• [cryptique]

  I’m still mystified why this particular artist is so often singled out for praise. She’s “kitschy” … or should I say “tacky.” And not in a good way.

  • [Mark Frauenfelder]

    I’m still having a hard time reading your mind, Cryptique. I’m trying to post things that won’t mystify you, but I keep failing. Try making your brain waves a little stronger, please.

• [jfrancis]

  Her color work seems much improved. Her shadows don’t feel like grayed down versions of her highlights anymore.

• [Thad E Ginataom]

  Strange, magical, mysterious, sensual, innocent, sexy…

  Love her paintings

• [Axx]

  Where’s the monkey?

• [Anonymous]

  Banjos are heavy.

  Except that one.

• [deckard68]

  Strange (for her)! They’re wearing clothes, and there’s no monkeys trying to boink them.