Your cart is currently empty!
Tag: los angeles
-
Sandra Cinto
The delicate line-work in these semi-abstract sea/land/sky-scapes is incredibly controlled, almost to a fault. It doesn’t leave much room for the unexpected. This might be okay except that the overall vocabulary of forms is a bit too constrained. For instance, the squiggly undulating seas, asterisk-like stars, and meandering triangular lattice-works all start to feel schematic—like well-practiced versions of familiar forms. The glitzy gold backgrounds and matte neutral tones split the difference between tasteful and ostentatious, but do not land anywhere particularly original.
Sandra Cinto: Prelude to the Sun
Tanya Bonakdar
1010 N. Highland Ave.,
Los Angeles, CA 90038
On view through July 2, 2025 -
Paul Mpagi Sepuya
at VielmetterThe title “positioner” refers to the photographer’s inclusion of himself in several of these photos as he positions his models, most of which are queer men and women. These are a reflection on studio portraiture as a specific social context. They explore the relationship of photographer to model, not just on an interpersonal level, but as it reverberates within the context of the studio and the artist’s practice. The content is not intimacy, per se, but the care, communication, and technique that go into capturing it. These are continually rewarding on conceptual, formal, and psychological levels, which reveal how all of the above are also intertwined.
Paul Mpagi Sepuya: POSITIONER
Vielmetter Los Angeles
1700 S. Santa Fe Ave., #101
Los Angeles, CA 90021
On view through July 19, 2025 -
Jill Magid
at Various Small FiresThe centerpiece of this show is a carpeted wooden platform, covered with white on blue stars like an American flag. Various Small Fires’ owner, Esther Kim Varet, is running for Congress, and this mini-stage is meant for use by her campaign. What Varet and artist Jill Magid offer is a call to action—something which most political art fatally lacks. This is a welcome corrective to art that thinks making a political statement counts as doing politics. There are also twenty heart sculptures, cast in grey cement, in the atrium, suggesting the heart it takes to get involved. A third piece, which includes the official forms for declaring oneself as a congressional candidate, underscores this point. 50/50 stars.
Jill Magid: Heart of a Citizen
Various Small Fires
812 N. Highland Ave.,
Los Angeles, CA 90038
On view through June 28, 2025 -
Mary Weatherford
at David Kordansky GalleryTwo big rooms of Mary Weatherford’s prodigious wall works still aren’t enough space to contain the mesmerizing views the artist generously presents in “The Surrealist” exhibition, which is a bold, seductive reminder of painting’s emotional power and material possibilities. Neon tubes, starfish, and coral press against luminous, amorphous, and almost galactic color fields in works that range from the intimate to the monumental. The artist’s deep commitment to pigment gives the surfaces a glowing, almost bodily presence. Her best paintings here—typically the largest—are both dreamy and visceral, undulating between clarity and mystery without fail. The show feels like an artist in full command of her language, unfolding history, memory, and matter into art that is formally elegant, unapologetically personal, and very much alive.
Mary Weatherford: The Surrealist
David Kordansky Gallery
5130 W. Edgewood Pl.,
Los Angeles, CA 90019
On view through June 28th, 2025 -
Tony Cokes
at Hannah HoffmanTo get to Tony Cokes’ “All About Evil” at Hannah Hoffman, a show displaying 12 selected works from a period of nearly two decades (2006-2022), one must pass a sidewalk sign for the neighboring jewelry boutique Spinelli Kilcollin. Cokes’ HD videos feature large white Sans Serif text against bright, embarrassingly and overwhelmingly American colors: red, white, and blue. Performing a patriotic zeal gone awry, the works pull the viewer in multiple directions at once: Device 1, a window flat screen, faces into the private, gated, courtyard, (where one must be buzzed in to view the work); Device 2, a wall-mounted flat screen, features two headsets for a pair of viewers to place over their ears, while a different song plays aloud from Device 3, an LED screen placed to the right of the small gallery space. The conditions surrounding this viewing experience are at odds with the overtly political content of Cokes’ work, which uses, for instance, the Sesame Street theme song alongside text on the response to coronavirus and the larger failures of the American political and educational systems. Stark text both confronts and entertains the viewer, who is offered a chance to sit on one of three large foam square blocks in the center of the gallery. Cokes’ provocative work reproduces a space not unlike an electronics superstore. The show offers neither space for immersion in a single work nor a path to political resistance. Instead, its success lies in the suggestion that rebellion itself has become a commodity, presented on multiple flashing screens with two soundtracks playing at once. The viewer is divided from themself, much like the user of an iPhone or Instagram.
-
MEGHANN STEPHENSON
at Half GalleryDario Argento’s 1977 film Suspiria left a lasting impression on me. It’s moments of indiscernibility, of looming disquiet, of eyes flashing against a blackened screen have stuck with me long since first watch. It’s an exhilarating study of the ominous, of unease, of femininity, and the complexities between, all of which are at the heart of Meghann Stephenson’s show “I’ll Be Your Mirror.” The seven oil paintings in the show are done in flat, muted neutrals and center around a woman set against a deep black background. Devoid of detail, the vacant backgrounds enable us to build a scene around the character and create our own fantastical stories from the moments Stephenson reveals.
In A Sheep in Wolf’s Clothing, the woman (who bears a resemblance to Stephenson) is slightly reclined, wrapped in a brown fur pulled tight against her throat, her hair tucked under the collar so not a glimpse of flesh is seen. Eyes squinting off to the left, she appears guarded against a looming threat. The quiet unease, the feeling of impending menace, isn’t limited to the external but emanates from the central figure herself. Her gaze, while wary, is unwavering as if tempting conflict. In I’ll Be Your Mirror, she and her she and her doppelganger, dressed in matching pink nightgowns, stare down the viewer with unwavering gazes that tease of unrevealed secrets. Behind them is a mirror in which one of them is reflected, back to us as if to defy scrutiny or legibility.
The work’s pared-down details can be understood as an omission; the figure reflective of a carefully crafted persona that threatens to break at any moment. Stephenson succeeds in illustrating the haunting experience of living within a fractured self.
Meghann Stephenson: I’ll Be Your Mirror
Half Gallery
By appointment only -
SELINE BURN
at Baert Gallery“Kairos” by Seline Burn at Baert Gallery features 10 large oil paintings on canvas and linen, all completed this year. Blues, yellows, and greens render female figures across landscapes and interior settings that blur the boundaries between inner and outer, self and other, human and avian, dream state and waking life. In North Star, a reclining woman’s breath takes the shape of a bird; in Ariadne’s Thread (2025), three nude women with feathered skin walk across a log bridge, connected by a rope suspended in their hands. In the smaller room of the two-room gallery, two complementary paintings would seem to drive us out of the mythical dreamscape into the reality of nature, with its consuming people and animals (a cat traps a bird, a large pretzel bears bite marks). My favorite piece in this show is Intertwined, which depicts two women, or two images of the same woman, lying beside one another, separated by a striped straw hat and by the fact that one wears a striped blue shirt while the other rests bare-chested. Lying in mirrored poses, their identical brown hair flows into one another as if shared strands. There is a decided absence of male figures in these paintings, unless Gargoyles and knives suffice.
Seline Burn: Kairos
Baert Gallery
1923 S. Santa Fe Ave.,
Los Angeles, CA 90021
On view through June 7, 2025 -
MOURNING SICKNESS
A spate of Sad Girl art is on view in LA this spring—but is our interest in Sad Girls subversive or exploitative?Thérésa Tallien, the French Revolution’s ‘it’ girl, knew how to manipulate perception. Once an emblem of revolutionary glamour, she played the game until it turned against her. Even in captivity, awaiting execution, she refused to become a simple object of pity. The mirror sent to her cell each day wasn’t punishment; it was a tool. Stripped of adornment, starved, pale, she studied herself—not to break, but to refine the performance. When she emerged from prison—freed in part by the influence she still held—she did so as a legend, the Notre Dame de Thermidor, not just a survivor but the architect of her own spectacle.
The sad girl isn’t merely suffering; she’s a tragedy calculation—a negotiation between vulnerability and control. Contemporary Thérésa Talliens understand this too, but where her pain was instrumental, ours is a recursive, self-consuming loop. She is an embodied contradiction, unsettling rather than sympathy-seeking, forcing us to ask if vulnerability can ever be sincere in a world that feeds on it. To be a sad girl is to cultivate a wound. But is sad girl art subversive or exploitative? That binary is too neat.
Recently, I’ve been noticing a promising momentum, particularly in L.A. The era of women draping themselves in gauze, staring mournfully at the viewer, and calling it subversion—what I’d dub Francesca Woodman cosplay—is beginning to dissolve. In lieu of it, a new energy is rising: young women artists taking the fragments of that aesthetic and pushing it into raw, urgent terrain. No longer a vanishing act but an occupation.
Martyrdom isn’t inherited; it’s rehearsed. My generation of young women artists and writers has learned the performance well. Knees bruised, lips cracked, we braid each other’s hair before dawn, praying to our lace-dressed martyr, impaled on the family’s iron fence. The Virgin Suicides’ youngest Lisbon girl—caught between innocence and annihilation. We learned from the saints; ribs cracked open in ecstasy, martyrdom mistaken for holiness. We practiced in secret—pressing our fingers to candle flames, writing bad poetry in the margins of Sylvia Plath and Anne Sexton. I still wake in vintage slips, lingering in the high of the aesthetic, the strap slipping from my tiny shoulder. Playing the role of the pale, femme poet in my own cinematic world. I once went by Luna (not my name), defaced library books with my poetry (sorry), wore Catholic school saddle shoes (though I didn’t go). I wanted a self-mythologizing ritual, a transformation of fragility into potential, rendering the distinction between endurance and performance irrelevant. But I no longer mistake aesthetic for intention. It’s not about discarding the performance but knowing when to break script.
Shannon Cartier Lucy, Woman in a Trench Coat, 2018. Courtesy of the artist. Shannon Cartier Lucy’s work offers a window into this realm of self-mythologizing. Her work consists mostly of paintings of figures that I would also cast as “pale, femme poets.” In the piece Woman in a Trench Coat (2018), the slender figure dressed in an immaculate white coat smiles at something out of frame. Her expression is the divine balance between absurd humor and placid derangement. However, the pivotal part is following her hands as they clasp around her throat. It reads as a solitary moment in the muted tones of a blurred-out, lush landscape with casual self-inflicted violence. Cartier Lucy’s figures do not collapse under the weight of their fragility; they shape it into something deliberate, like violence that contrasts her pristine vintage trench coat for spring. It is a sculpted aesthetic that both performs and resists commodification. But it is not just a commodification of pain; it is a ritual. Saint Teresa’s visions of ecstasy were spiritual, but they were also deeply theatrical. She staged her suffering, perfected the pose of rapture. Marking this approach to more of a tradition than a marketable trend. It is a form of belief. Not in the pain itself, necessarily, but in the way it structures identity, gives shape to the formless ache of being.
Los Angeles-based artist Shana Hoehn explores the tension between bodily destruction and transformation in her paintings and sculptures, as seen in her recent solo exhibition at Make Room this February. Her figures twist, they fold, split, and splinter; they expand into grotesque acts of self-transformation. Her consistent use of braids—common symbols of femininity across the girlhood spectrum from sister-wives of Fundamentalists to cheerleaders—morph into something even more insidious than those examples. They become their own phallic ligament, cracking like a whip, poisonous vines of nightshade constricting and consuming. Like the sad girl, they exist in a space of paradox—a familiar image warped into something dangerous and potent. Her girlhood limbs and parts are devoured by infinite orifices, the desire to eat oneself or be swallowed. They ask us to reconsider girlhood, not as something passive or innocent, but as something capable of great violence, both external and internal.
History and literature are littered with sad deities who blur the line between suffering and dominance, their actual power forged through their own undoing with a side of carnage.
Shana Hoehn, I give birth to myself, 2025. Photo: Alex Delapena. Courtesy of the artist and Make Room, Los Angeles. Perhaps in the background of Hoehn and Cartier Lucy, who challenge conventional narratives of femininity and girlhood, is Unica Zürn’s work, shaped by the fractured psyche of mid-century Europe, confronts suffering as a transformative force. Her life—marked by mental anguish, violent relationships, and a tragic end—becomes part of a larger, transcendent presence. Zürn’s self-portraits, such as Self-Portrait (1965), capture the body in states of continual metamorphosis. Rather than remaining static, her works unravel suffering, converting it into a force that reshapes identity. Pain becomes a continuous flux, an evolving process where boundaries blur and the self is perpetually remade.
Anne Carson writes of emotion as a force that moves ahead of itself—perhaps madness. But madness is not formless; it is a ritual as old as myth itself. Dionysian ecstasy, Orphic descent. Virgin Suicide. To feel is to be cast into the jagged contours of history, where suffering is spectacle. But in this situation, the storyteller holds the power. Carson’s heroines—Herakles’ wife, the girl burned into glass—are not merely figures of endurance; they become icons, their pain transforming into a legend that cannot be undone. In Hoehn’s I Give Birth to Myself (2025), the figure emerges from a tangled weave of hair shifts between confinement and release, offering no clear-cut narrative of exploitation or subversion. Hoehn’s work speaks to a rupture in the binary, where vulnerability becomes both a prison and a moment of radical emergence. Zürn’s work similarly fractures the body, not as a passive victim of history, but as a dynamic force, subject to reinvention. for both artists, suffering becomes an act of disintegration and reconstruction—history rewritten not by overcoming trauma, but by remaking the self through it.
In Cruel Optimism, scholar Lauren Berlant suggests that when suffering becomes ingrained in culture, it shifts from being personal to collective—so familiar it almost becomes aesthetic. Cartier Lucy’s Bathtime (2018) captures this with a woman submerged in water, her face buried in her hands, her black dress darkening the water around her, as if we are witnessing a casual but cursed domestic baptism. There’s no comfort, no escape—just a repetitive cycle. One set of hands rubs shampoo into her hair, another holds her down, while a third claps to the side. The violence doesn’t lie in any single act; it’s embedded in the whole, as though the entire scene is structured to contain it.
The sad girl was never just an aesthetic; she was a warning. But warnings lose their power when they become too legible, too easy to romanticize. The problem isn’t vulnerability—it’s the way vulnerability has been flattened into a currency, traded in self-conscious martyrdom. The strongest artists refuse this loop. Cartier Lucy’s women, caught between violence and banality, don’t ask for sympathy. Hoehn’s figures contort past recognition, their bodies not symbols but volatile material. Zürn unravels the self completely. These artists demonstrate that, when recontextualized, suffering is not a pitiable condition; it becomes something to fear. This is where the sad girl fractures: when she stops looking at herself in the mirror and starts clawing at the glass.
-
Alex Israel
at GagosianTo prepare for his current show “Noir” at Gagosian, Alex Israel claims to have walked about fifteen thousand steps per day around Los Angeles. This is highly unusual and, honestly, suspect. As the saying goes, no one walks in LA. Yet Israel insists on it and says that all this walking clued him into the more subtle, textured aspects of the city —things “[he] wouldn’t ever clock from the car window”—which ultimately informed his paintings.
In an attempt to better understand Israel and his work, I, too, began taking seven-mile walks around the city, daily: Van Nuys to Canoga Park, Glendale to Alhambra. El Prado to Sunset Tower. And so on and so on. I did my best to see the city as I imagined Israel would. I got into character—Alex Israel, wunderkind artist—and adopted that carefree, near-smug affect I’d seen in all of his portraits online. I did things that I thought he would do: I wore Ray Bans, smiled at nothing in particular, and listened to songs from mid-2000s iPod commercials. Slowly but surely, I started to feel cool and unhurried, the star of my own private sequel to Nic Refn’s neo-noir Drive: Walk.
Such a confident approach gave me clarity, and I realized that Israel was right. After seven miles of walking per day, you do start to notice the city’s hidden textures. Most obviously: for all their disuse (or perhaps because of it), the sidewalks are remarkably perilous, so full of fissures and crags that even a brief daydream comes at the cost of an ankle.
Alex Israel, “Noir,” installation view, 2025. Photo: Charles White. Courtesy of Gagosian. LA’s terrain, it turns out, is not easy. So, I’m surprised when I finally arrive at Israel’s “Noir” in Beverly Hills (by way of the Sherman Oaks Galleria, a four-hour walk through Benedict Canyon) to find a suite of paintings illustrating the exact opposite.
Apparently, Israel’s LA is easy. His paintings depict LA landmarks, both well and lesser-known—Chateau Marmont and the Troubadour, but also Trashy Lingerie and Hollywood Liquor—so completely awash in golden-hour purples and pinks that they’d fit neatly into one of Damien Chazelle’s La La Land dance numbers. Streets are glassy. Lights splash. Cars and people don’t exist. Notably: everything works. That is to say, as in Chazelle’s film, the city in these paintings is frozen in pure fantasy, in an artificial memory of what LA never was.
But that doesn’t mean they aren’t true.
Sure, everything here is totally contrived. Yes, the paintings were made on the Warner Bros. lot (where Israel keeps his studio), an iconic factory of cultural engineering. Yes, they were painted not by Israel himself, but by his ostensible assistant, the last remaining artist in Warner Bros.’ Scenic Art department, a place once known for painting the backdrops that manufactured cinematic reality. And yes, they’re untethered from time. Showroom, for example, depicts the Googie-style Casa de Cadillac dealership in Sherman Oaks with an Escalade dating to 2021; Gas Station shows the Beverly Hills 76 – a Mid-Century Modern wonder – with the price of a gallon at $1.59, situating it sometime around 2001 (though possibly earlier, since that specific station runs hot), yet with a pump model from 2020; and Chateau Marmont presents us with an Angelyne billboard that first appeared in the 80s, alongside an Apple ad from the mid-aughts.
Alex Israel, Troubadour, 2024. © Alex Israel. Photo: Josh White. Courtesy of Gagosian. But Israel isn’t trying to hide the artifice. He emphasizes it every step of the way – in lore, process, content and color. Some of his paintings’ dimensions are even directly proportional to cinema’s 16:9 widescreen ratio, and others to the billboards that dot the Sunset Strip, once again pointing to that which is constructed, sold, and nominally fake.
It’s precisely because these paintings are so wholly contrived that they become true. Israel leans into the city’s cliché—its fakeness, its artificiality—to highlight its depth. Vapid, you say? How about we empty it out entirely, then smooth it over and paint it like a static backdrop on a soundstage? The move is clever and conceptually sound, and it allows us to at once realize the incredible familiarity we have with our city, while also recognizing its impossibility. To live in LA is to constantly wake up from a dream you’d rather remain in. It’s not so much nostalgia as it is the stuff of romance, and of tragedy.
The paintings don’t go much further than this, and I’m not sure they have to. I could, however, stretch the show a bit further and note the fact that, at their most fundamental, these paintings are glorified depictions of LA real estate, which happens to be the source of Israel’s family fortune (his father is the developer Eddie Israel). So, while there is a base note of reverence throughout, maybe there’s also a tinge of guilt by association, of complicity. After all, these landmarks and their iconic features, not to mention the subcultures associated with them, will inevitably get lost in the very wave of real estate development that allowed Israel the opportunity to paint them in the first place. In other words, without this city, these paintings wouldn’t exist, but without these paintings, perhaps the city would.
Alex Israel: Noir
Gagosian
456 N. Camden Drive.,
Beverly Hills, CA 90210
February 6 – March 22, 2025 -
Jacqueline Humphries
at Matthew MarksWe recognize the legacy Jacqueline Humphries is working from the moment we set foot in Matthew Marks’ two gallery spaces; yet something throws the viewer slightly off. It’s the echt gestural vocabulary of post-World War II art, but as if viewed through a scrim or screen, which in more than one sense it actually is—a highly processed, thoroughly post-modern actuality, in which the processing itself breaks down with pigments dissolving, disappearing, reappearing through, or floating above an interwoven mesh of screens, coding, and emoticons.
The residuum of Humphries’ gravitation towards certain well-defined styles and gestures is fairly manifest—e.g., mid-1950s Philip Guston, Clyfford Still, or color field painters like Helen Frankenthaler. But Humphries resisted the figurative direction of so many of her neo-Expressionist peers to meet the screen(ed) world of the media-saturated Pictures Generation head-on. Four decades later, her interrogation is even more foundational, almost ontological: not simply the perception, projection, or reflection—the materials of her art—but messaging, meaning, and interpretation; the ambiguity of figure and (always shifting) ground; and what one view tells us about the next.
Screens complicate the traditional picture plane; and Humphries throws the viewer through a screen (or screens) very darkly from the onset. JH456 (all paintings 2024) floats a volcanic storm of black cinders over Still-esque pours and drips of crimson and anthracite against a fine mesh that itself shadows chalky blue ‘shadow’ pours or underpainting. And as for the pours—are they actually? Or just more stencils? The artist’s title/signature initials in the upper-left quadrant just barely gives that away. Gravity will have its way in this ambiguous domain of the pre-determined and free-floating. (Or will it? Humphries might conceivably rotate the linen panel to further confuse or ‘cross-examine’ figure or ground or both.)
Jacqueline Humphries, JH123, 2024. Photo: Ronald Amstutz. © Jacqueline Humphries. Courtesy of Matthew Marks Gallery, Los Angeles. The largest of the paintings, JH123 (127×114 in.) gives us a waterfall of slightly pallid rainbow pours in amber yellows, pale blues, and pinks, from the center of which looms a cluster of black hulking, almost exploding fountain of pours—conceivably as stenciled as other parts of the painting. But pulling back from the painting dead center, we register horizontals parallel to the upper and lower edges; and we’re suddenly made aware of another layer of painting/stenciling that could make something else of this entirely. It’s impossible to say whether Humphries played with a Johns style array of block letters or numerals (or if such effects were stenciled on and immediately washed over); but it was hard not to be reminded of those classic fluorescent half-tone Colby Co. posters that once blanketed southern California, advertising everything from rock concerts and prizefights to business liquidations and the 2012 Hammer Museum Made In L.A. biennial. Here (as elsewhere), Humphries floats a quasi-anamorphic stencil of her initials and assigned number for the work (or series of works), as if to assert both authorship and a certain detachment from these ambiguous and slightly volatile conundrums.
Amid these first few paintings, we start to reconsider relative definition and uncertainty as it enters into the moment of conception and execution; that everything is mediated between image and object on either side of lens and retina. That uncertainty (and some drama) is at play in “Crimson Shatter”✨, which bears some resemblance to JH456, but on a slightly larger scale (111×100 in.), magnifying its impact. Their similarity alone throws the determination of pours/drips and stencils (as well as underpainting) into question—the three larger stenciled pours of JH456 here reduced to a kind of rent in the ‘fabric’ (that ‘bleeds’ black), and even the ‘sparkle’ emojis screened mostly in black and sinking into the underlying screen mesh. Between this vivid crimson—slightly brighter than actual blood—and that coal black of JH456, it’s hard to resist a mental leap to associations with disaster. Paler, cooler underpainting, whether pink, blue or grey, only seems to magnify the violence.
Our culture has evolved a fascination with encoding clearly shared by the artist. But Humphries also seems conscious of the dubious filtration of screens, a kind of passive suppression such media ‘shorthand’ can willfully or inadvertently promote. The pours (conceivably accompanied by other applications, whether by stencil, brush or both)—mostly in deep red—are almost entirely obliterated beneath a larger black mass in JH123✨, except for a cloudy cluster of red that drips to the edge of the panel; and suppression seems to be half the point; also fracturing.
A 3-D printed panel in white enamel on PLA (a kind of biomass plastic), Untitled (2025) recapitulates (at about 10 percent scale) the screen/pour/drip imprint of JH123✨, with the clear difference that the sparkle emoji screen printing—deeply embedded, though almost ghosted (grey)—in the painting, scarcely appears in the panel. It made for a coolly analytic bridge between the slightly violent chromatic drama that seemed to scream off several of the linen panels preceding it, and the latent violence that wafted off of Humphries’ series of aquatint etchings of Paul Schrader’s scenographic outlines (all handwritten by the director in blue and red ink on yellow legal pads)—clearly an hommage to the director/writer. (Humphries is an admirer of the filmmaker—apparently not just for his films, but also his insight into classic noir cinema.) Mishima and the iconic Raging Bull to one side, the range of Schrader’s film work is riveting.
Jacqueline Humphries, Untitled, 2025. Photo: Ronald Amstutz. © Jacqueline Humphries. Courtesy of Matthew Marks Gallery, Los Angeles. After the drama in the main gallery, the works in the galleries facing Santa Monica Boulevard seemed almost coolly elegiac. An all-over stenciling of large green dots that seemed to uncannily cluster like grapes over dripping black puddles and pours in a smaller Untitled were a nod to Roy Lichtenstein’s Benday dots and his own comic-book graphic send-ups of AbEx heroic gestural brushstrokes—these, including equally organic-looking splotchy white overpainted drops in the upper section, decidedly less heroic and almost deliberately pathetic.
One of the most striking paintings in the entire show) was a second JH123✨, in which the sparkle stenciling takes on an exceptionally ironic cast. That suppressed sparkle quietly underscores Humphries’ re-cast definition of the work—articulating form and processing into a far more complex statement. The tumbleweed mass of black pigment of the first painting is rotated slightly off center here, with new bits of underpainting and drips or ‘spray’ exposed (although the lower edge is strikingly similar). Beyond rotating the stencil(s), additional screens, stencils or under- or overpainting shadow the upper-left portion of the off-center mass, almost bleaching away its right section—placing this ‘absent’ mass at its rose-pink scrimmed center.
This latest body of Humphries’ work comes at the viewer with an almost existential directness and estrangement. Without sinking into the quicksand of over-interpretation, disaster seems to float towards us amid these ambiguous archipelagoes of form and re-cast, re-framed, re-screened gesture. But the work also moves the viewer towards a reconsideration of the ‘ground’—or the void beyond the ground. Humphries meets her viewer in a familiarly skeptical terrain, where fear or dread are less significant than the disintegrated actuality—the flip side of the ‘sparkle’, if you will, which is an infinitely twilit absence.
Jacqueline Humphries
Matthew Marks
1062 N. Orange Grove
Los Angeles, CA 90046
February 20 – April 5, 2025 -
Ramsey Alderson
at Tiffany’sIt’s a matter of complete coincidence that Ramsey Alderson’s show “d’Or” at Tiffany’s—an East Hollywood artist-run garage space programmed by Adam Verdugo—coincides with the 17th anniversary of the notorious Emos vs. Punks Fight held in Mexico City’s Glorieta de Los Insurgentes in early March of 2008. The famed altercation, which saw young Punks and even younger Emos collide in a pedestrian-only roundabout of downtown Mexico City, was the flashpoint after weeks of anti-emo violence across the Mexican republic fueled by newly emergent online avenues. Animosity built up towards the effeminately fashioned emosexuales (the unambiguously homophobic name the Punks came up with for the Emos, one phoneme away from the Spanish pronunciation of homosexual) until hundreds of youths from both sides clashed in the glorieta.
The figures in Aldseron’s paintings, while not too different in their fashion from the Emos in grainy archival flip phone videos of the fights, belong to a faction unknown. They are not the collective alternative, but the lone actors. Whatever terminology may apply, they are undeniably legitimate emosexuales, presented here in intimate moments immune from ridicule or categorization. Bath For Our Foredaddies (2025), the central painting of the show, depicts two spikey haired boys interlocked in a bath, gazing at the viewer, toasting dainty goblets. There is something totally inverted about the bathers. Their interests lie beyond being public agitators, their provocations exist only for each other. Their demonstration is leisurely, and it’s a private demonstration. A worthwhile question is raised: Are they really like that for the attention?
Ramsey Alderson,
“d’Or,” exhibition view, 2025. Photo: Lizzie Klein.
Courtesy of Tiffany’s.In the three other works, Alderson’s nonchalant yet assertive style occasionally exceeds the modest sizes of the panels the figures find themselves in. The boys are also tightly cropped, unaware of the confines of their own frames. Substantial areas of the panels are covered in single tones of lusterless acrylic, and one figure is rendered only through thin overlays of ink and charcoal at varying opacities over a golden ground This is complemented by areas of special sensitivity, like the blue hair that is more robin’s egg than Manic Panic in Mmm (2024), or the white outlined pants and sleeves on a pensive train rider in d’Or (2024). The idler and the traveler both bask in their own limp wristed flamboyance, while still maintaining the same lack of concern for the viewer as the bathers.
Even so, their stage is set. The garage door at Tiffany’s is open when the show is. During evening viewing hours, each wall is paired with its own spotlight, which project three eerie focal triangles against the lacquer-red Alderson and Verdugo elected to paint the interior walls. On the opening night the floors still smelled of the dark brown stain used to turn the plywood viewing platform into something more seductive. These gestures read as carefully conceived abutted against the implied indifference of the femme boys in the paintings. The impression of the garage is not unlike a craftily and economically furnished dingbat apartment outfitted with odd color belonging to an aging dandy. Or maybe it’s just a weird mismatched midwestern finished basement. In any case, Tiffany’s seems to recognize these paintings’ place—somewhere within an indulgent tableau of desire and indifference.
Ramsey Alderson: d’Or
Tiffany’s
861 N. Alexandria Ave.,
Los Angeles, CA 90029
February 8 – March 22, 2025 -
Gregg Bordowitz
at The BrickI left Gregg Bordowitz’s recently-closed exhibition at The Brick, “This is Not a Love Song,” thinking the same thing as upon leaving The Brutalist: “I didn’t know it was going to be so Jewish.” In both, the artist’s Jewish identity weaves through a deep consideration of form as such. I might even cheekily add that in both cases, the interest in form manifests in concrete specifically. The Brutalist’s eponymous brutalist, László Tóth, uses concrete to maybe (?) represent the suffocating brutality of Auschwitz. Bordowitz, on the other hand, has a longstanding interest in concrete poetry. This is not a review of The Brutalist but one further comparison is perhaps warranted. The film’s climax centers on the completion of Tóth’s brutalist church/community center and the antagonist presumably committing suicide somewhere inside, turning the monumental structure into a tomb as well. In an epilogue, Tóth’s niece describes the building as a redemptive allegory of Auschwitz. In other words, the film culminates in a tomb for a body that is never shown and a story of redemption for the most indescribable of sins. A rather Christian Judaism, all told.
I bring this up only to contrast it with the approach to Judaism taken by Bordowitz, one more active and paradoxically, more architectural. Bordowitz’s Judaism is not so much represented as it is embodied—a structure for living. The exhibition is anchored by a freestanding wall positioned diagonally in the center of the gallery. Bordowitz’s poem, Bougainvillea Calliope, is affixed directly to both sides of the wall. It is governed by Bordowitz’s self-imposed rule that each line be exactly ten syllables. Lines such as “LASAGNA HOLIDAY IMMIGRATION/ HOSTILITY RECIPE LEGACY” are illustrative of the poem’s taut blend of the nonsensical, political, and personal. The poem’s balance of formal rigidity and quasi-abstract meaning is paralleled in the print series, entitled Tetragrammaton, hung on the wall, which occasionally obscure sections of the poem. Though they are all abstract, the series depicts the Tetragrammaton, the four-letter Hebrew theonym for the name of God. Here too, the formal constraints of language overflow with an irrepressible passion.
Gregg Bordowitz, “This is Not a Love Song,” exhibition view, 2025 at The Brick. Photo: Ruben Diaz. Courtesy of The Brick. As an academic, AIDS activist, poet, and politically-inclined video artist, language has always been central to Bordowitz’s practice. Here though, the written word functions as a sort of necessary boundary line. The rules it establishes for sensemaking serve to delineate what exceeds it, what cannot be accounted for. In this way, it is not simply an inert representation but a site of energetic activity. Another piece, Continuous Red Line, made of a red strip of tape, running inches off the floor along the gallery’s perimeter operates similarly, linking each element of the exhibition into a whole. The artworks are thus in conversation with one another though this does not require that they find any resolution. The line is perhaps the ur-form of art, representing form as such and the fundamental building block of artmaking. Both the scrawled lines of quasi-legible Hebrew on each print and Continuous Red Line are thus testaments to the line’s dual functions as a form and a process, an idea echoed in the exhibition’s accompanying booklet. There, Bordowitz writes that “form is both a process and a state.”
This is echoed in the exhibition’s curation itself. Placing the wall in the gallery’s center animates the typical flatness of text and prints. Additionally, the wall’s placement forces viewers to ritually circumambulate the work. Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heshel, who Bordowitz quotes in the booklet, famously said that Judaism does not build cathedrals in space but in time, through the affirmation of ritual. In other words, form emerges out of communal repetition. This idea is closely related to a central tenet of Bordowitz’s political belief, cultivated through years of AIDS activism with ACT-UP, that the personal is political. Both theories conceptualize the individual’s actions as a fractal piece of a much broader community movement. Both ideas suggest that meaning is found in action itself, not finality. At a moment when Jewish identity is in danger of being essentialized (or concretized) into a hard nationalism, Bordowitz’s work suggests a softer Judaism, one that cannot crack as a result.
Gregg Bordowitz: This is Not a Love Song
The Brick
518 N. Western Ave.,
Los Angeles, CA 90004
February 2 – March 22, 2025 -
David Hammons
at Hauser & WirthI went in blind to David Hammons’ Concerto in Black and Blue (on view for the first time since its 2002 debut)—both literally and figuratively. When I pushed back the heavy curtain shrouding the gallery, darkness swallowed me. I couldn’t pull out my phone to navigate by its glow, nor could I use it to look up additional context for the exhibition—prior to entering, I had been asked to stow it in an automatically locking pouch. My only option was to switch on the miniature flashlight I had been provided and cast its blue beam before me in search of the show. Little did I know it had already begun.
Several other patrons, also wielding flashlights, materialized as I stumbled ahead. Had they come in from a separate entrance? Not quite—the gallery, it seemed, comprised several vast rooms, each one with sky-high ceilings. There were no signs or markers to direct us toward any predetermined path. We simply had to let the silence move us.
The Oxford New World Dictionary defines a concerto as “a musical composition for a solo instrument or instruments accompanied by an orchestra, especially one conceived on a relatively large scale.” The sole sounds in this concerto were hushed voices and the echo of footsteps against concrete. Yet the definition does offer a framework for interpretation: the solo instruments were the blue lights; the orchestra was the black background they played against.
The very presence of darkness suggests some hidden objects or entities; to obscure means to make dim as well as to conceal. It makes sense that I should instinctually anticipate some surprise. The next room, I was always sure, would contain a potential discovery: maybe a miniature in a far-off corner, or a stories-tall installation that would justify the exhibition’s scale. For a moment, my party believed we had found a sculpture, about the size and shape of a person; it turned out to be a living, breathing security guard, sentenced to standing still amidst our shuffling.
When you stare at nothing for long enough, everything becomes something. Soon, I was shifting my focus from the open space to its container. Minor irregularities on the walls held the significance of hieroglyphs. Electrical boxes could have contained clues. A floor-to-ceiling garage door proved particularly awe-inspiring: after beholding so much blankness, the textural interruption felt, well, orchestrated. I craned my neck, looking for cracks where the white light of the clouded March sky might have seeped in. I found none.
A full sweep of the premises revealed no secret totem. Making my meditative rounds, I felt a flicker of disappointment that my search should turn up dry—but had it really? Perhaps the perpetual craving for some tangible, cathartic conclusion is part of what Hammons set out to interrogate. In the tradition of John Cage’s 4’33” (1952), the absence of a spectacle can be a spectacle in and of itself. If a tree falls in the forest, does it really make a noise? If no blue lights bounce off the gallery floors, does the concerto play on?
It is tempting to view the show, all-consuming as it is, as its own entity apart from the world, but one experiences it anew when taking into account the artist’s prior interrogations into race and Blackness. Hammons is known for using color to reframe the viewer’s understanding of familiar images: his painting How Ya Like Me Now (1988) depicted Jesse Jackson with white skin and blond hair, while Untitled (African American Flag) (1990) presented an American flag in the red, green, and black of the Pan-African Universal Negro Improvement Association, founded in 1914. Additionally, Hammons has used negative space in sculptural installations to great effect: In the Hood (1993), which appeared on the cover of Claudia Rankine’s poetry collection Citizen (2014) in the wake of Trayvon Martin’s murder, consists of the hood from a hoodie nailed to a wall, the wearer absent or invisible. Considering all this, the piece reflects upon what it means to “see color”—not just an encounter with blackness, but an encounter with Blackness.
Much critical praise for Concerto in Black and Blue concludes by celebrating its collaborative nature: the intersection of flashlight beams becomes a gesture of intimacy or interrogation between strangers as their identities are subsumed by shadow in service of the art they’re unwittingly creating. Yet I’m more drawn to the work as a conscious collaboration with darkness. By restricting the sense by which we most typically experience art, Hammons forces us to look at what we can’t, or won’t, see.
David Hammons: Concerto in Black and Blue
Hauser & Wirth
901 E. 3rd St.,
Los Angeles, CA 90013
February 18 – May 25, 2025 -
XIAO HE
at Reisig and Taylor ContemporaryThere is something a little chipper about the art world right now that belies the national mood. Palettes tend toward cheery hues and uncomplicated content. Not that there’s anything wrong with upbeat paintings, it just seems like there are other types of content worth exploring that the market discourages. We all enjoy a hint or more of darkness, whether it’s horror movies, Goth music, or what have you. It’s just a harder sell when the commodity in question is going to hang in your living room.
In this regard, Xiao He’s “A Whole Night” is somewhat refreshing, not that these would not look great in your house (it’s just a matter of which house, perhaps—say, do you own candelabras?) These paintings have an air of melancholy, mystery, and darkness which draws you in without answering all of your questions. Their bleak charm recalls nineteenth-century painting. My all-time favorite alcoholic short king, Toulouse-Lautrec, comes to mind. Another interesting symmetry, Toulouse-Lautrec’s immersive slice-of-life barroom scenes anticipate film, and some of He’s paintings are painted from film stills.
Take Le Consentement (2024), for instance; it depicts a faceless female figure—suggesting disassociation or a loss of identity—against a murky background. The source for the still is the 2023 French film Le Consentement, co-written by Vanessa Springora, about the sexual abuse she experienced beginning at age fourteen from author Gabriel Matzneff (then 49). Matzneff wrote openly about raping young boys and girls and was defended by the French literary establishment. Yikes! All of this is horrifying, and the painting is a dark reminder of how it is nothing new for the cultural establishment—even ostensibly liberal institutions (ahem, Democrats…)—to condone unspeakable evils. The most enlightened among us might not want this on our walls even if the daily news cycle reminds us of this dynamic constantly.
Xiao He, Le Consentement, 2024. Like many of these paintings, this one is an interpretation of a film still and retains a cinematic quality—not just in terms of horizontal composition but in how it hints at narrative and atmosphere. They suggest a moody background score, a sonic accompaniment which might be austere chamber music or a Chopin nocturne—not what one usually intuits from contemporary paintings, which tend to convey more pleasant lifestyle content: flowers, succulents, anodyne portraiture, and middle-class interiors come to mind, for instance.
He’s approach to each work is driven by concerns of narrative and content rather than just the formal trajectory of her painting practice. This stands in stark contrast to a lot of art in which the same subjects or abstract motifs are recapitulated ad nauseam. The result is a refreshing variety of subjects and a series of distinct paintings, each of which feels like a fresh, independent attempt at making art. Her painterly chops are confident but worn lightly. She is not, thankfully, trying to impress anyone. Moonlight (2024), for instance, depicts a crescent moon above scraggly tree limbs. The modulation of dark skies between two hues, a dark Phthalo blue and a deep purple-ish crimson, conveys, as much as it depicts, the moodiness of a night sky.
An earlier work, Sunbathing (2024), is stylistically an outlier. The surrealistic distortions of a fleshy abstract female figure recall Maria Lassnig. This work is fairly frontal, filled with surface effects, flat space, and fleshtones which connote the feeling of flesh as much as its appearance. The cadmium orange nipple evokes corporeality and sensory stimulation more than it resembles an areola. In The Bride (2024), a hulking orange mass with brown hair draped over it feels like being too drunk and hunched over a bar table. The space is more recessive and representational than Sunbathing, but the sense of form capturing internal experience rather than modeling appearances is similar. On the other hand, Yi Yi (2025), a painting of a dark figure against doodly pink abstract clouds, feels like a cartoon version of what she achieves elsewhere with more specificity.
Xiao He, “A Whole Night,” installation view, 2025. Photo: ofstudio. Courtesy of Reisig and Taylor Contemporary. The titular work, A Whole Night (2025), depicts a city street at night and feels cinematic because this type of image is more familiar in film. In this case, it was inspired by a shot from Chantal Akerman’s Toute une nuit (1982). The bright highlights, in broad light brushy marks, could be a cheap painterly trick—as in a kitsch print of Times Square at night—but the light touch conveys care and hesitancy. It captures the dinginess of late-night streets and dismal outdoor illuminations rather than turning it into a glinting spectacle.
Like the aforementioned Toulouse-Lautrec, the unfussy attention to painterly effects extends into the backgrounds. These can be as captivating as the foreground with a sensitivity of touch and slight coloristic modulations—like the warm brown submerged in tenebrous blacks in The Spectator, depicting a single flower. These moments, to extend the cinematic analogy, can feel like a supporting actor stealing the show.
Xiao He: A Whole Night
Reisig and Taylor Contemporary
4478 W. Adams Blvd.,
Los Angeles, CA 90016
March 8 – April 12, 2025 -
CONVERSION
at CheremoyaThe title of the two-person show at Cheremoya, “Conversion,” has a twofold implication: religious and material transformation. Calla Donofrio’s desaturated paintings depict acts of (sometimes sexual) violence that have been censored by parts of the image being blacked out or disrupted by a black cross. Shiny and diligently uniform, the paintings have a materiality to them that meets the sepia-toned flatness in a way that feels unreal, like a digitally rendered dream. In An Eye for an Eye, anonymous hands grip a central figure, covering his mouth and threatening him with a knife. Each limb is indistinguishable and possesses an unnerving level of smoothness, save for the over-articulated veins and cartilage sprouting from the hands. We see the central figure on the verge of getting his eyes gouged out, the sight blocked by a small black cross.
At the center of the room, Kento Saisho’s small, blackened sculptures sit on a table covered in sheet metal. Made from steel and enamel and mostly in vessel form, these structures are spiky and menacing despite their fragile, burned appearance. Striking and strange, they ask to be intimately examined. Upon peering into the vessel’s opening, you see that tiny metal spikes dot the insides, like an inverted porcupine. Saisho’s sculptures have undergone a transmutative process. Many of his works include “crucible” in the title, connecting the form to the mode of making and creating a self-reproducing system. Flame also appears in Donofrio’s painting Trinity, where it is siloed in a cinematically cropped box, merely taunting instead of scorching.
In contrast to Donofrio’s paintings, Saisho’s sculptures have a real, or simply less literal, sense of movement between danger and frailty, the material and the spiritual. Where Donofrio’s paintings are purgatorial, Saisho’s vessels offer a sorely needed rebirth. The ricochet that occurs between the two artists’ works is initially buoyant—each lends the other a distinct layer—but it peters out eventually. The potential for a mutual material becoming is left unfulfilled.
Conversion: Calla Donofrio and Kento Saisho
Cheremoya
2700 W. Ave. 34
Los Angeles, CA 90065
On view through May 10, 2025 -
ROBERT RUSSELL
at Anat EbgiIn Robert Russell’s solo show “Stateless Objects,” lush paintings of solitary vessels and kitchenware float like apparitions on the walls of Anat Ebgi. A mix of Judaica—challah platters, kiddush cups, and the like—alongside porcelain teacups produced in pre-Holocaust Germany, these “stateless objects” belonged to people of the North African, Middle Eastern, and Central Asian Jewish diaspora.
Russell’s paintings are cold; the monotone backgrounds against which the objects sit range from cool grays and blues to blacks. Save for the occasional floral-printed teacup, the objects themselves are sapped of any warmth. Though the work appears highly glossy and dimensional from afar, up close, we are denied the pleasure of sheen or dramatic painterly flourishes. What was thought to be tactile is flattened and mattified.
The work, particularly those pieces with black backgrounds, gestures toward the Dutch masters’ tulip paintings. Notably, in both black-backgrounded paintings, the frigidly white porcelain ware, adorned with decorative flowers or foliage, comes from Germany and thus contains a looming implication of Holocaust displacement. Russell gives the memento mori of Dutch tulip paintings a new tone. They serve as a reminder of the losses of the Holocaust, but also present an optimism. Unlike the flowers in a floral still life, these decorative flowers do not wilt and die, but are preserved on static porcelain, sustaining an eternal life.
“Stateless Objects” provides limited conclusions, opting to avoid context, historical or religious. The one instance of shepherding appears in the press release’s claims that the mere act of depiction is “a form of restoration” and “repatriation.” The care taken to paint these objects faithfully is in and of itself a devotional and religious act, a form of honoring ancestral lineage and histories. I don’t quite buy the “restoration” or “repatriation” claims, but I think Russell engages in remembering. And like memory, history is presented through fog (much like the hazy blank backgrounds of these paintings), which can’t offer precision but can offer a freer associative space.
Robert Russell: Stateless Objects
Anat Ebgi
6150 Wilshire Blvd.,
Los Angeles, CA 90048
On view through May 10, 2025