Keith Edmier at Friedrich Petzel

(link)

Traditionally sensitivity isn’t emblazoned in high production's hard materials. Sensitivity is softness, not the fine detail of edges, resins, supermodels. The supermodel is, generally, not a thing of sensitivity, but violent eruption for complicated affinities, like Edimer's own relationship to precious romanticism, exemplified in Hainley's pop quiz from hell "20 Questions on Keith Edmier and Farrah Fawcett" leaves a sweating testee over multiple-choice: objects not complicit with categorical determination but manifold intakes:

"2. The best adjective to describe the overall effect of Keith Edmier and Farrah Fawcett, 2000, is:

a)Romantic
b)Ironic
c)Kitsch
d)Erotic
e)Sincere
f)Vexed"

See too: James Lee Byars at VeneKlasen/Werner, Susan Cianciolo at Modern Art

Keith Edmier at Friedrich Petzel

(link)

Edmier's towering sentimentality of subject, amplified by its conceptual gesturing (a lone print pulled, orchid's homage, studio ruin's chapel, a press release exhaustingly expounding its cyclical references) makes for a grandmotherly saccharine sweetness, astringent, artwork overipe, propped just prior its rolling over rotting and etching our teeth in caustic overbearingness, the art equivalent to an overbearing mother, sentimentality tortured to its sado-masochistic extreme, its breaking point, its pathos.

And so see too: On Kawara at Guggenheim , Paul Thek at Mai 36