In Honor of Bad At Sports' Judy Ledgerwood Interview, We Thought We Would Put Up Some Images of Her Paintings!...OH NO! Whats Wrong Here? Why Are They All Signed, Larry Poons 1962? Introducing a New Term: Politically Manipulated Ripoff Facsimile Painting!

Super! Anti-multiorgasmic marks. Can't you please add some of JL's for visual delight.

Anna, you mean 'anti ejaculatory' marks.......as for adding JL's work....its so close to LP's work, I kind of thought, 'what's the point?'

Written about JL: “in an attempt to challenge and undermine the historically male-dominated tradition of gestural abstract paintings. Today her compositions include circular motifs typically associated with the decorative arts tradition. In the 1970s many feminist artists identified and celebrated circular patterns as being connected to female identity. Ledgerwood acknowledges this tradition through her continued use of dot motifs, which she identifies as her form of non exclamatory mark-making.” A form of early Larry Poons markmaking. I thought he was a man. So if he did it, it muct be anti-ovarial or anti-multiorgasmic, or something like that.

There is a discussion at the beginning of the BAS piece about Judy being 'the or one of 'the' best painters here....I defy you to find JUST ONE other painter here who thinks that is the case. Judy Ledgerwood, is a derivative, academic, not particularly skilled, in fact, rather slack and mediocre painter -but, an astute and clever political animal in the art world here. I actually like Judy and admire her tenacity on a number of fronts. Shes just not a very good or for that matter, even halfway original painter (talk about backwards looking stuck in the past unoriginality-) with only its feminist rhetoric to dispute what is visually irrefutable. This is common knowledge here in Chicago, no matter what she or her husband the folk artist Tony Tasset may claim.

Hey, if we discredit anyone how shares similarities with another (in this case, older) artist, then EVERYTHING gets a bit messy. As far as Judy's work is concerned, some of the older paintings look a bit like Poons. I don't thing that makes them bad paintings. Plus you are comparing a specific grouping of Poons' work against a specific group of Judy's. They haven't stayed the same. Her practice doesn't seem rigidly singular. Sometimes artists end up making work that happens to look a bit like other someoen elses. It happens. It isn't bad. Shark, you are talking about paintings of her from a while ago. Look at the recent work. Talk about that work. Also, I can't find much of your work on the web. How about posting some of your stuff on Sharkforum for a public critique? As a general rule, it is hard to escape associations to other artists.

John -Judy is a one note painter -whether its the Poons knockoff ellipses she did for a decade and a half or her Matisse phase of now -it always consists of placing a decorative pattern over a colorfield- in a rather slack, generic, not particularly skilled, limited manner. She has no chops.

Where the resemblance to Larry poons work -is more than striking, the idea behind both artists work is even more so, in fact, it is identical...in terms of pictorial space, technique, and composition...(and remember Judy and her group of neocons- were sold as 'edgy' at one point in time here -which makes the 'similarity' to early 60's colorfield painting more than slightly ironic). If Ms Ledgerwood want to reinvent the op art wheel -more power to her...but lets acknowledge the work for what it actually is (AND WHERE IT COMES FROM HELLO!)...perhaps if she did this, and stopped leaning on dated, silly rhetoric as justification, she might be compelled to improve as a painter......rather than merely shifting from one borrowed motif to another...

As for my work -you can dig around here and find it or, find an sept-october Shelter Magazine where there is a large article with many reproductions. And John, unlike Judy -I actually know how to manipulate and handle paint..whether its realist representation/figuration, or gestural abstraction, or various schools of thought about either. My work is informed by modernism John -but unlike Judy, I use it to my own ends....not merely reproducing facsimilies of it and talking about how it somehow is different -due no doubt to an intentionality -nowhere in evidence in the actual work- best case senario -or worse case senario, thinking people dont KNOW enough about even recent painting history -where this retread can be passed off as something 'new'..'cutting edge'..... its this thing called paint-ing- and John, I am more than capable of doing just this in any number of respective conceits/disciplines- in otherwords, I can actually play my instrument of choice. And, you will not mistake either my drawings or my paintings for any other artists-. Are there influences? Of course! But, they are consumed! not, merely explained away-

-like Picasso said, good artists steal, bad artists copy: the only thing that separates Judy's work from previous colorfield work is the feminist 'talk'....insipid and inane as it it. This very generic, academic work is just competent -which, is how every painter I know or have known here in Chicago views it.

Why am I being so hard on Judy? Simple: this work has been foisted upon us and sold as 'important' by a small group of academically aggressive art educators/power brokers (who know little about painting) in collusion with a very few collectors here (who's knowledge is also highly suspect)- in otherwords, its a political construct. Why do you think that painting is hanging at the MCA right now ?-hopefully you arent naive enough to think its there because of its quality because believe me, that aint the case -local politics is how I heard the curator described certain choices she made -probably that and which collector writes her paycheck-

.... As one of the very top long time painters-a woman, said to me, "so much has been lost here for so little"..... You might also want to note, when Lynne Warren curated the Chicago 1945-95 exhibition, this work was not included- knowing Lynnes thoroughness and, professionalism, I'm sure it was no mere oversight.

and btw -I have posted my work up here John on any number of occasions, I also just closed a two month show with Sandro Miller that was reviewed by Kevin Nance -Sun Times.....as far as I have noticed, no Ledgerwood paintings were posted for public critique.

I am not as interested in talking about why a painting is hanging in the MCA or not. That is never going to be a "clean" discussion with a "clean" answer. I also will hesitate to support an idea that the level of skill involved in a kind of mark-making should determine a paintings value (not in terms of money). Sometimes a (merely) competent skill set can end up producing a knock-out painting.

You insist on calling her paintings copies or fascimilies, but I can't believe that you would ACTUALLY mistake them for a Poons (the old ones) or Matisse (the new ones). The new work seems to be riffing off Matisse, not ripping off Matisse.

Could you speak about this painting's (see below link) similarity to DeKooning (circa the early 60's)

http://www.artenterprises.org/artwork/1014.html

Holding up an isolated painting -or even several pieces is probably not such a good idea when the whole body of work exists to refute the point you are attempting to make John....its always a good idea, especially if you are having a discussion with one fairly smart shark, to know what it is you are talking about. you speak of one or two paintings of mine - and of course I will speak to this -or rather, I will let the work speak but before I do that, I will point out, I am familiar with all of ms Ledgerwoods work -where you seem not to know (by your own admission,) my work: yes, at times I have gotten close to other painters -in order to consume them -the Shelter Magazine article quotes a conversation I had with Grace Hartigan where she commented on the fact that my "stunning work was the best de Kooning influenced work she had seen since Milton Resnik in the 50's".....if you do a little more research however, you will find my work before and after this brief sojurn/ exploration is entirely my own, the major difference between what I was up to previuosly as compared to now being, I GOT BETTER! and in fact my conversation with Hartigan was incentive for me move off on my own once again...but, when I did, I had LEARNED from my predecessors -and unlike Judy, was not just aping them...the history of art is littered with painters learning from other painters John -Valezquez -looking at Rubens, Picasso looking at Poussin...on and on.....you are missing my point....this is about derivative pastiche, not about learning and moving through influences

Judys work: did you read what I said?...Shes a one trick pony John -some decorative motif over a lightly scrubbed in colorfield....its not very interesting nor skilled work!....the point isnt about mistaking it for Poons,....go back and read what I said above -and where a bad painter may indeed get lucky, how one paints a painting is what 'paint-ing' is John -from Titian through Pollock -and before and, after....

If you want to discuss my work with me -terrific - get up to speed on what it is I do so that we can have an informed conversation-

and btw....what I noted above concerning the aquisition show is factual -the curator crediting local politics for certain inclusions in the current exhibition.....I can add, even at the MCA, there was discussion and unhappiness about this choice. I can also tell you, a very renowned artist at one point in time did actually mistake a Ledgerwood for a Poons....unfortunately, I am not at liberty at this time, to tell that rather hilarious story.....

In the end, it is just unfortunate -with the quality of work and all the things Tony Fitz (PS1/MoMA) and me and others! have had going on, that the aquisition show trotted out this same tired, politically aligned shite we are all way, over-