Louise Sartor at Crèvecoeur

(link)

It used to be that tapestries were the most valuable, we prized labor which each stitch proved, then genius was invented and we prized painting as its creative embodiment, value. Now painting fears replacement, desperately nails its aura to the wall. We spent 30 years whinging in big journals that painting was dead, or dying (or unnaturally resurrected braindead seeking brains, electrified by market) but what if what kills painting isn't the turgid laments of the cranially shined, but simply that it looks too much like the image in the age of its hyper-inflation, they start to look cheap. Defenses agains it: object and aura, but also, skill? Stay tuned.

Louise Sartor at Le Consortium

(link)

Images are worthless. Painting is made rare and thus valuable for its support, its anchor to reality. But the canvas was also intended to disappear behind the image. So that support starts to hyperbolize, exaggerate. Placing stakes to claim existence, location tethering, against images lost on networks. Materiality self-sites, claims an objecthood. Painters protecting their domain. "today’s painting, after all, has to contend with iPhone screens."

See too: Brian Calvin at Le Consortium, Oliver Osborne at Peles Empire (Matte Representation)