Art review: Makiko Kudo at Marc Foxx

Makiko Kudo’s hauntingly beautiful paintings chart a quietly charged course between loveliness and loneliness. At Marc Foxx, the Tokyo-based 32-year-old’s oils on canvas evoke bittersweet memories of bygone days, giving visitors a chance to revisit childhood without turning it into a sappy cliché.

Part of the power of Kudo’s images derives from their formal toughness, compositional savvy and spot-on paint handling. Two 12-feet-long paintings, “Missing” and “Manager of the End of the World,” make you think of Monet’s gorgeous water lilies and Rousseau’s dreamy realism without forcing the comparisons or getting bogged down in portent. Similarly, Matisse’s Fauvist phase burbles into consciousness when you stand before “Insomnia,” the show’s serene knockout.

Kudo’s best works are her biggest. The three small ones in a side gallery come off as cramped, almost claustrophobic. In contrast, “Snow Dome,” “Base Ogawa Garbage Incinerator” and “Daytime Ghost” give Kudo enough room to loosen up without losing control, to balance unself-conscious abandon and crystalline precision, everyday ordinariness and quirky absurdity.

Her poignant works bring intimacy and introspection to the whiplash graphics of the anime generation. The paradox of being unable to escape a place that never really felt like home is Kudo’s great subject. It may not be timeless but it’s also not uncommon, and she shows herself to be a reliable guide to its intricate turns and twists.

-- David Pagel

Marc Foxx, 6150 Wilshire Blvd., (323) 857-5571, through Feb. 5. Closed Sundays and Mondays. www.marcfoxx.com

Image: Makiko Kudo, "Insomnia." Credit: Courtesy of Marc Foxx

Comments

[Donald Frazell]

Wow, Monet, Matisse, and Rousseau all in one article, must be one helluva artist.

Or an illustrator. Would be cute with a story in a book, dont see the need to make yards of canvas into a story telling machine, especially with the obvious lack for working the surface, interlacing linear structure or rich color chords. I would recommend her for a kids book, but why painting? It aint Klee, to add another name dropping dimension that is irrelevant to the case.

Everything is pretty much illustration these days, of games, psychobabble, or kids stories. cant anyone develop a rich and moving visual language anymore/?

[william wray]

To differ with Donald-- I don't think this work is quite academically skilled enough for illustration. I'm disappointed to hear from him that same old playing of the illustration card put down to categorize an artist who's work has some form of figurative symbols for storytelling in it. This work is technically not strong enough for illustration. The brutal truth being because the artists skills are at the talented child's level is precisely why it's considered fine art. A crude skill set with obvious artistic influences is often confused with a purity of style by the art worlds salesmen. This artist may have potential, but they need seasoning, perhaps 5 more years of school or ten years of disciplined self study.

[Donald Frazell]

Having had kids, this is pretty much what you can buy in the kids books section, though those like Hungry Caterpillar are much better. It is more childish than childlike, which artists like Rousseau and Klee were. Childlike, but with definite adult purpose and sophistication within an apparently simplified language. This is just childish. And would get some response with the limited syntax, but it is adults who buy the books, and like Disney movies, are as much for adults as the kids. This isnt.

It certainly isnt a put down of illustrators, just a direction she should be thinking about,and developing. She aint ready for the big boys, you know, mature adults.

art collegia delenda est

[Donald Frazell]

I grew up and had one kids book, besides all the Dr Seuss, Maurice Sendak's Where the Wild Things Are. My mother was a commercial artist with real drawing skills, something so lacking today. And feel for color, at least this woman uses color for impact, just not sophisticated enough for mature adults outside the "artscene", but could ultimately for kids. Though kids books are a tough field now, I think adults buy them for themselves more than their children.

[william wray]

We are not far apart in our assessment-- I just think your children's book examples proved my point on illustration not being a apposite auto response put down. This artist reviewed is no illustrator of the caliber of Seuss or Sendak, thus not on an illustration level which (when the best examples are used) are far better than most current fine art.

[Donald Frazell]

My point is that contempt art has turned into illustration of stupid, irrelevant ideas. There is no developed instinct of visual language, and lately, absolutely no color except when blaringly tacky and non musical. At least this woman has a decent sense of color, just weak line and far too large a format for what she is doing. As well as being completely autobiographical,and so illustrative of her life and desires, not finding what is common to us all. Bigger is not better, its not exactly worked and viscous, rich living color like Monet.

Name dropping in despereation in lack of a real presentation of the artists work is also typical these days. I agree that it is not at all true creative illustration, which more enhances and supports a story of words, rather than just depicting events. Exhibitionism and self revelation is not creative art, exploring and developing what is the essence of being human is. Mind, body and soul. And like in all contempt art,is not attempted at all. Too difficult, and in need of skill and experience to create.

[william wray]

I don’t think much contemporary art illustrates stupid or irrelevant ideas. I think for the most part in the most embraced contemporary art there no ideas to be illustrated. Just cool stuff hodgepodge together. All art now seems to be scatter- shot collage of random things that sit in wait for "context" by the reviewer who assigns some artificially deep meaning. They free-associate any random idea when they type up the review, the more incomprehensible the review and the art the better.
I’ve noticed when a show does have clear ideas reviewers usually find it to obvious. They need to be the ones to proclaim the allegories; the artist is just to build the platform to hang their verbosity on. I’m glad I’m enjoying my journey toward abstract art; it’s my only chance to get in the game.