albrecht schneider, untitled, 2012
i bump into this review by ryan steadman, of albrecht schneider's solo show @ marc jancou contemporary, for art forum.
right in the first paragraph you smell something lofty:
Schnider’s conflicted relationship with his medium has produced a solemn show of memorials to three genres of painting (portraiture, landscape, and abstraction) via sinuous arcs and curves that divinely form his distilled yet seductive images.divinely? yeap, supremely good, which refers -if i read the print correctly- to schneider's painted arcs and curves forming seductive images. god excelsus! but not a superhuman quality; more in the common use of "extremely pleasant," as when people talk about good food en passant.
which brings forth an opening for a conversation on taste & mereology: can painted arcs &/or curves (parts) in a painting (the whole) be "divinely" formed and not the rest of the painting? could we compare it with an actor's good performance in a bad movie. what separates the good in the part from the bad in the whole? oddly, i picture "divinely" as an optimistic adverb shooting energy into the semantic inexorability of "curve" & "arc," turning each -predictably- to optimum.
untitled, red frame, 2005
let's come back to steadman's divinations: he really enjoys scheneider's curves and arcs, which is why they call it critics' pick, and the critic drops it:
What lures one deeper into this body of work is how deftly the artist articulates his Platonist aesthetic over a variety of media.platonist aesthetic? plato + aesthetics makes binity divine.
you're supposed to get it. & don't think steadman will help. these are hard times for elucidations.
bottom line (in case you're glued to bernard bosanquet's history of aesthetics). god & plato are good co. for schneider's paintings (or anyone else for that matter).