#Raphael Rubinstein | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

superman86to99 · 3 years ago

Photo

Superman #85 (January 1994)

Cat Grant in... "DARK RETRIBUTION"! Which is like normal retribution, but somehow darker. On the receiving end of Cat's darktribution is Winslow Schott, the Toyman, who suddenly changed his MO from "pestering Superman with wacky robots" to "murdering children" back on Superman #84, with one of his victims being Cat's young son Adam. Now Cat has a gun and intends to sneak it into prison to use it on Toyman. She's also pretty pissed at Superman for taking so long to find Toyman after Adam’s death (to be fair, Superman did lose several days being frozen in time by an S&M demon, as seen in Man of Steel #29).

So how did Superman find Toyman anyway? Basically, by spying on like 25% of Metropolis. After finding out from Inspector Turpin that the kids were killed near the docks, Superman goes there and focuses all of his super-senses to get "a quick glimpse of every person" until he sees a bald, robed man sitting on a giant crib, and goes "hmmm, yeah, that looks like someone who murders children." At first, Superman doesn't understand why Toyman would do such a horrible thing, but then Schott starts talking to his mommy in his head and the answer becomes clear: he watched Psycho too many times (or Dan Jurgens did, anyway).

Immediately after wondering why no one buys his toys, Toyman makes some machine guns spring out of his giant crib. I don't know, man, maybe it's because they're all full of explosives and stuff? Anyway, Toyman throws a bunch of exploding toys at Superman, including a robot duplicate of himself, but of course they do nothing. Superman takes him to jail so he can get the help he needs -- which, according to Cat, is a bullet to the face. Or so it seems, until she gets in front of him, pulls the trigger, and...

PSYCHE! It was one of those classic joke guns I’ve only ever seen in comics! Cat says she DID plan to bring a real gun, but then she saw one of these at a toy store and just couldn't resist. Superman, who was watching the whole thing, tells Cat she could get in trouble for this stunt, but he won't tell anyone because she's already been through enough. Then he asks her if she needs help getting home and she says no, because she wants to be more self-sufficient.

I think that's supposed to be an inspiring ending, but I don't know... Adam's eerie face floating in the background there makes me think she's gonna shave her head and climb into a giant crib any day, too. THE END!

Character-Watch:

Cat did become more self-sufficient after this, though. Up to now, all of her storylines seemed to revolve around other people: her ex-husband, Morgan Edge, José Delgado, Vinnie Edge, and finally Toyman. After this, I feel like there was a clear effort to turn her into a character that works by herself. I actually like what they did with Cat in the coming years, though I still don’t think they had to kill her poor kid to do that -- they could have sent him off to boarding school, or maybe to live with his dad. Or with José Delgado, over at Power of Shazam! I bet Jerry Ordway would have taken good care of him.

Plotline-Watch:

Wait, so can Superman just find anyone in Metropolis any time he wants? Not really: this is part of the ongoing storyline about his powers getting boosted after he came back from the dead, which sounds pretty useful now but is about to get very inconvenient.

Don Sparrow points out: "It is interesting that as Superman tries to capture Schott, he at one point instead captures a robot decoy, particularly knowing what Geoff Johns will retroactively do to this storyline in years to come, in Action Comics #865, as we mentioned in our review of Superman #84." Johns also explained that the robot thought he was hearing his mother's voice due to the real Toyman trying to contact him via radio, which I prefer to the "psycho talks to his dead mom" cliche.

Superman says "I never thought he'd get to the point where he'd KILL anyone -- especially children!" Agreed about the children part but, uh, did Superman already forget that Toyman murdered a whole bunch people on his very first appearance, in Superman #13? Or does Superman not count greedy toy company owners as people? Understandable, I guess.

There's a sequence about Cat starting a fire in a paper basket at the prison to sneak past the metal detector, but why do that if she had a toy gun all long? Other than to prevent smartass readers like us from saying "How did she get the gun into the prison?!" before the plot twist, that is.

Patreon-Watch:

Shout out to our patient Patreon patrons, Aaron, Murray Qualie, Chris “Ace” Hendrix, britneyspearsatemyshorts, Patrick D. Ryall, Bheki Latha, Mark Syp, Ryan Bush, Raphael Fischer, Dave Shevlin, and Kit! The latest Patreon-only article was about another episode of the 1988 Superman cartoon written by Marv Wolfman, this one co-starring Wonder Woman (to Lois' frustration).

Another Patreon perk is getting to read Don Sparrow's section early, because he usually finishes his side of these posts long before I do (he ALREADY finished the next one, for instance). But now this one can be posted in public! Take it away, Don:

Art-Watch (by @donsparrow):

We begin with the cover, and it’s a good one— an ultra tight close up for Cat Grant firing a .38 calibre gun, with the titular Superman soaring in, perhaps too late. An interesting thing to notice in this issue (and especially on the cover) is that the paper stock that DC used for their comics changed, so slightly more realistic shading was possible. While it’s nowhere near the sophistication or gloss of the Image Comics stock of the time, there is an attempt at more realistic, airbrushy type shading in the colour. It works well in places, like the muzzle flash, on on Cat Grant’s cheeks and knuckles, but less so in her hair, where the shadow looks a browny green on my copy.

The interior pages open with a pretty good bit of near-silent storytelling. We are deftly shown, and not told the story—there are condolence cards and headlines, and the looming presence of a liquor bottle, until we are shown on the next page splash the real heart of the story, a revolver held aloft by Catherine Grant, bereaved mother, with her targeting in her mind the grim visage of the Toyman.

While their first few issues together meshed pretty well, it’s around this issue that the pencil/inks team of Jurgens and Rubinstein starts to look a little rushed in places. A few inkers who worked with Jurgens that I’ve spoken to have hinted that his pencils can vary in their level of detail, from very finished to pretty loose, and in the latter case, it’s up to the inker to embellish where there’s a lack of detail. Some inkers, like Brett Breeding, really lay down a heavier hand, where there’s quite a bit of actual drawing work in addition to adding value and weight to the lines. I suspect some of the looseness in the figures, as well as empty backgrounds reveals that these pencils were less detailed than we often see from Jurgens.

There’s some weird body language in the tense exchange between Superman and Cat as she angrily confronts him about his lack of progress in capturing her son’s killer—Superman looks a little too dynamic and pleased with himself for someone ostensibly apologizing. Superman taking flight to hunt down Toyman is classic Jurgens, though.

Another example of art weirdness comes on page 7, where Superman gets filled in on the progress of the Adam Morgan investigation. Apparently Suicide Slum has some San Francisco-like hills, as that is one very steep sidewalk separating Superman and Turpin from some central-casting looking punks.

The sequence of Superman concentrating his sight and hearing on the waterfront area is well-drawn, and it’s always nice to see novel uses of his powers. Tyler Hoechlin’s Superman does a similar trick quite often on the excellent first season of Superman & Lois. The full-bleed splash of Superman breaking through the wall to capture Toyman is definitely panel-of-the-week material, as we really feel Superman’s rage and desperation to catch this child-killer.

Pretty much all the pages with Cat Grant confronting Winslow Schott are well-done and tensely paced. While sometimes I think the pupil-less flare of the eye-glasses is a cop-out, it does lend an opaqueness and mystery to what Toyman is thinking. Speaking of cop-outs, the gag gun twist ending really didn’t work for me. I was glad that Cat didn’t lower herself to Schott’s level and become a killer, even for revenge, but the prank gun just felt too silly of a tonal shift for a storyline with this much gravitas. The breakneck denouement that Cat is now depending only on herself didn’t get quite enough breathing room either.

While I appreciated that the ending of this issue avoided an overly simplistic, Death Wish style of justice, this issue extends this troubling but brief era of Superman comics. The casual chalk outlines of yet two more dead children continues the high body count of the previous handful of issues, and the tone remains jarring to me. The issue is also self-aware enough to point out, again, that Schott is generally an ally of children, and not someone who historically wishes them harm, but that doesn’t stop the story from going there, in the most violent of terms. In addition to being a radical change to the Toyman character, it’s handled in a fashion more glib than we’re used to seeing in these pages. The mental health cliché of a matriarchal obsession, a la Norman Bates doesn’t elevate it either. So, another rare misstep from Jurgens the writer, in my opinion. STRAY OBSERVATIONS:

I had thought for sure that Romanove Vodka was a sly reference to a certain Russian Spy turned Marvel superhero, but it turns out there actually is a Russian Vodka called that, minus the “E”, produced not in Russia, as one might think from the Czarist name, but rather, India.

While it made for an awkward exchange, I was glad that Cat pointed out how her tragedy more or less sat on the shelf while Superman dealt with the "Spilled Blood" storyline. A lesser book might not have acknowledged any time had passed. Though I did find it odd for Superman to opine that he wanted to find her son’s murderer even more than she wanted him to. Huh? How so?

I love the detail that Toyman hears the noise of Superman soaring to capture him, likening it to a train coming.

I quibble, but there’s so much I don’t understand about the “new” Toyman. If he’s truly regressing mentally, to an infant-like state, why does he wear this phantom of the opera style long cloak while he sits in his baby crib? Why not go all the way, and wear footie pajamas, like the lost souls on TLC specials about “adult babies”?

I get that Cat Grant is in steely determination mode, but it seemed a little out of place that she had almost no reaction to the taunting she faced from her child’s killer. She doesn’t shed a single tear in the entire issue, and no matter how focused she is on vengeance, that doesn’t seem realistic to me. [Max: That's because this is not just retribution, Don. It's dark retribution. We’ve been over this!]

#superman #dan jurgens #joe rubinstein #cat grant #adam morgan #toyman #dan turpin #joke guns that only exist in comics #cat grant the dark retributor #coming soon to image comics

20 notes · View notes

parttimerper · 5 years ago

Text

Muses I need to add on my page

This is just a list of muses I’ve plotted with and need to add to my muses page. If we’ve plotted with someone else and they’re neither here or on my full muses page, please let me know and I’ll add them!

Bianca Rutherford(Caitlin Stasey fc)

Daphne Greengrass(Tati Gabrielle fc)

Dominic Steele(Casey Deidrick fc)

Eisheth Pentland(Olivia Taylor-Dudley fc)

Jaiden Wheeler(Charlie Rowe fc)

Kerem Aslan(Berker Guven fc)

Priscilla Hawthorne(Natalia Dyer fc)

Prudence ???(India Eisley fc)

Raphaelle Delong(Zoey Deutch fc)

Sturgis Podmore(Ronen Rubinstein fc)

Timothy Watts(Landon Liboiron fc)

Trula Twyst(Katherine McNamara fc)

Valda Blake(Chloe Bridges fc)

Zelda Spellman(Emma Rigby fc)

Still unnamed vampire(Avan Jogia fc)

#tba

1 note · View note

4eternal-life · 7 years ago

Link

AFTER ENJOYING AN initial burst of acclaim in the early 1980s, Neo-Expressionism has fared very badly indeed, perhaps worse than any other major 20th-century art movement. While a few of its leading figures still show with prominent galleries and are covered regularly in the art press, most Neo-Expressionist painters have been totally forgotten. It doesn’t help that major museums generally pretend Neo-Expressionism never existed (the last big show by a Neo-Ex star in a New York museum was Francesco Clemente’s Guggenheim retrospective in 1999). Even in a culture that thrives on revivals, and an art world that loves nothing better than a contemporary work that incorporates a clever allusion to some past art, the cohort of Julian Schnabel, David Salle and Robert Longo, the “3 Cs” (Clemente, Enzo Cucchi and Sandro Chia) and the Neue Wilden remains perennially uncool.

Why did Neo-Ex suffer this near total erasure? Why is there such a consensus about its badness? On whose authority, and by what means, was it consigned to the ash heap of art his- tory? One place to begin looking for answers to such questions is in two issues of Art in America (December 1982 and January 1983) devoted to “The Expressionism Question.” Amid their varied contents, which include a symposium with 19 contemporary artists, feature articles on historical Expressionism and several polemical essays about Neo-Expressionism, it is possible to see the intellectual forces massing against this internationally successful style.

Before we start digging down into this largely neglected chapter of recent art history, maybe we’d better ask why such an excavation is worth undertaking. The aim is not to reveal some lost trove of great art. It could be that most Neo- Expressionist painting really is as bad as its detractors would have it, though, to my eye, there is much worth reexamining in the period, from the still underrated Schnabel to lesser figures ripe for rediscovery, such as Swiss painter Martin Disler (1949-1996), to say nothing of the crucial role that Neo- Expressionism played in the development of important artists who are no longer identified with the style—Albert Oehlen comes immediately to mind. My curiosity arises, rather, from the extent of this eclipse. You don’t have to be a psychoanalyst to have your suspicions aroused when so much effort is expended to suppress an episode and its memory. There was something about this movement and style that inspired incredibly strong reactions, many of them negative. Even today Neo-Expressionism is often seen as an art historical embar- rassment. Perhaps it is worthwhile to return to the scene of the original trauma, to understand the grounds on which it was debated and, ultimately, dismissed.

These 30-year-old debates may also have valuable things to tell us about where we are now in terms of art criticism and art-making. Even though many of the angst-ridden, paint-slathered canvases reproduced in the January 1983 issue seem irrelevant to current concerns, the clash of critical positions within its pages helped set the stage for the discourse that dominated discussions of contemporary art for the next quarter century and still hold sway in some quarters. Plus, many of the painters surveyed in the Decem- ber 1982 issue are still very present and producing vital work—for example, Louise Fishman, recently the subject of two widely noted solo gallery shows in New York. Although in her statement she identifies herself as an Expressionist painter, Fishman is dismissive of Neo-Expressionist painting because “most of it has to do with fashion.” Rafael Ferrer, whose 2010 retrospective at New York’s El Museo del Barrio was a revelation to many, is also skeptical, pointing out the profound differences between historical Expres- sionism and its 1980s revival: “The early Expressionists were people with very little patience. They had no time to consider the nuances of style. Now . . . the artist is someone who takes styles out of the closet according to the needs of the season’s spectacle.” Schnabel, however, points out that Neo-Expressionism emerged in opposition to Greenbergian abstraction, offering an “art that was less elitist, less hermetic. Its subject matter was more overtly related to life.” This theme of hermeticism versus accessibility is touched on in an editorial statement by Elizabeth C. Baker, then editor of A.i.A., which proposes a historical parallel: “The last time a popularly accessible art movement succeeded a relatively esoteric one was when, in the early ’60s, Pop art followed ‘difficult’ Abstract Expressionism.”

The harshest attack on Neo-Expressionism in the January 1983 issue is Craig Owens’s essay “Honor, Power and the Love of Women.” A senior editor of A.i.A., Owens, who would die of AIDS in 1990 at the age of 39, was a prominent voice in the emerging discourse of postmodernist theory. Owen’s article (based on a lecture he had delivered in September 1982 at the Art Institute of Chicago) revolves around a reading of a painting by Chia, The Idleness of Sisyphus (1981), which depicts the Greek hero, clad in a business suit and small fedora, rolling his stone up a kind of painterly slag heap. Owens spins his article off Freud’s theory that artists create “phantasies” because their desires cannot be achieved in reality, and that sometimes these phantasies (i.e., their artworks) actually help them to acquire such real-world benefits as “honor, power and the love of women.” For Owens, the work of Chia and most of the other Neo-Expressionists is doubly at fault: first, by seeking to revive the image of the artist as hero; second, by imbuing this revival with self-mockery:Chia, Cucchi, Clemente, Mariani, Baselitz, LuÌ?pertz, Middendorf, Fetting, Penck, Kiefer, Schnabel . . . these and other artists are engaged not (as is frequently claimed by critics who find mirrored in this art their own frustration with the radical art of the present) in the recovery and reinvestment of tradition, but rather in declaring its bankruptcy—specifically, the bankruptcy of the modernist tradition. Everywhere we turn today the radical impulse that motivated modernism—its commitment to transgression—is treated as the object of parody and insult. What we are witness- ing, then, is the wholesale liquidation of the entire modernist legacy.As is evident in his parenthetical remark about frus- trated critics, Owens viewed writers as part of the problem. Elsewhere in the article, he scolds fellow A.i.A. contributor Donald Kuspit for proclaiming, apropos of Salle, “acquies- cence to authority” as a “radical act” and worries that critic Peter Schjeldahl “has increasingly been gravitating towards a Neoconservative position.” At the end of the piece, Owens shifts his focus from contemporary painting to larger social issues, in particular “the authoritarian call for a return to traditional values which, we are told, will resolve the crisis of authority in advanced industrial nations.”A few months later, in the April 1983 issue, Kuspit struck back with a rejoinder titled “Tired Criticism, Tired ‘Radicalism,’” accusing Owens and other contributors to the debate of promoting a “conception of modernism [that] is hackneyed and unenlightened, and hides the real issues in the struggle between the new Expressionists and other kinds of artists.”1 What blinds these critics to the virtues of Neo-Expressionism, Kuspit says, is the widespread belief that content is less important than style in modern art and the equally mistaken expectation that art should achieve some sort of progress.Despite Kuspit’s objections, Owens’s brilliantly written polemic makes a compelling case against Neo-Expressionism. And yet, 30 years on, even a sympathetic reader might find it difficult to share Owens’s degree of outrage. A disapproving remark about Chia’s “extraordinary prosperity,” for instance, grates against the artist’s subsequent decline in reputation (supposedly spurred by British mega-collector Charles Saatchi’s decision in the late 1980s to sell a number of Chias from his collection). Something similar happens when Owens cites the fact that the Museum of Modern Art “immediately acquired” Idleness of Sisyphus as “not only a measure of his success, but also an indication that the institutions—and the critics—that support this kind of work must be named as its collaborators.” A look at the MoMA website turns up Idleness of Sisyphus (unsurprisingly “not on view”) and five other works by Chia, all from 1980-82: as far as the MoMA collection is concerned, Chia’s career ceased by the time the Neo-Expressionist controversy really got going.Whatever institutional and critical support Chia et al. once received has long since evaporated. The reversal of fortune experienced by Neo-Expres- sionist painters becomes even more obvious when we turn to Hal Foster’s contribution to the January 1983 issue, an article titled “The Expressive Fallacy.” After setting the stage with some philosophical analysis of the themes and techniques of Expressionist art, Foster engages his main subject—how “the work of several young artists reflects critically upon the language of Expressionism.” By relying largely on appropriated imagery and treating the self as a social construct, these artists challenge “the official rhetoric of both our old metaphysical tradition and our new con- sumerist society.” Ironically (from an Owens perspective), the roster of figures Foster discusses—Cindy Sherman, Sherrie Levine, Richard Prince, Gretchen Bender and, working as a team, Jenny Holzer and Peter Nadin—includes two (Sherman and Prince) who are among the most celebrated artists of their generation, another who recently enjoyed a retrospective at the Whitney (Levine), and a fourth whose work has long been ubiquitous in museums and public spaces (Holzer).

What a contrast with many of the painters included in Carter Ratcliff ’s “The Short Life of the Sincere Stroke,” which comes just before Foster’s piece. In this wide-ranging medita- tion on how different artists have deployed painterly brush- strokes, Ratcliff pays attention to canonical figures such as Pollock, Mitchell and Warhol (about whom he is particularly good), as well as many painters whom I suspect are unknown to most contemporary viewers, such as Martha Diamond, Philip Wofford, Alan Turner, Richard Bosman and Charles Clough. Reminding his readers that the “return to painting” of the early 1980s was long in coming and that visible brush- strokes don’t always equal sincerity, Ratcliff unexpectedly cites two mavericks who emerged in the 1970s: Neil Jenney, whose “simulacrum of an Expressionist brushstroke permitted him to go straight to irony” and Joe Zucker, whose “material idiosyncrasy read as the outcome of quirky historical analysis, not as the uncensored outpourings of an estranged psyche.”

The longest article in the January 1983 issue is Kuspit’s “Acts of Transgression: German Painting Today, Part II.” This sprawling survey of the German scene, the first part of which appeared the previous September, is noteworthy for what must be one of the earliest discussions of Martin Kippenberger’s work in an American art magazine. It’s so early that Kuspit (uncorrected by his editors and proofreaders) calls him “Kippenberg.” As a partisan of Neo-Expressionist painting, Kuspit rightly suspects that Kippenberger isn’t exactly his cup of tea. He finds the artist’s works—like those of other “Berlin and Hamburg Realists,” as a subheading has it—to be “not that good, even as satire.” Rather than developing a critical method like the original German Expressionists, these makers of “anti-pictures” are, says Kuspit, “self-defeating” and “undialectical.” The impres- sive scope of the article is offset by Kuspit’s eagerness to subsume the work he discusses into vague categories, using terms borrowed from psychology and philosophy; the art is too often treated as proof or illustration of social and psycho-social conditions. Kippenberger and Oehlen manifest “infantilism,” Sigmar Polke “refuses false consciousness,” Anselm Kiefer “establishes a new sense of the possibilities that might constitute a contemporary German self.”While the anti-Expressionist stances of Foster and Owens seem far more prescient than Ratcliff ’s and Kuspit’s defenses, identifying early on the artists and themes that would come to dominate the contemporary art scene, there is an underly- ing structural aspect to Foster’s and Owens’s arguments that I find troubling. I’m OK with the assertion that Sherman and Kruger are among the major artists of the 1980s and that Rainer Fetting and Chia are minor figures. But I’m not willing to give up room in the canon for painters such as Joan Snyder or Malcolm Morley or Pat Steir (all of whom are included in the “Expressionism Today” symposium) and many others whose work, I believe, can stand alongside the “radical art” of Sherman and Kruger. In their writings, Owens and Foster filter out all but a few artists because only one medium (photography) and one type of subject (social critique) deserve critical respect; painters are consigned to the wrong side of history. This exclu- sionary approach, which grew out of an ideologically motivated rejection of 1970s pluralism, becomes especially troubling when it is imposed on authoritative art historical accounts. I’m think- ing here of Art Since 1900, the influential two-volume textbook coauthored by five October editors and contributors, including Foster. Although full of brilliant writing, Art Since 1900 offers a dangerously narrow view of recent art history.

There is, however, an excellent corrective to tendentious, cherry-picked accounts. I would encourage anyone curious about retracing the tangled lines of recent art to spend a few hours paging through back issues of art magazines from 10 or 20 or 30 years ago. There you can glimpse the raw footage of art history in all its messy, contentious, inchoate glory. Appearing side by side are ads for shows of forgotten artists at high-profile galleries and ads for debuts of now-famous figures in long-defunct venues; page after page of exhibition reviews written in the moment, before meaning is frozen, and perhaps never read since but preserving within their columns of dense type a sentence or phrase that might forever change your sense of an artist’s work or of the period; and, when editors and publishers provide the space, ambitious articles like those I’ve been discussing here, where critics argue for a particular position, placing their bets, rashly or wisely, on certain artists while doing everything they can to quash the careers of others.

Another thought before I return these issues (though not the issues they raise) to the shelves. Clearly, something was at stake in these early 1980s disputes among critics and artists. Art magazines may no longer be the prime locus where such discourse occurs, but it’s vitally important that we have, someplace, a public forum where we can argue with each other about new art. I often worry that the art world is adopting the MSNBC/Fox News model—closed spheres where clusters of like-minded partisans never have to con- front opposing views.

And, if I may, one last point. Maybe we shouldn’t be so certain about who won the Neo-Ex vs. Pictures Generation bout. Lately, I’ve sensed MFA students responding to the oeuvres of Sherman and Prince with yawns or sneers, but when I bring up Schnabel their curiosity awakens. Could it be that, 30 years on, we are once again ready to take up “The Expressionism Question”?

1. That winter Kuspit was busy defending Neo-Expressionism and the revival of painting on several fronts. In December 1982, Artforum ran his reply to Joseph Kosuth’s anti-painting, anti-Neo-Expressionism rant “Necrophilia Mon Amour,” which the magazine had published in May. Contrasting Kosuth’s brand of Conceptual art with figurative painting by young artists, Kuspit observes: “With Kosuth, self-criticality, and its larger relationship to life, have become overintellectualized, overexposed; art here is no longer subversive, except perhaps to itself. But by exploring a new demonstrativeness, by manipulating symbols both familiar and archaic, the new Expressionism seeks new possibilities.”

RAPHAEL RUBINSTEIN is a New York- based art critic and poet.

#Neo Expressionism #neoexpressionism info #art article #art review #art #mu art #mu #Raphael Rubinstein

0 notes

socialboxworldnews · 4 years ago

Photo

"‘Pandemic fatigue’ presents a challenge in areas scrambling to avert a second wave." by BY MARC SANTORA, ISABELLA KWAI, SARAH MERVOSH, JULIE BOSMAN, DANA RUBINSTEIN, JULIANA KIM, KAREN ZRAICK AND RAPHAEL MINDER via NYT World https://ift.tt/34H2jiJ

#IFTTT #NYT

0 notes

javierpenadea · 4 years ago

Photo

#NYT #news

0 notes

studio300 · 4 years ago

Link

#Provisional Painting #Art in America #Article #Painting

0 notes

sketchbookinrome · 5 years ago

Link

0 notes

356mission · 7 years ago

Text

List of individuals and groups who have participated in an event at 356 Mission

LeanThe New Dreamz (Rose Luardo and Andrew Jeffrey Wright)

Andre Hyland

Whitmer Thomas

Jessica Ciocci

Michael Webster

Asha Schechter

Gabu Heindl & Drehli Robnik (screening)

Rachel Kushner (with parts read by Barry Johnston, Gale Harold, Karen Adelman, Paul Gellman, Stuart Krimko, Stanya Kahn, Alex Israel, Milena Muzquiz)

Mina Stone

Ken Ehrlich & Emily Joyce

Flora Wiegmann with Alexa Wier

James Lee Byars (screening)

Trisha Brown (screening)

Ei Arakawa (screening)

Jennifer Phiffer

Euan MacDonald and Henri Lucas

Fundación Alumnos47

ForYourArt

Derek Boshier

Alex Kitnick

Cherry Pop

De Porres

Aaron Dilloway

Jason Lescalleet

John Wiese

Final Party (Barry Johnston)

Crazy Band

Aram Moshayedi

Bruce Hainley

Gary Dauphin

Kathryn Garcia

Leland de la Durantaye

Sohrab Mohebbi

Tala Madani

Tiffany Malakooti

Negar Azimi

Barbara T. Smith

LeRoy Stevens

Joe Sola and Michael Webster

Math Bass and Lauren Davis Fisher

Angel Diez Alvarez (screening)

Hedi El Kholti

K8 Hardy

Anna Sew Hoy

L.A. Fog

Trinie Dalton

Rita Gonzalez

Alex Klein

Mark Owens

Tanya Rubbak

AL Steiner

C.R.A.S.H.

Lao

Mexican Jihad

Zak-Matic

Laura Poitras (screening)

Parker Higgins

Domenick Ammirati

John Seal

John Tain

Bruce Hainley

Lisa Lapinski

Kate Stewart

Sarah Lehrer-Graiwer

Ian Svenonius

Entrance Band

Allison Wolfe

Geneva Jacuzzi

Chain & the Gang

Shivas

Hunx

Jimi Hey

Tim Lokiec

Scott & Tyson Reeder

Total Freedom

Prince William

Kingdom

SFV Acid

Jesse Fleming

William Leavitt

Lucas Blalock

Oliver Payne

Meredith Monk

Jessica Espeleta

Rollo Jackson (screening)

Jack Smith (screening)

Noura Wedell

Sylvère Lotringer

Jesse Benson

Zoe Crosher

Alex Cecchetti

Patricia Fernandez

Jeff Khonsary

Ben Lord

Shana Lutker

Joseph Mosconi

Suzy Newbury

Scott Oshima

Kim Schoen

Clarissa Tossin

Mark Verabioff

Brica Wilcox

Michael Clark

Ben Brunnemer

Ted Byrnes / Corey Fogel

Kirsty Bell

Johnston Marklee

Emily Sundblad & Matt Sweeney

Kevin Salatino

Wooster Group (screening)

Shannon Ebner

East of Borneo

Sue Tompkins

Alexis Taylor

Leslie Buchbinder (screening)

Odwalla88

Dean Spunt

Bebe Whypz

Saman Moghadam (screening)

J Cush

Hive Dwellers

Bouquet

Dream Boys

Jen Smith

Thee Oh Sees

Jack Name

Alex Waterman and Will Holder

Jonathan Horowitz

Ali Subotnick

Brian Calvin

Dean Wareham

Gracie DeVito

Indah Datau

Jake DeVito

Sara Gomez

Luke Harris

Sarah Johnson

Julia Leonard

Jillian Risigari-Gai

Joseph Tran

George Kuchar (screening)

Andrew Lampert

Reach LA

Oscar Tuazon

Black Dice

Danny Perez

Avey Tare

Shinzen Young

Jesse Fleming and Lewis Pesacov

Mecca Vazie Andrews

Mira Billotte

Julian Ceccaldi

Oldest (Brooks Headley & Mick Barr)

DJ Andy Coronado

François Ceysson

Amanda Ross-Ho

Raphael Rubinstein

Wallace Whitney

Bradford Nordeen

Chris Kraus

Samuel Dunscombe & Curt Miller

Jay Chung

Lev Kalman & Whitney Horn (screening)

Maricón Collective

The Shhh

Alice Bag

Martin Sorrondeguy

Sex Stains

Kevin Hegge (screening)

Rhonda Lieberman

Lisa Anne Auerbach

David Benjamin Sherry

Eric Wesley

Tamara Shopsin, Jason Fulford, and Brooks Headley

Deborah Hay

Becky Edmunds (screening)

Kath Bloom

Erin Durant

Ben Vida

Charles Atlas

Laurie Weeks

Kerry Tribe

Renée Green

Fred Moten

The Office of Culture and Design / Hardworking Goodlooking

YUK, MNDSGN, and AHNUU

PATAO

Michael Biel

Mark Von Schlegell

Graham Lambkin

Lex Brown

Jibade-Khalil Huffman

Dan Levenson

Sarah Mattes

Carmen Winant

Gloria Sutton

John Musilli (screening)

Pieter Schoolwerth and Alexandra Lerman (screening)

Nate Young

Safe Crackers

Frances Stark

Liliana Porter (screening)

Adam Linder

Corazon del Sol

Gary Cannone

Ben Caldwell

Jacqueline Frazier

Jan-Christopher Horak

Haile Gerima (screening)

Barbara McCullough (screening)

Jon Pestoni

Andrew Cannon

David Fenster

Dick Pics

Seth Bogart

Lonnie Holley

Rudy Garcia

Dynasty Handbag

Christine Stormberg

Anthony Valdez

Kate Mosher Hall

JJ Stratford

Diana Adzhaketov

DJs Cole MGN and Nite Jewel

Casey Jane Ellison

Gary Indiana + Walter Steding

Kate Durbin

Michael Silverblatt

Hamza Walker

Wynne Greenwood

Robert Morris

Maggie Lee (screening)

Brendan Fowler

Susan Cianciolo

Aaron Rose

John Boskovich (screening)

Michel Auder (screening)

Lauren Campedelli, Leo Marks, and Jan Munroe

Klang Association feat. Anna Homler (Breadwoman), Jorge Martin, Jeff Schwartz

sodapop

Hoseh

Miles Cooper Seaton & Heather McIntosh

Drip City

Geologist

Deaken

Brian Degraw

$3.33

Angela Seo

George Jensen

Carole Kim & Jesse Gilbert & Friends

Aledandra Pelly

dublab

Mariko Munro

Emily Jane Rosen

Lana Rosen

Max Syron

Mark Morrisroe (screening)

Ramsey McPhillips

Stuart Comer

Jordan Wolfson

Kiva Motnyk

Samara Golden

Sam Ashley

John Krausbauer

Kate Valk

Elizabeth LeCompte

Lewis Klahr

Barbara Kasten

Martine Syms

Margo Victor

Studioo Manueel Raaeder

Mary Farley

Wayne Koestenbaum

Jibz Cameron

Sean Daly

Kendra Sullivan

Trinh T. Minh-ha

Johanna Breiding + Jennifer Moon

Tisa Bryant

Cog•nate Collective (Misael G Diaz + Amy Y Sanchez-Arteaga)

Bridget Cooks

Michelle Dizon

Anne Ellegood

Shoghig Halajian

Katherine Hubbard

Simon Leung

Amanda McGough + Tyler Matthew Oyer

Dylan Mira

Litia Perta

Eden’s Herbals

Matt Connors

Flat Worms

Susan

Lucky Dragons

Dos Mega

David Korty

Monica Majoli

Forrest Nash

Sophie von Olfers

Rudolf Eb.er

dave phillips

Joke Lanz

The Dog Star Orchestra

The Edge of Forever (Elizabeth Cline + Lewis Pesacov)

Lutz Bacher (screening)

Agnes Martin (screening)

Marisa Takal

Moyra Davey (screening)

Suzanna Zak

Wu Tsang, boychild and Patrick Belaga

Snake Jé

VIP

Fictitious Business DBA The Geminis

DJ M.Suarez

Asmara

Weirdo Dave

Mission Chinese

Veronica Gonzalez Peña

Thomas Bayrle

Bernhard Schreiner

Bob Nickas

The Cactus Store / Christian Herman Cummings

Atelier E.B

Iman Issa

Diana Nawi

Sqirl

Downtown Women’s Center

Earthjustice

Juvenile Justice Clinic at Loyola Law School

Loyola Immigrant Justice Clinic

N.eed O.rganize W.ork

Planned Parenthood

SoCal 350 Climate Action

St. Athanasius

WriteGirl

Sean/Milan

John Santos

Thomas Davis

Twisted Mindz

Adrienne Adams

Evan Kent

Jasmine McCloud

Gia Banks

Ace Farren Ford

Dennis Mehaffey

Fredrik Nilsen

Paul McCarthy

Joe Potts

Rick Potts

Tom Recchion

Vetza

Oliver Hall

Rigo 23

Gil Kenan & Vice Cooler (screening)

Cassie Griffin

Clara Cakes

Clay Tatum + Whitmer Thomas (Power Violence)

DJ AshTreJinkins

DJs Protectme

Crush

Sara Knox Hunter

Dodie Bellamy

Miranda July

Alexander Keefe

Thomas Keenan

Kevin Killian

Silke Otto-Knapp

Calypso Jete, Essence Jete Monroe, Virginia X, Leandra Rose, Naomi Befierce, Tori Perfection, Foxie Adjuis

Brontez Purnell

Kate Wolf

Adam Soch (screening)

Dar A Luz

ADSL Camels

Cold Beat

Tropic Green

No Sesso

Michelle Carrillo

Ruth Root

Timothy Ochoa

10 notes · View notes

blakepointon-blog · 5 years ago

Text

Bibliography

Acton, Mary. Learning To Look At Modern Art. Psychology Press, 2004.

Buchloh, Benjamin H. D., Foster, Hal, Joselit, David, Krauss, Rosalind and Yve-Alain, Bois. Art Since 1900: Modernism, Antimodernism, Postmodernism. London: Thames & Hudson, 2011.

De Duve, Thierry. Kant After Duchamp. Massachusetts: MIT Press, 1998.

Fricke, Roswitha, Sieg, Seth and Fricke, Marion. The Context of Art, The Art of Context : 1969 - 1992 Project. Navado Press, 2004

.Gablik, Suzi. Has Modernism Failed. London: Thames and Hudson Ltd, 2004.

Holmes, A.M. V.F. Portrait: John Currin in Vanity Fair. 2011.

Rubinstein, Raphael. “Provisional Painting.” Art in America. United States: Art Media Holdings, 2009.

Schjeldahl, Peter. Columns and Catalogues. Figures, 1994.

Soloman, Deborah. How to Succeed in Art. New York: New York Times, 1999.

Tomkins, Calvin. Lifting the Veil: Old Masters, pornography, and the work of John Currin. New York: The New Yorker, 2008.

Grogan, Sarah. Body Image: Understanding Body Dissatisfaction in Men, Women, and Children. London: Routledge, 2008.

Sweetman, Paul Jon. Marking the Body: Identity and Identification in Contemporary Body Modification. University of Southampton, 1999.

Eds.a.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.aut.ac.nz. (n.d.). Stuff and Beauty an Interview with Laura Letinsky. [online] Available at: http://eds.a.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.aut.ac.nz/eds/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=1&sid=bdf2af88-c1ce-451d-bc3b-5cae759ed7a7%40sessionmgr4010 [Accessed 4 Apr. 2018].

McGuire, K. (2012). Laura Letinsky: Venus Inferred | The Chicago Blog. [online] Pressblog.uchicago.edu. Available at: http://pressblog.uchicago.edu/2012/10/11/laura-letinsky-venus-inferred.html [Accessed 4 Apr. 2018].

Bryson, Norman, Alison M. Gingeras, Dave Eggers, Kara Vander Weg, Rose Dergan, and John Currin. John Currin. New York, NY: New York, N.Y., 2006.

Currin, John, Robert Rosenblum, Staci Boris, and Rochelle Steiner. John Currin. Chicago: Museum of Contemporary Art, 2003.

Stover, William, Cheryl A. Brutvan, and John Currin. John Currin Selects with William Stover. Boston: MFA Publications, 2003.

#Research

0 notes

artsleaderuh · 6 years ago

Photo

@Glasstire : Join the Houston Art Gallery Association for a conversation between Houston collector and gallerist Gus Kopriva, artist Philip Karjeker, and critic Raphael Rubinstein at Gallery Sonja Roesch. April 2, 7pm https://t.co/dYxcPFBnHk https://t.co/jSOnIMYdrX (via Twitter http://twitter.com/Glasstire/status/1112742925161631744)

#uh arts center for arts leadership #university of houston texas arts #houston #photography #Glasstir

0 notes

caveartfair · 6 years ago

Text

The Bad Boy Artists of the 1980s Owe a Debt to Their Feminist Predecessors

Hope, 1982. Julian Schnabel Whitney Museum of American Art

Throughout the 1980s, a new chapter of contemporary art began to take shape in Western art institutions, centered around a group of young, innovative male artists making bold work in what was billed as a return to form for a medium that had been out of vogue for years—vibrant, expressive paintings. At the beginning of the decade, British curator Norman Rosenthal co-organized two seminal exhibitions—“A New Spirit in Painting” at the Royal Academy of Arts in London (1981) and “Zeitgeist” at the Martin-Gropius-Bau in Berlin (1982)—that solidified this idea of novelty and resurgence. He grouped together a mix of representational and figurative works by artists such as David Salle, Eric Fischl, Francesco Clemente, and Julian Schnabel. His curation evidenced the feeling and subjectivity that was then re-entering painting after decades of Minimalism and Conceptual performance had posited art as a mostly cerebral or formal exercise. The high-profile shows earned this new swath of painters the moniker “Neo-Expressionist.”

If the best exhibitions offer such provocative frameworks to codify and understand contemporary art, the narratives they create are always subjective and open to revision. Ultimately, decade markers and movement names are slippery, largely arbitrary ways to shape coherent stories about human creativity and aesthetic progress—whatever that might mean.

Rosenthal’s conception of the early 1980s as the time when (male) artists forged a “return to painting” has persisted over the past 40 years, veering toward mythology. While many critics and curators have attempted to reconsider the era, they’ve neglected one crucial facet of 1980s Neo-Expressionist painting: the inspiration it took from a handful of figurative female painters and the second-wave feminist movement that took hold in the 1970s.

Capree, 2001. Elizabeth Murray Gemini G.E.L. at Joni Moisant Weyl

Fling, 1997. Elizabeth Murray Gemini G.E.L.

Untitled (12.3.90), 1990. Carroll Dunham James Barron Art

Untitled, (6/3/14), 2014. Carroll Dunham Two Palms

In recent years, a few shows have attempted to expand upon Rosenthal’s ideas. The Whitney Museum of American Art’s 2017 exhibition “Fast Forward: Painting from the 1980s” united works by the Neo-Expressionists with that by a number of female artists active around the same time. At Cheim & Read in 2013, Raphael Rubinstein curated “Reinventing Abstraction: New York Painting in the 1980s,” which eschewed figuration altogether (though it included paintings by artists such as Elizabeth Murray and Carroll Dunham, whose biomorphic forms push toward representation). A 2012 show at the Museum of Contemporary Art, Chicago and the Walker Art Center, “This Will Have Been: Art, Love & Politics in the 1980s,” offered a larger context for thinking about art from the decade. The show situated the era’s paintings among video art, sculpture, and works on paper. The curators also emphasized the political and economic issues that shaped the art. In a section called “Gender Trouble,” for instance, they began to address how 1970s feminism had influenced 1980s art, an effect that still remains woefully understudied.

Joan Semmel’s 1976 painting Mythologies and Me provides some of the clearest evidence of these unexplored connections. The triptych depicts three women’s nude bodies against a purple backdrop: a Playboy model, the artist, and a scribbly, abstracted woman that emulates the Abstract Expressionist style of Willem de Kooning’s Woman 1 (1950–52). Semmel appropriated imagery from other artists, popular publications, and pornography to examine how such varied forms in painting—including abstraction—can be used to empower or objectify women.

Melody Bubbles and the Critique of Reason, 1988. David Salle Mana Contemporary

The painting could be a prototype for works by David Salle, whose fragmented canvases, in which he “quotes” imagery from other sources, employ a similar aesthetic strategy. (Judith Linhares could also be seen as another precursor.) The work of Eric Fischl also shares a kinship with Semmel’s. His 1982 triptych Inside Out and 1984 diptych Motel unite pictures of sex, screens, and solitary nudes. Throughout the 1970s, Semmel painted from photographs of her own body, transforming them with vivid Fauvist colors. Her paintings are expressive and large-scale, but no one ever calls Semmel a Neo-Expressionist or shows her work in close concert with Salle’s and Fischl’s. Instead, her art crops up in large group exhibitions about feminism or the nude.

Maria Lassnig, who lived in New York from 1968 through 1980 (she later moved to Vienna), also shared aesthetic affinities with these artists. Her 1974 painting Double Self-Portrait with Camera shows two versions of the artist. The Lassnig in the foreground, who has a blurred, angular head, sits on a chair in front of a painting of the other Lassnig, who points a camera towards the viewer. With vivid hues and distorted figures, Lassnig investigates the fractured self and the relationship between photography and painting.

Simultaneously, Betty Tompkins was making canvases depicting photorealistic close-ups of intercourse, which she titled “Fuck Paintings.” Sometimes leaving the grid visible beneath her paint, Tompkins connected photography, pornography, and painting in graphic, confrontational art. Occasionally, in her “Censored Grid” drawings (1974–ongoing), she stamped the word “CENSORSHIP” on top of her imagery—blunt commentary on the anti-pornography movement of the day.

Floating Islands #2 and #5, 1985. Eric Fischl Rago

In the late 1960s and mid-’70s, the Supreme Court determined in two landmark cases that the “right to privacy” protected American freedoms like the right to enjoy pornographic materials in one’s own home and the right to have an abortion. These linked issues didn’t just affect women, of course. To think that male painters coming of age at the same time were oblivious to such national decisions is naïve and reductive—any artist interested in sexuality and the body (and many of the Neo-Expressionists were) was responding, implicitly or explicitly, to a cultural climate that was litigating pornography and a woman’s right to choose. At the same time, men’s movements were emerging to either counteract or support feminism. Men across the country, many siloed from the art world, had to determine their response to the growing call for gender equality.

It’s notable, too, that in their engagement with photography and pornography, many female painters who exhibited throughout the 1970s preempted not only the Neo-Expressionists, but also the so-called “Pictures Generation” artists—Sherrie Levine, Cindy Sherman, and Robert Longo among them (Salle is often counted in this group). Yet few exhibitions depict such intergenerational linkages. One reason might be that all these connections form a tangled, imperfect web: It’s easier to mount a show of 1980s work than extract the threads connecting the two decades.

I'm going to..., 2018. Betty Tompkins P.P.O.W

All the labels floating around towards the end of the 1970s—Pictures Generation, feminist, Pattern and Decoration, Neo-Conceptualist, Neo-Expressionist—make the period particularly difficult to parse. In a 2013 article for Art in America, Rubinstein suggested that such pluralism was not amenable to critics, who felt they needed to choose sides, further segregating artists into unique camps instead of making more fruitful connections between their different approaches. The celebrated critic Hal Foster, for example, railed against the Neo-Expressionists, which, somewhat ironically, further solidified their status as a discrete group of male painters. (He also literally wrote an essay called “Against Pluralism.”)

Untitled Film Still #10, 1978. Cindy Sherman Vivian Horan Fine Art

Brachium Green Portfolio, 1986. Sherrie Levine Hiram Butler Gallery

Untitled (Men in the Cities), 1979 / 2009. Robert Longo Metro Pictures

New York–based painter Joan Snyder’s complaints against the entire conception of Neo-Expressionism are more helpful. In a 1992 article, “It Wasn’t Neo to Us,” she argued that the title of the movement is a misnomer, as there wasn’t anything new (“neo”) about it. She writes:

“At the height of the Pop and Minimal movements, we [women] were making other art—art that was personal, auto-biographical, expressionistic, narrative, and political—using word and photographs and as many other materials as we could get our hands on. This was called Feminist Art. This was the art of the 1980s was finally about, appropriated by the most famous male artists of the decade.”

“The Dinner Party” Needlework Loft, 1977. Judy Chicago Brooklyn Museum

While critics lauded these men’s work as heroic, they relegated work by Snyder and her cohort to the margins. These women’s canvases did often critique traditional gender roles, but they also challenged the day’s dictums about painting.

To be clear, the Neo-Expressionists were hardly the first artists to build upon the work of their predecessors. All artists respond to what they see, inside and outside of the academy, museums, galleries, and their peers’ studios. While artistic lineages are arbitrary, and influence itself is a nebulous concept (it’s impossible to say, definitively, exactly which ideas and experiences weave their way into anyone’s work), we’re long overdue for a canon-challenging exhibition that unites feminist and Neo-Expressionist painting from the 1970s and ’80s, placing these art-historical contributions into dialogue with one another.

In a major exhibition, curators might look beyond New York, too—the connections between the Neo-Expressionist and feminist movements extended coast to coast. Hammer Museum curator Connie Butler believes that the Feminist Art Program (FAP), spearheaded by Judy Chicago and Miriam Schapiro at the California Institute of the Arts in Valencia between 1971 and 1976, attacked taboos about representing the figure and granted permission to future generations of artists to candidly address the realities of sex and the body.

True, 1989. Francesco Clemente MARUANI MERCIER GALLERY

Doppelselbstporträt mit Kamera, 1974. Maria Lassnig Belvedere 21

Notably, both Fischl and Salle attended CalArts in the early 1970s before moving to the East Coast. If FAP wasn’t an explicit influence on their work, it’s difficult to believe that such a radical project, right on their campus, didn’t affect them. (It should be noted that Mira Schor, a FAP participant, became one of the most vocal detractors of Salle’s work.)

Schapiro herself was a major figure of the Pattern and Decoration movement, which integrated traditional, female-coded craft elements and vibrant ornamentation into fine-art forms. Found fabrics and glitter adorn her paintings. Julian Schnabel, who became famous for shattering plates and affixing them to his canvases, was destroying functional ceramics in the service of his paintings—a violent inversion, then, of certain feminist aesthetic strategies of the 1970s.

Butler, however, is just as apt to attribute the segregation of feminist art and Neo-Expressionism to regional exceptionalism as she is to sexism. The standard New York–centric view of the 1980s painting scene hasn’t previously allowed the radical ideas born on the West Coast to enter the conversation. Katy Siegel, senior programming and research curator at the Baltimore Museum of Art, offers a different, gender-specific perspective. “When women paint expressively, it’s seen as feminine, or minor, or sweet or hysterical,” she told me recently. “When men do it, it’s heroic, transgressive, and large-scale.”

from Artsy News

#Artsy News

0 notes

todayclassical · 8 years ago

Text

April 30 in Music History

1717 Birth of composer Guillaume Gommaire Kennis.

1728 FP of Handel's "Tolomeo, rè di Egitto" London.

1757 FP of Giardini's "Rosmire" London.

1781 FP of Salieri's "Der Rauchfangkehrer" Lustspiel, Vienna.

1792 Birth of composer Johann Friedrich Schwencke.

1805 FP of Boieldieu's "La Jeune Femme colère" St. Petersburg.

1837 Birth of composer Alfred Gaul.

1843 Birth of French soprano Hortense Schneider in Bordeaux.

1848 Birth of German soprano Marie Hanfstangel in Breslau.

1855 Death of English opera conductor and composer Henry Rowley Bishop.

1855 FP of Hector Berlioz's Te Deum. The church of St. Eustache in Paris.

1857 FP of Offenbach's "Dragonette" Paris.

1870 Birth of Austro-Hungarian composer Franz Lehar in Komaron.

1871 Birth of American soprano Louise Homer in Shadyside, Pittsburgh, PA.

1873 FP of Dubois' "La Guzla de l'émir" Paris.

1883 Death of violinist and founder of the Rosa Opera Co, Carl Rosa in Paris. 1883 Birth of composer David John de Lloyd.

1884 Birth of American composer Albert Israel Elkus.

1884 Birth of German tenor Georg Baldszun in Berlin.

1885 Birth of Italian composer and futurist painter Luigi Russolo.

1886 Birth of English composer, pianist Frank Merrick in Clifton,

1889 Birth of American composer and conductor Chalmers Clifton. 1889 Birth of composer Acario Cotapos.

1889 Birth of composer Rudolph Hermann Simonsen.

1902 Birth of composer Andre-François Marescotti.

1902 Birth of composer Rudolf Wittelsbach.

1902 FP of Debussy's opera Pelleas and Melisande in Paris at the Opera Comique. Mary Garden as Melisande. Jeanne Gerville-Réache as Geneviève.

1903 Birth of German composer Gunther Raphael.

1903 Victor records release it's first Red Seal recording.

1911 Birth of composer Hans Studer.

1911 Debut of the 10-year-old violinist, Jascha Heifetz in St. Petersburg. 1912 Death of Czech composer Frantisek Kmoch.

1916 Birth of soprano Alda Noni in Trieste.

1916 Birth of American conductor Robert Shaw in Red Bluff, Iowa.

1917 FP of Mascagni's "Lodoletta" Rome.

1922 Death of French tenor Louis Cazette.

1925 FP of Paul Hindemith's Kammermusik No. 3, Op. 36, no. 2. The composer conducting with Rudolf Hindemith, a cellist in Bochum, Germany.

1925 FP of Standford's "The Traveling Companion" in Liverpool, an amateur performance.

1929 Birth of Italian tenor Doro Antonioli.

1931 Birth of Italian bass Ferruccio Mazzoli.

1932 Birth of composer Anton Larrauri.

1934 Birth of American baritone William Chapman in Los Angeles.

1939 FP of Weill's "Railroads on Parade" NYC.

1932 Opening of the first Yaddo, Festival of Contemporary Music at Saratoga Springs, NY.

1934 FP of Igor Stravinsky's opera Persephone. Ida Rubinstein, speaker, and the composer conducting at the Paris Opéra.

1937 Death of Dutch baritone Carel Van Hulst.

1937 FP of U. Gadzhibekov's "Kyor-Oglu" Moscow.

1939 Birth of American violinist and composer Ellen Taaffe Zwilich in Miami.

1941 Birth of Spanish conductor Luis Antonio Garcia Navarro in Valencia,

1944 Birth of Russian violinist Lydia Mordkovitch.

1951 Death of soprano Désirée Ellinger.

1951 Death of American soprano Lucy Gates.

1956 Birth of composer Adrian Williams.

1968 Death of English baritone Clive Carey.

1970 Birth of Spanish composer Josué Bonnin de Góngora in Madrid.

1970 Birth of composer Brian W. Ogle.

1970 Death of composer Hall Francis Johnson in NYC.

1973 FP of Lou Harrison's Concerto for Organ, at San Jose State University, with organist Philip Simpson.

1974 FP of Samuel Barber's Three Songs, op 45. D. Fischer-Dieskau, Chamber Music Society, Lincoln Center, NYC.

1979 FP of Harbison's "Full Moon in March" Cambridge, MA. 1991 FP of Ellen Taaffe Zwilich's Bass Trombone Concerto. Charles Vernon with the Chicago Symphony, Daniel Barenboim conducting.

1994 FP of John Harbison's String Quartet No. 3. Lydian String Quartet at Brandeis University in Waltham, MA.

2000 Death of German-American composer Bernhard Heiden.

2003 FP of Augusta Read Thomas' Sun Threads. Avalon String Quartet, Lincoln Center, NYC

#classicalmusic #today in music history #todayclassical #musichistory #onthisday

1 note · View note