Matthew Penkala "Tower, Lobby, Floor"

1

Tower, Lobby, FLoorMatthew penkalaApril 1 - april 30, 2011

130 Lincoln Avenue, Suite D, Santa Fe, NM 87501 | p (505) 983-9555 | f (505) 983-1284

www.DavidRichardContemporary.com | [email protected]

Tower, Lobby, FLoorMatthew penkalaapril 1 - april 30, 2011

GalleRy DirectoRs

David Eichholtz & Richard Barger

2

FRoNt CovER:

FranTicaLLy around your LighT

2011, 48" x 48" Acrylic on canvas stretched panels

PREvIoUS PAGE:

Frequency wires

2011, 48" x 48" Acrylic on canvas stretched panels

RIGht DEtAIL:

Frequency wires

2011, 48" x 48" Acrylic on canvas stretched pane

Published on the occasion of the

exhibition, “Tower, Lobby, Floor”,

April 1 - 30, 2011.

© 2011 David Richard Contemporary, LLC

3

two things happened in the 1960s that go a long way in explaining the pecu-liar magic of Matthew Penkala’s new paintings, which neither wax nostalgic for the supposed simplicity of the good old days nor pretend to completely break away from the past, in some sort of fabulous spasm of unfettered origi-nality and inimitable creativity. Rather than traveling back in time, to recap-ture the tenor of times long gone by, or fantasizing about a present uncon-taminated by the residual influence of yesteryear, Penkala’s laser-sharp pic-tures of nothing much more than light moving through space re-write history for their own purposes: to reveal that the present is less limited than it is of-ten made out to be, and that a large part of its largely untapped potential resides in knowing what actually hap-pened. From the perspective put forth by the L.A. artist’s accessible yet com-plex abstractions, what took place nearly fifty years ago is significantly different from how it is accounted for in textbooks, as well as what passes as common knowledge—otherwise known as business-as-usual.

What actually happened back in the 1960s was this: many of the most ad-venturesome painters, photographers, and filmmakers, not to mention sculp-tors, installation-, and performance art-ists, stripped their art back to the ba-sics, eliminating everything inessential

so as to get to the raw, naked truth—howsoever contingent, ephemeral, and uncertain an experience it might be. the truth they pursued was expe-riential: not something abstract, ideal-ized, and above-it-all, but something fleeting, even fugitive—a physical, of-ten sensual string of perceptions that were down-to-earth and quotidian, as imperfect as everyday life and no less extraordinary, or eye-opening, than an epiphany.

the two media most important to Pen-kala’s current work, abstract painting and avant-garde film, zeroed in, very similarly, on their respective materi-als, particularly the physical facts of a viewer’s actual experience of paint-on-canvas and a viewer’s actual expe-rience of projected light. Neither ex-perience was possible without time’s passage, although film emphasized

matthew penkalaperFecT Fusionby david pagel

4

temporality more emphatically, just because it took longer. other simi-larities strongly linked the two me-dia. Painters turned away from Ex-pressionism, imagery, and language, favoring the impersonal effects of various pigments stained into tautly stretched surfaces that could not be read metaphorically or poetically and thus seemed to keep meaning at arm’s

length. the same sort of explorations drove filmmakers, who turned away from drama, theatrics, and narrative all the better to dissect—or deconstruct—the mechanics of an otherwise pre-dominantly illusionistic medium. they used film self-reflexively, to interrogate its own devices, including light, time, and repetition, as well as the celluloid on which it was printed, frame-by-frame, split-second-by-split-second. Exceptionally subtle variations mat-tered to both painters and filmmakers, who scrutinized the perceptual conse-quences of materials and substances—that is to say, the phenomenological attributes of the basic stuff that went into their works. Both short-circuited

storytelling, slowing things down to a crawl so that patient viewers might notice otherwise incidental details and be attentive to our participation in the ways our eyes and minds made mean-ing out of various hints and divergent stimuli.

the fundamental similarities between abstract painting and non-narrative film quickly got lost in the evaluations that critics, commentators, and histo-rians brought to them. In the intensely partisan accounts that dominated the day, the painters came to be known as Formalists: specialists who, in put-ting form before content, were happy to play out inconsequential, academic exercises that were divorced from the tumult of everyday life and closed off from the increasingly gripping contin-gencies of political reality. the film-makers, in contrast, came to be known as Structuralists: specialists who, in putting structure ahead of storytelling, bypassed sentimentality to honestly and objectively address the bedrock on which their art was founded. Like many of the countercultural maver-icks who played an important part in the radically democratic social move-ments of the time, they employed the level-headed materialism of their quasi-scientific inquiries to rebel against tradition, to revolt against all forms of authority, and to throw off all manner of unthinking, take-it-on-faith acceptance—otherwise known as business-as-usual.

over the last half century, much has changed. And much has not.

DEtAIL: The sky is FaLLing in buT iT's noT

2010, 48" x 48" Acrylic on canvas stretched panel

5

Entrenched in history, and ensconced in the consciousnesses of scholars, students, and initiates, Structuralism has made its way into the hallowed halls of institutional authority, its pedi-gree an essential part of its now re-vered power. Formalism, in contrast, is no longer thought of as the artistic kiss of death it was throughout the 1970s, ’80s, and ’90s. But it still lacks the in-stitutionally sanctioned authority of its counterpart. And it is still regularly dis-missed, by people who should know better, for being conservative, uncool, and out-of-touch: an academic exer-cise in tasteful decoration, with little real impact on its surroundings or the people who populate them.

Penkala’s whip-smart paintings enter the picture by turning the assumptions on which business-as-usual is based upside-down, inside-out, and around on themselves—with such grace, beau-ty, and verve—that it is no longer pos-sible to accept familiar propositions without wondering what you might be missing. to see even one of his crisp yet atmospheric paintings, it is imper-ative, once again, to accept nothing except what you can see for yourself, one-on-one, face-to-face, in real time and in real space—not because Penka-la has any authority at all (young paint-ers simply don’t), but because the proof is actually in the pudding: once you see one of his deliciously slippery pictures, which seem to illuminate the space between things, you know that Structuralist film and Formalist paint-ing are two sides of the same coin; that aesthetic refinement and functional

physics are in no way opposed; and that pleasure and knowledge, body and mind, clarity and mystery all work in concert, doing something exciting and unlike anything else out there. In the presence of Penkala’s subtly in-triguing and unsentimentally ravish-ing paintings, business-as-usual goes out the window—and viewers find themselves in situations in which such familiar entities as light, space, color, and temperature are fascinating, even thrilling: at once ordinary and extraor-dinary, mundane and magnificent, down-to-earth and out-of-this world.

this is because Penkala invites view-ers to mix and match categories, re-combining attributes and elements that had, over the decades, diverged, drifted apart, and settled into oppo-sition. Equally important, his glisten-ingly intangible paintings, which often have the presence of scientific mirag-es shot-through with squint-inducing glare, blindingly bright flashes of light, and other indescribable glitches in the

DEtAIL: paLe imiTaTion


6

visual field, compel us to ask ourselves what it might mean to think of abstract painting as Structuralist Abstraction and to conceive of avant-garde cine-ma as Formalist Film. In Penkala’s mes-merizing canvases, the analytic rigors of Structuralism and the connoisseurial delectations of Formalism commingle, sometimes fusing in mind-blowing hy-brids of form and formlessness; at oth-er times jostling against one another, like incompatible allies momentarily united on unlikely missions; and at still others slipping and sliding along-side their counterparts, with sufficient speed and friction to make sparks fly in the mind’s-eye.

the point of all this boundary-blurring interactivity is not simply to switch or reverse the positive and negative con-notations that have encrusted each of the two media, and all the associations that go along with film and painting, but to get our minds to operate dif-ferently: more freely and fluidly. Both literally and metaphorically, Penkala’s

abstract images strip away habits, ex-pectations, and conventions in order to get individuals to see them, as well as the world they are a part of, with fresh eyes, as if for the first time, more clearly and truly and vividly than usual. Back in the ’60s, that was the goal of both abstract painting and experimen-tal film. Penkala picks up on this im-pulse by inviting viewers to understand the past and the present, and therefore the future, differently: as something unfinished, ever changing, and up-for-grabs; open to interpretation and lim-ited only by the imagination.

All of the physical incidents and vi-sual activities that take place within the atmospheric depths, across the shimmering surfaces, and in front of Penkala’s elusively geometric paint-ings—somewhere between a viewer’s body and the wall on which the work hangs—bring more than a hint of dra-ma back into the picture, along with an inescapable jolt of illusionism. Both of these elements had been purged from the historical precedents and aesthetic sources Penkala draws on, and their return in his work signals not only a rapprochement between the long-opposed media but an expansion of their operations, domain, format, and impact. Recent developments in digi-tal technology are taken into account by Penkala’s sleek, up-to-the-minute canvases, which do not shy away from the undeniable fact that contempo-rary viewers see far more images on illuminated screens—hand-held, lap-top, and desktop monitors, as well as flat-screen tvs—than we see in print;

DEtAIL: invisibLe To whaT you wanT


7

and far, far more than we see on can-vas or panel, in homes, galleries, and museums.

Unlike many painters, who take the widespread technological develop-ments that define the digital phase of the information age to mean that their art’s best chance for survival is to dis-tance itself from everyday reality by carving out a protected place for itself, far apart from the image glut of mod-ern life, Penkala dives right into the fre-netic, head-spinning cacophony and wrestles, from its eye-popping visuals, dizzying pace, and dazzling theatrics, some quiet respite. his eccentrically serene paintings make time and space for a type of contemplative intrigue that is solitary and stimulating while

being public and soothing. Impersonal yet intimate, and so hot they’re cool, his works engineer experiences that turn the past into something very different from what it has come to be thought of and, in so doing, transform the pres-ent into a moment filled with so much possibility that it seems infinite.Penkala’s brand of business-as-usual is nothing like the regular grind. Find-ing fascinating complexities in the simplest of things, his gorgeously re-solved yet elusively open-ended paint-ings redeem mundane experience like nobody’s business.

Los AngelesMarch, 2011

maTThew penkaLa sTudio

2011, Los Angeles, CA

8

FLying saucer eye


9

FuLL oF hoLes


10

i can see ouT oF here


11

i didn'T know ThaT


12

iT never sTops


13

The sky is FaLLing in buT iT's noT


14

moving ouT oF orbiT


15

invisibLe To whaT you wanT


16

FranTicaLLy around your LighT


17

paLe imiTaTion


18

Frequency wires


19Born in Cleveland, ohLives and works in Los Angeles, CA

Education:2002 Masters of Fine Art in Painting, Cranbrook Academy of Art, Bloomfield hills, MI1998 Bachelor of Fine Arts in Photography, Arizona State University, Summa Cum Laude, tempe, AZ Area(s) of Specialization: Painting, Digital Photography, Critical theory

Teaching Experience:2010 visiting Artist, otIS School of Art and Design, Los Angeles, CA2007 visiting Artist/ Graduate Student Reviewer, Cranbrook Academy of Art, Bloomfield hills, MI2006 visiting Artist in Residence – Painting Department, Cranbrook Academy of Art, Bloomfield hills, MI2004-05 Adjunct Professor of Digital Imaging and Design, Gilbert/Chandler Community College, Gilbert, AZ2001-02 head teaching Assistant to Beverly Fishman, Cranbrook Academy of Art Painting Department1999 Adjunct Instructor of Digital Imagery, Mesa Community College, Mesa, AZ

Awards:2002 Joan Mitchell Foundation 2002, MFA Grant Awards in the visual Arts, Nomination 2001 Merit Scholarship, Cranbrook Academy of Art, Bloomfield hills, MI Women’s Committee Scholarship, Cranbrook Academy of Art, Bloomfield hills, MI teaching Assistantship, Cranbrook Academy of Art Painting Department, Bloomfield hills, MI1998 harold Alpert Memorial Scholarship, Arizona State University, tempe, AZ ASU Regents Scholarship, Arizona State University, tempe, AZ ASU Award for Excellence in Photography, Arizona State University, tempe, AZ1997 J Russel and Bonita Scholarship Endowment, Arizona State University, tempe, AZ

Exhibitions:2011 tower, Lobby, Floor, David Richard Contemporary, Santa Fe, NM2010 You’re Not the only thing I See Sometimes, Ruth Bachofner Gallery, Los Angeles, California (solo) the Pasadena Art Alliance 15th Biennial Art Auction, Los Angeles, California Un-titled Abstraction, David Richard Contemporary, Santa Fe, NM ovERPAPER, Bruno David Gallery, St. Louis, Mo2009 SIZEable, Fluxco Gallery, Los Angeles, California White, Ruth Bachofner Gallery, Santa Monica, California2008 Group Summer Show, Lemberg Gallery, Lemberg Gallery, Ferndale, Michigan2007 Fresh, Lemberg Gallery, Lemberg Gallery, Ferndale, Michigan WoP (works on/of paper), the Brewery Project, Los Angeles, California2006 Chromaluxe, California State University Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California Fragments, Ruth Bachofner Gallery, Santa Monica, California (solo show) Matthew Penkala & trygve Faste: the Cranbrook Paintings, Lemberg Gallery, Ferndale, Michigan Summer Group Exhibition, Lemberg Gallery, Ferndale, Michigan Winter Group Exhibition, Lemberg Gallery, Ferndale, Michigan2005 Collaboration, Lemberg Gallery, Ferndale, Michigan Group Summer Show, Lemberg Gallery, Ferndale, Michigan Winter Group Exhibition, Lemberg Gallery, Ferndale, Michigan

matthew penkala

20

2004 10th Annual holiday Group Show, Ruth Bachofner Gallery, Santa Monica, California 20th Anniversary Exhibition, Ruth Bachofner Gallery, Santa Monica, California Group Summer Show, Lemberg Gallery, Ferndale, Michigan Chroma: Gaston Bertin, Judy Ledgerwood, Matthew Penkala, Lemberg Gallery, Ferndale, MI hybrids, Ruth Bachofner Gallery, Santa Monica, California (solo show)2003 Bones of Clouds: Some Recent Experiences of Chance, College of Creative Studies, Detroit, MI 2002 Works for Young Collectors, Lemberg Gallery, Ferndale Michigan Group Summer Show, Lemberg Gallery, Ferndale, Michigan Cranbrook Graduate Curated Summer Exhibition, Cranbrook Art Museum, Bloomfield hills, MI Graduate thesis Exhibition, Cranbrook Art Museum, Bloomfield hills, MI ‘Untitled’ ( 8 abstract paintings), Forum Gallery, Cranbrook Art Museum, Bloomfield hills, MI2001 ‘Cranbrook Connection’, D’Arcy Advertising Agency headquarters, troy, MI Cranbrook Milles house, temporary Collection, Cranbrook Academy of Art, Bloomfield hills, MI 2000 ' Art and the Environment: Sites Around the City’ Modified Art Space, Phoenix, AZ1999 ‘ Pop, Pulp, and Post Abstract’ Arizona State University Memorial Union Gallery, tempe, AZ1998 BFA thesis Exhibition, harry Wood Gallery, Arizona State University ‘Milieu: of Art and Space’ Spine Gallery, Phoenix, AZ

Bibliography:2010 Rinder, Lawrence, New American Paintings, Noteworthy Artist, 20102004 Sousanis, Nick, thedetroiter.com, February, 2004 (w/ photo reproductions)2003 Glen Mannisto, ‘Bones of Clouds: Some Recent Experiences of Chance’ (catalog)2002 tysh, George, ‘Minding the Art’ Metro times Detroit, April 24, 2002 tysh, George, ‘After Midnight – Art all night’ Metro times Detroit, March 13, 2002 (w/ photo reproductions) MFA Graduate thesis Exhibitions Catalog, Cranbrook Academy of Art (w/ photo reproductions) Cranbrook Academy of Art Catalog, Cranbrook Academy of Art (w/ photo reproductions)2001 Wade, Carla, ‘Media Circus’ Phoenix New times, March 23, 2000 (w/ photo reproductions)

Collections:Neiman Marcus Collection, houston, texasMaxine and Stuart Frankel Collection, Bloomfield hills, MichiganDaimler-Chrysler Permanent Collection, Southfield, MichiganDaimler-Chrysler Curated Collection, Southfield, MichiganDr. Gabriel Stux, Düsseldorf, GermanyNishiumeda Collection, tokyo, JapanGerhardt Knodel, Bloomfield hills, Michigan Gerard Garcon, Paris, FranceIrene hofmann, Newport Beach, CaliforniaWilliam Jenkins, tempe, ArizonaBud & Nancy Liebler, Bloomfield hills, MichiganWendy Silverman, Birmingham, MichiganLemberg Gallery, Royal oak, MichiganBeverly Fishman, Bloomfield hills, Michigan

2121

22

ISBN 978-0-9834078-0-5

PRICE $15.00

130 Lincoln Avenue, Suite D, Santa Fe, NM 87501 | p (505) 983-9555 | f (505) 983-1284

www.DavidRichardContemporary.com | [email protected]

Documents

Matthew Penkala "Tower, Lobby, Floor"