iconography. He weaves them together using confident, impassioned gestures and with tropical colors set against dark grounds. They are haunting, electrically charged and utterly convincing. So much so that you may wonder if the artist witnessed the events he depicts. While nothing I’ve read confirms this, other parts of his biography suggest that possibility while also pointing to alternate ways of seeing and knowing.
A survey of the artist’s history, gleaned from exhibition catalogs, shows close affinities to Jean Michel Basquait, Keith Haring, Sue Coe and Raymond Saunders. We also learn from these sources that he is a practitioner “psychotropic therapy,” which, if I recall Carlos Castaneda correctly, entails the ingestion of ayahuasca, a powerful hallucinogen that can just as easily shred the mind as open it to startling visions. Which may explain how Feldscott is able to credibly channel the horror of war without actually experiencing it.
craig n. smith says
Ugh, what an awful show.
Full of puerile, pseudo-shamanistic imagery and ”important” commentary about war.
But what’s clearly worst is that the works are dead as a doornail formally. With a couple of notable exceptions the bulk of the show features figure/ ground relationships that completely fail to congeal. What shows up throughout the gallery is extremely poor drawing of sensational images floating detached from the backgrounds and relying on their horrific nature to carry the work. It is embarrassingly sophomoric posturing, devoid of formal acuity.
I see it all the time in pictures by teenage artists trying to be meaningful and deep. This guy is 60-something years old? And actually purports to have some spiritual awareness and empathy for the world induced by the ingestion of psychedelics? Does the artist also have swampland for sale?
The images do not appear to be atavistic, they are contrived. They are completely incapable of “credibly” channeling anything. They claim importance but fall terribly short of creating a visual experience that amounts to anything more than self-importance.
The couple or three works that actually do have some unity seem to be channeling Abraham Rattner.
But the reference to A.R. Penck is an apt one…. an artist who became rich and famous by making paintings with poor figure/ field relationships.