<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!-- generator="FeedCreator 1.7.3" -->
<rss version="2.0">
	<channel>
		<title>Overwhelming Nature: Kristin Quinn, through March 21 at St. Ambrose University’s Catich Gallery</title>
		<description>Comments for Overwhelming Nature: Kristin Quinn, through March 21 at St. Ambrose University’s Catich Gallery at http://www.rcreader.com , comment 1 to 1 out of 1 comments</description>
		<link>http://www.rcreader.com</link>
		<lastBuildDate>Sat, 13 Mar 2010 19:45:10 +0100</lastBuildDate>
        <generator>FeedCreator 1.7.3</generator>
		<item>
			<title>...</title>
			<link>http://www.rcreader.com/art/overwhelming-nature-kristin-quinn-through/#comment-541</link>
			<description>Who was the wild man that said, â€œThe only thing worse then being talked about was not being talked aboutâ€?  So it would appear we have nothing to lose here. 

Iâ€™m fascinated by the use of stencils in paintings, and any work that is reminiscent of Sigmar Polke gets my attention. I apologize for making this comparison, because no one really enjoys being reminiscent of anyone else, especially us Americans. Besides, right off the bat, I get to lend some lame credibility to this critique by mentioning an appropriately obscure art reference.  Even Polke owes tribute to those Neolithic shamans that blew red ocher over top of their hands to leave their 10,000 year shadow in the caves of Europe. These paintings are in good company. 

But letâ€™s get back to some observations on this stencil thing.  By their very nature stencils are not painterly. The best are those that are painted free hand creating a paradox that sets us up for the visual equivalent of the humorous ironic twist. Theyâ€™re often representational and an efficient narrative tool that creates almost instantaneously the story board effect of a dream.   Even when layered they tend to sit on top harnessing the intrinsic flatness of a medium that otherwise struggles with itâ€™s historical baggage of being a 3 dimensional window wanna be.. 

And in Ms Quinnâ€™s case they are a valuable simile for the shadow.   Perhaps more then just â€˜likeâ€™ shadows they metaphorically are shadow. They are two dimensional products of a three dimensional reality, just as the painting itself is. And as silhouettes they always hold a deep mystery by keeping the real thing mostly hidden, just ask Hitchcock. Besides, you never show the monster in the first reel. Clothes will always be sexier then nakedness. And a magician never reveals his tricks. As Iâ€™ve said these paintings are in good company. At least the company I keep. 

Elliot says it best when in â€˜The Hollow Menâ€™ he writes: 

Between the idea
And the reality
Between the motion
And the act
Falls the Shadow

Weâ€™re locked in a world where that shadow always falls between what we want and what we get.  And often only after we â€˜getâ€™ do we realize it was in actuality a lost â€˜wantâ€™.  With artists, like Quinn, whoâ€™s on to something, they will leave for others as those before have, these bread crumbs of direction. 
 - Geoff Hicks</description>
			<pubDate>Fri, 07 Mar 2008 15:06:12 +0100</pubDate>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
