.jpg?w=1)
Lot Essay
“I love painting because in its immutable stillness it seems to exist outside time in a way that no other art can. The longer I live the more I would like to put the world in suspension and grip the present before it’s eaten by the second and becomes the past. A painting creates an illusion of an eternal present, a place where my eyes can rest as if the clock has stopped magically ticking.”
-Christopher Wool
Exemplified by its bold, brash aesthetic, Christopher Wool’s Untitled is one of the artist’s iconic ‘word’ paintings which he produced in the 1980s as his response to the debate about the continued relevance of painting in contemporary art. The austere way in which he spells out the key components of the word trouble belies a complex series of ideas that Wool and other artists of his generation were grappling with in an age where many regarded the practice of painting to be outmoded and obsolete. With his insistence on the continued relevance of painting, Wool acted as the vanguard for a new generation of artists who, although celebrating one of the most traditional means of artistic expression, continued to push the boundaries of the medium to ensure its relevance for a new generation of artists.
By using only consonants, Wool spells out the world trouble in a stark, utilitarian typeface. His use of unflinching lettering creates an ominous atmosphere as the crowded nature of the composition pushes the remnants of the word TROUBLE towards the viewer with a distinct sense of energy and force. This feeling of foreboding is heightened by the artist’s carefully chosen typography, selecting
a font similar to the one adopted by the U.S. military after the World War II. Wool matches the no-frills nature of the design with the functional nature of its execution and creates a work which possesses a stark sense of authority. This tension between the physical properties of the work and its psychological effect lies at the heart of Wool’s artistic practice as he subverts the conventions of language to render this work with a surreal sense of simplicity that belies its inward complexity. Although authoritarian in its design, Wool retains a large degree of leniency in its execution. The crisp edges of the script have been softened by the process of Wool’s painting. What would normally be produced by machine has clearly been produced by a human hand, with all the intricacies and idiosyncrasies inherent in that process, plain to see. These qualities lend the work a considerable degree of humanity, and, executed as it is on a more intimate scale, produces a work that invites a closer examination of the artist’s technique rather than the threatening environment of its larger relatives.
Wool’s emergence as a painter in the early 1980s coincides with a period of soul searching within the art world about the state of painting. In his 1981 essay The End of Painting the influential critic Douglas Crimp condemned the belief in painting and the
investment in the human touch that was perceived to be crucial to maintaining painting’s unique aura. It was into this environment
that Wool began his exploration of the painterly process and the different techniques that could be used to expand its properties. Wool began using words as imagery as early as 1987 after seeing a brand new white truck with the words ‘SEX’ and ‘LUV’ scrawled across it. His early ‘word’ paintings were created during an intensely creative period for the artist and focused on words or phrases with multiple meanings. The effect was often only achieved when Wool broke them up in the composition of the painting. His ‘AMOK’ became ‘AM OK’ when enlarged to fit the scale of his canvas.
In addition to this particular work, Frannie Dittmer also owned a large scale version of this same composition painted on an aluminum support in vivid red alkyd and acrylic which she donated to the Art Institute of Chicago. The bold arrangement of the T and R stacked on top of the B and L emphasize that the vowels have been deleted, shortening trouble to optimize its graphic, visual impact. Wool’s paintings are typically black-and-white (such as the present lot); this red variation is unique within the artist’s practice. Wool’s energy and attitude run through the very heart of this work with his arresting visual aesthetics projecting an urban air with undertones of a darker humor and meaning. The directness, both formally and aesthetically, with which Wool imparts his message results in the work that becomes as surreal as it is intriguing. Yet at its heart these works are not only Wool’s response his inner-city surroundings but also to the complex debate about the content of modern painting.
-Christopher Wool
Exemplified by its bold, brash aesthetic, Christopher Wool’s Untitled is one of the artist’s iconic ‘word’ paintings which he produced in the 1980s as his response to the debate about the continued relevance of painting in contemporary art. The austere way in which he spells out the key components of the word trouble belies a complex series of ideas that Wool and other artists of his generation were grappling with in an age where many regarded the practice of painting to be outmoded and obsolete. With his insistence on the continued relevance of painting, Wool acted as the vanguard for a new generation of artists who, although celebrating one of the most traditional means of artistic expression, continued to push the boundaries of the medium to ensure its relevance for a new generation of artists.
By using only consonants, Wool spells out the world trouble in a stark, utilitarian typeface. His use of unflinching lettering creates an ominous atmosphere as the crowded nature of the composition pushes the remnants of the word TROUBLE towards the viewer with a distinct sense of energy and force. This feeling of foreboding is heightened by the artist’s carefully chosen typography, selecting
a font similar to the one adopted by the U.S. military after the World War II. Wool matches the no-frills nature of the design with the functional nature of its execution and creates a work which possesses a stark sense of authority. This tension between the physical properties of the work and its psychological effect lies at the heart of Wool’s artistic practice as he subverts the conventions of language to render this work with a surreal sense of simplicity that belies its inward complexity. Although authoritarian in its design, Wool retains a large degree of leniency in its execution. The crisp edges of the script have been softened by the process of Wool’s painting. What would normally be produced by machine has clearly been produced by a human hand, with all the intricacies and idiosyncrasies inherent in that process, plain to see. These qualities lend the work a considerable degree of humanity, and, executed as it is on a more intimate scale, produces a work that invites a closer examination of the artist’s technique rather than the threatening environment of its larger relatives.
Wool’s emergence as a painter in the early 1980s coincides with a period of soul searching within the art world about the state of painting. In his 1981 essay The End of Painting the influential critic Douglas Crimp condemned the belief in painting and the
investment in the human touch that was perceived to be crucial to maintaining painting’s unique aura. It was into this environment
that Wool began his exploration of the painterly process and the different techniques that could be used to expand its properties. Wool began using words as imagery as early as 1987 after seeing a brand new white truck with the words ‘SEX’ and ‘LUV’ scrawled across it. His early ‘word’ paintings were created during an intensely creative period for the artist and focused on words or phrases with multiple meanings. The effect was often only achieved when Wool broke them up in the composition of the painting. His ‘AMOK’ became ‘AM OK’ when enlarged to fit the scale of his canvas.
In addition to this particular work, Frannie Dittmer also owned a large scale version of this same composition painted on an aluminum support in vivid red alkyd and acrylic which she donated to the Art Institute of Chicago. The bold arrangement of the T and R stacked on top of the B and L emphasize that the vowels have been deleted, shortening trouble to optimize its graphic, visual impact. Wool’s paintings are typically black-and-white (such as the present lot); this red variation is unique within the artist’s practice. Wool’s energy and attitude run through the very heart of this work with his arresting visual aesthetics projecting an urban air with undertones of a darker humor and meaning. The directness, both formally and aesthetically, with which Wool imparts his message results in the work that becomes as surreal as it is intriguing. Yet at its heart these works are not only Wool’s response his inner-city surroundings but also to the complex debate about the content of modern painting.