William Kentridge responds to Philip Guston’s 1969 work, ‘The Studio.’

[@rhessex]

Very nice. I particularly like his description of the studio as taking from the World; fragmenting; rearranging; and then giving back to the World.

[@shawnshepherd604]

Fabulous dissection of one artist's painting by another great artist. I really appreciate how the whole stage is set. Kentridge's head looks fleshy and visceral just like that meaty pink colour that Guston used. Thanks for the video!🕒

[@nancywysemen7196]

lovely,lively presentation. quite engaging. now i want to look at kentridge work that i've found frightening- for process....

[@markfleckner9075]

Wonderful stuff...more of these please H&W

[@vandolmatzis8146]

My fave artist talking about Philip Guston wow thanks

[@Kathleenpoors]

I don’t think Guston would agree that he wants us to focus on what’s not painted. In person his paintings are not crude. They are expertly executed.

[@davidhunternyc1]

Agreed, the oil paint is lush, swirling, wet, and captivating.

[@karenstander5474]

Lovely insight and perspective on how an artist refers to the history of art and the reality of life. Please share more of the symposium online, or can we have access to some lectures as articles?

[@sigrunhodne2770]

A great comment on Guston and on how paintings work!

[@operassassinOperaAssassin]

Disney's use of kid gloves was bc these cartoons took a cultural place between film sxreenings where minstrel shows and vaudeville bits once would be. Minstrels wore such gloves and much could be said about Disney and antisemiticism or the Disneyfication of America that Guston witnessed that is not approached here.

[@apanhadordearrepios]

love this

[@Zegum69]

amazing

[@franciskodankandath210]

❤❤❤Artist Francis Antony Kodankandath from Kerala, India ❤❤❤

[@juangamazo5781]

The Studio is one of Gustons best works. The artist is so consumed by the KKK that he identifies with them. He asks, " They are human and I am human, but they are evil, am I evil too? " The painting is a mirror for us to reflect on our own nature.

[@catherinewhite4313]

Thanks for this take on the painting. I wasn't sure how to take the artist as KKK ......

[@Calabazitaz]

Good-ish conversation. I do dislike profoundly how many artist / writers etc refuse or lazily don’t explore the influence of Siqueiros and the Mexicans on Guston’s work. Victoria 🙄💥

[@confrontingphotography4815]

This presentation would be hilariously funny, if its avoidance of the social-historical context of the work wasn’t so embarrassing. Kentridge brushes aside what any American understands as the most striking elements of the picture in favor of chopping the painting into pieces that he associates with other artists. In doing so Kentridge is steering us away from meaningful context that he does not wish to address and replacing it with absolute trivia. This isn’t just terrible criticism, it’s intellectual dishonesty that fails to take the painting and the artist seriously. It deflects attention away from what makes the work challenging, lively, meaningful, in favor of cut-and-paste historicism and absurdities such as the idea that Guston was struggling with how to represent human heads. This is criticism at its worst, and it does a disservice to both men.

[@christaylor6368]

?

[@sarahwilson6361]

To glaze over the meaning of the hood as it relates to American history is to do this piece a great disservice.

[@michael4250]

There is no real mystery to representational art. It is a REPRESENTATION.

[@Subramanya78]

Good talk.. but if it's about a painting..then why not place it so that it can be viewed clearly instead of being blocked... poor direction

[@13moles]

Because it's not about the painting! It's about the "meaning and significance" of the thing. If you had a fuller view of the piece, you would not be any wiser for it. The piece remains a collection of clumsy scribbles. The talk is an exercise in customer relations. A lot of big dough has been buried in H&H and in Guston's paintings-which has to be justified and talked up. It's part of the after-sale service. This is done, preferably by a speaker with an aristocratic accent of some kind. To reassure the investors that: "Yep! Our kind approves of this stuff." Is it art? Sure, it is. A lot of people say it is... so it is.

[@ImHavingaCoronary]

Next time I go to the museum, I'm going to bring a huge pencil and draw circles on everything while talking in a british accent.

[@jean-francoisbrunet2031]

The discourse runs parallel to the painting without providing any insight into what it is about (and I still don't understand what it is about). Why a hood? Goya? Jarry? Why Goya or Jarry? Well, why not. The KKK? Why would the painter belong to the KKK? Well, you know, an "mental association" with the KKK... A wonderful pink? In what way wonderful? And why would a "dirty pink" have anything to do with a studio? Because. And why does it matter that Guston is influenced by details like dotted lines or clocks on the wall in de Chirico? Well "it does not matter really, but it's part of the internal imagination of how to draw the world" - either the explanation does not mean anything, or if it does, then it is the painting which is pointless.

[@fdpcompdm]

yup is explanation is full of bs

[@geolloyd1351]

not bad

[@tmbennettart]

Did he really need to draw on the print? Lol

[@robertspies4695]

Guston is of historical interest, but Kentridge is a much better artist in my opinion.

[@kevinjoseph517]

in profile, mr k has a huge nose.

[@street2030]

How is it possible to talk so much ?

[@allenhanford]

He should have crowded some more crap on screen.