Art review: Andy Warhol at Honor Fraser Gallery

Silkscreen paintings and prints of military camouflage were among the last works made by Andy Warhol (1928-1987) in the year before his death. Few if any were shown during his lifetime. Like much of his work from the 1970s and 1980s, they are pleasant but decidedly wan iterations of the once-bracing art-about-art that characterized his great 1960s Pop paintings.

At Honor Fraser Gallery, 15 canvases in various sizes, all dated 1986, join 12 works on acid-free cardboard -- unique 1987 trial-proofs for a series of prints -- plus three drawings in apparently different stage of finish. Varied camouflage patterns are rendered in colors ranging from monochrome blues and greens to vivid arrays of hot pink, bright orange and assorted rainbow hues.

The Day-Glo camo seems designed to disappear within an acid-rock fever dream.

Since the works accurately depict the designs of actual pieces of military cloth that the artist bought at an Army-Navy surplus store, the silk-screens are simultaneously figurative and abstract. The dappled format of interlocking organic colored shapes encourages you to check off a familiar list of established art historical references: Monet's waterlilies, Picasso's Cubism (“It is we who created that,” the Spaniard reportedly said when he first saw camouflage during World War I), poured paintings by Morris Louis and more.

But the references constitute not much more than a clever parlor game, at which Warhol was adept. When he marshaled it in the '60s, using conventional popular imagery to represent unconventional avant-garde art ideas that the general public either disliked or ignored, he bridged a yawning cultural gap. Given the strategy's success, he simply kept repeating it until his death.

The best feature of "Camouflage" is how it functions as ambiance, obscuring art by creating visual background noise. Warhol was William Morris for the post-industrial Arts and Crafts generation, these works anticipating the commercial camouflage wallpaper now available at big-box home improvement stores coast to coast.

-- Christopher Knight

@twitter.com/KnightLAT

Honor Fraser Gallery, 2622 La Cienega Blvd., Culver City, (310) 837-1091, through Feb. 5. Closed Sun. and Mon. www.honorfraser.com

Photo: Andy Warhol, "Camouflage," silkscreen trial proofs on museum board, 1987; Credit: Honor Fraser Gallery

 

Comments

[Donald Frazell]

Unlikely. Excessive? Perhaps, but hard to break the Pavlovian training of the academies without it.

Self absorbed? Have I posted anything about my life, except as some examples among many others to illustrate my "concepts". As illustration seems all Contempties can understand?

Hardly. Bringing up at art that has lasted, by artists who got it, but were human and had their ups and downs as artists is self absorbed? Who cares about their personal lives? Thats for the "elites" who want to pretend to own them in huge coffee table books by ignorant "experts".

In art, those who can do, those who cant become critics, theorticians of the absurd, academics and "gallerists".

Have a "nice" day!

ACDE!

[Charles J]

OMG!! Gotcha, DF! Interesting how you interpreted my use of CBGB as a keynote to my musical tastes, and assumed I’m ‘musically challenged’ as part of your put-down. It, and my other acronyms, were just plunked down at random (almost put in NATO). LSMFT, BTW, is an old ciggie ad, ‘Lucky Strike Means Fine Tobacco’. (And no, I don’t smoke, nor have I ever, so as far as attacking me along those lines goes, fuhgeddaboudit.)
And BTW #2: I like and have listened extensively to virtually all the musicians you name (except the Allman Bros. & Traffic – they don’t hack it for me). I also own about 10 Charlie Parker albums (yes, Bird – after whom Birdland was named), and albums by every one of the other jazz musicians you name.
Finally got your tangled spelling of Colemnan figured out - Coleman Hawkins (aka the Hawk), I’m assuming. And prepare yourself: I actually like your linking him up with Pollock. (Cecil Taylor might be another in this regard.)

Bottom line: Spell check, and don’t make nasty, false comments about someone you don’t know, because it undercuts the logic to your thinking.

[Donald Frazell]

Uh, OK, if that makes you feel better. But no one else but a RISD luvin CBGBer would remember such a wasted headline era. Bet S54 is coming next, sheesh.

And, uh, Coleman would be Ornette Coleman. er, gotcha,Iif you cant even figure that one out, his Shape of Jazz to Come with Trane's giant steps and Mile's Kind of Blue set up the truly avant garde jazz era, your frontin, like that is new for contempt types.

Please contempties, stop tryiin to be clever. If I want that we got comedy central and Stewart, Colbert and Tosh.0 Your jsut aint funny, except unintentionally, and its gets old real fast.

ACDE! again

[Charles J]

The reason I go on about Warhol is not – repeat, not – because I think everyone should like him, because I don’t. There are quite a few prestigious artists whose work I don't particularly care for – Agnes Martin, Ellsworth Kelly, Donald Judd and Josef Albers, to name a few – but I thoroughly respect what they’ve done and what they represent for the world of art. My gripe is about the reasons that many people give for disliking Warhol, which range from the short-sighted to the inane. (‘He was nothing but a graphic artist’, to name one. And yeah, Pollock just dripped paint around, which any 10-year-old can do.)

Back to you, DF, and calling attention to my previous Bottom line: more nasty comments just don’t hack it with me. (I count 5 in your latest.) I never went to CBGB, and at least one of the big stars there leaves me cold (Television). But I appreciate it as a cultural phenomenon, including being the scene of the early days of Patti Smith. [Feel free to insert a snide comment about her music and writing.] And excuuuuse me for thinking you meant Ornette Colemnan, and not Colemnan Hawkins. But I give up on 'your frontin', though I think I've figured out that 'contempties' means people who show contempt.

Re spell checking: Granted, an occasional typo isn’t all that important, it’s the message that matters. But when there is a whole bunch, I get the impression that you’re just rambling and slapping down the first thing that comes to mind without putting much thought into it, and it makes you look sloppy. When I write something, I always go over it a few times – because I often find I can say something better, or that there is something to add, or subtract, and even (gasp!) that I’ve said something I didn’t want to.

Clever, me? Thank you, and take note that I prefer cleverness to misdirected nastiness.

[Donald Frazell]

Ouch, musta hit a nerve. And sorry, at work, someone has to make the country run. Artistes dont contribute.
gotta run, want to get home in time to see the beautiful wife(No, not a retarded CBGB alum Talking Heads song) and perhaps watch something clever, like the Daily Show.
have a nice day!
ACDE!

[Charles J]

Well, DF, I’ve finally given up on you. You’ve constantly shown me that you’re little more than a petulant, opinionated, crotchety sort who can’t stand to be contradicted, and you’ll use any argument to support your claims, logical or otherwise, and when there’s none at hand, you turn to innuendo, nasty, baseless suppositions, etc. etc., all the while repeating that boring boring litany, ACDE, in acronym or in the Latin. You do have some good opinions, even ones that I agree with, others that I don’t agree with but can understand; however, your approach is as rickety as is your command of the English language.
Feel free to launch yet another attack on me, though I suggest you save your e-breath, because I won’t respond.

[Donald Frazell]

You are rather thin skinned. And I never said dont buy Warhol, just gave a definition for creative art as the art schools, like bad parents, just wont say no, dont go there. And use the children learn easily taught tricks to become an artiste by bought degree. And never mature into responsible adults. That takes time, and even more importantly a wide experience of life in all its forms, passions and various cultures.

Warhol is fine, as designer. It doesnt even approach, or attempt to be, creative art. He is a child of media, and thats where he belongs. He is great in magazines. Nothing wrong with that. But his groupies have sent art into a dead end. And creative art most certainly is dead in the academic world, but then hasnt it always been? Whats the difference between now and 150 years ago? Nothing, the same forces at play. And crowd catered to.

Thats all I am saying, if you take personal offense at that, well, too bad. It aint personal, unless you take it that way. Though seeing Coleman Hawkins as Pollock is a lil crazy. More like a Bonnard, an old school original wave guy who could hang with the kids. Big rich sound, like Bonnard's incredibly sensual color. Both interested in and taking in the new, but stayed true to themselves. That gets respect. Going for truth within who they were as filters, not the exhibitionist subject of selfish expression and whininess. Not all about career, and so anti Academic. And so true creative art.

I apologize for any typos or grammatical errors, but then, it is a blog, and not mine. So get over it. You can click on my name and criticize my writing there if you like. But even then, really, aren't we a lil editorially anal? Reading seems in a sad state of affairs. If you can read Joyce, Conrad or even Marquez, I think you can get through it OK.

Have a nice day!
Save the Watts Towers(Nuestro Pueblo) the greatest work of creative art in LA. If you havent been into its magically expressive realm, it is far more than just towers, you are no true creative.

[Charles J]

OK, I'm gonna break my solemn vow of silence and comment. (So shoot me!) DF, as the saying goes, you sumpin' else. You've seized on the one thing I don't take personally, your dislike of Warhol's work (there are a zillion folks who don't). Your personal attacks include my use of LSMFT:
To quote: “Low Self esteem Means Friction and Trouble?!?! figures, about right. and your musical tastes match your visual, probably like David Bowie and the Beatless too. Talk about adolescent irritating exhibitionist angst and self absorbed lullabies."
Then CBGB, leading you to insinuate I’m some sort of juvenile moron for mentioning it, even after I pointed out I put it down at random.
Ditto for your insinuation when I wondered if you meant Coleman Hawkins rather than Ornette Coleman in comparison to Pollock. (How sweet of you to then soften it to just being a ‘lil crazy'. My apologies for not seeing the links between jazz & painting through your eyes…) I submit that there are quite a few jazz and other musicians that could be compared to him – Cecil Taylor, as I mentioned, Ligeti, et al.

If those aren’t personal attacks, then the term cries out for redefinition.

[Donald Frazell]

If the hat fits......

Have a nice day, off to a wedding rehearsal. They a lil crazy too, but saved by being cute and sweet.

[Donald Frazell]

That was interesting, now off the to the wedding today, a good couple and wish her luck. He is a lucky man, another swirl couple, hope it goes over as well in Seattle as in the LBC and CC. Love will out.

And thinking about it, Warhol and his supposed polar opposite Thomas Kincaide are simply like fascists and commies, so far apart they come full circle and end up being the same thing. Playing the same careerist game, money, they use the same sales techniques but to different crowds. Warhol the fascist Ayn Rand type and Kincaide the populist commie for the people.

Thats fine in their field, but gosh Skeeter, they aint hurting nobody. Except true creative art. It gets lost, as the Academies wish, who pull the strings for their masters the patrons, hiring puppeteers of the bozo's, as Deitch is the latest top fool for the local Institutional defanging of art.

Anyway, off to SM. Not an artsy fartsy wedding, so will be cool.

Have a nice day!
ACDE!