Terry Greene

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It is clear that the physical act of making is central to Greene’s practice. Paint isn’t a means to an end; it is the end in itself. His works are grubby relics to time spent exploring. They demonstrate investment; their surfaces describing a journey. There are layers; there is movement and marks are abundant but there is never too much. Central forms are assured; they demark and define space, serving to combine distinct elements in the creation of a whole. Greene’s are confident works; they don't just hold together, they resonate. 

Peter Joseph

 

Peter Joseph’s work rewards those interested in painting; it is subtle, charming and it looks good. While certainly admirable qualities charm and subtlety alone don’t make paintings remarkable. It is the trickiness of Joseph’s pictures that makes them resonate. A lot is done within purposefully limited parameters. Ostensibly uncomplicated in nature Joseph’s compositions manage to be effortlessly evocative. They demonstrate a confidence that comes with a deep knowledge of the medium.

Painting....

One of Painting’s great strengths is its frankness: pigment applied to support; paint on a surface. It is not reliant on technology and it requires neither specialist knowledge nor mastery of esoteric technique. (Although of course it does not preclude these things.) This simplicity and openness is the likely reason it has endured and will, undoubtedly, continue to endure. The scope for variety and invention is massive while the basic foundations of the medium remain secure. For me painting is about making and looking; process and the visual. It is a discipline which relies on these two factors and as long as they remain relevant so too will it.

Chris Shaw

In Chris Shaw’s painting the process of paring down manages to concentrate rather than diminish. Idea and method meld as one; the physical and the conceptual combining in the most pleasing way. His practice is as much sculpture as it is painting; his works cast and assembled rather than rendered. Paint is manipulated after it has dried in the most considered way. These are methodical, meticulous works; self-consciously concerned with process and Painting’s past.

They manage to be both deadpan and theatrical; purposefully spare with flourishes that allude to something a little more frivolous (the ephemera of parties, drapery and costume in the case of the work shown here). Shaw’s is thoughtful work well made.



Paul Behnke

Paul Behnke’s paintings don’t skirt around the issue.
Subtlety is not their mode. His is full frontal painting; bold, engaging, direct. It is painting that deals with the strengths of painting itself. It is work about method and significant form; work that displays the process of the artist and rewards the viewer’s gaze. It may not always be fashionable to make work that is so specifically concerned with visual experience; but if it is good (and Behnke’s is) it will always be valid.

Kim Van Someren

On first glance Kim Van Someren’s output may not appear to fall within my remit. She doesn’t make paintings for a start. I am not, however, going to be constricted by my own title.
Van Someren’s works have much about them to admire. I like the labour, I like the quality of mark and I like the vehicle. Forts are evocative; they have interesting connotations.

The danger with charming work is that it can veer towards tweeness; fortunately Van Someren’s prints are forthright enough for this not to be an issue. Subject doesn’t eclipse the essential qualities of the pictures. They are robust and have a satisfying clarity.  

Vincent Hawkins

Seemingly compelled by a need to move forward Vincent Hawkins’ paintings are characterised by a feeling of experimentation that borders on restlessness.

This unwillingness (or perhaps inability) to settle means Hawkins’ practice is never static, never predictable. This is, of course, a great strength. Constant questing is risky but success makes it worth it and Hawkins’ hit rate is high. Paintings take from their predecessors, processes adapt and morph and the results are exciting.

Guy Yanai

There is a relaxed elegance to Guy Yanai’s paintings. A feeling of warmth and good light pervades. Characterised by a patchwork of shapes his works are assembled in a way that is both purposeful and deliberate. Blocks of solid colour butt up against one another describing surfaces and space; the skill with which they are balanced making the paintings resonate.  This is bright, sharp, observant painting.

William Bradley

Scale is an unavoidable issue in much of Bradley’s work. With his most expansive canvasses measuring more than 2m squared his paintings seem designed to confront.  

This size combined with bold, flat colour makes for work which on first glance appears quite competitive. These are not however art billboards selling abstraction. The imagery is at odds with the rest of the package. Bloated, bulbous abstract forms don’t bring home a message; they do not tell you something you need to know. Instead Bradley’s structures compete with the slickness of their execution. They remain elusive. Graphic yet slippery they seem intentionally obscure; like diagrams that fail to explain.

Bradley manages to deal with painting’s recent history without compromising his own activity, he makes pictures which avoid the obvious; work that both intrigues and absorbs.

Clare Price

Well structured and expansive.

Clare Price’s paintings open up space while retaining a clear sense of their own materiality. They are vibrant, dynamic works which catch the eye and pose interesting questions. The pixelated frameworks that hold the images together simultaneously look forwards and back, describing a digital world through the use of a now defunct computer program. It is painting that highlights the enduring need for painting; engaged work that does not labour its point.