MARY BOOCHEVER ABOUT WORKS ARCHIVE MONOGRAPH NEWS CONTACT

RESUME STATEMENT ARTICLES REVIEWS
January 4, 2004
The New York Times/Art:Reviews
The Allure of Gold and Glitter
by Helen A. Harrison
‘All That Glitters’
Islip Art Museum

Yes, it is true: Gold is not the only thing that glitters. The artists in this group show prove the old saying by using a variety of shiny, lustrous and gleaming materials, of which gold is only one.
            For Mary Boochever, Max Gimblett, and Paul Hunter, gold leaf is the subsurface layer that illuminates their paintings by reflection. All three play down gold’s precious nature and emphasize its luminosity.
            Mr. Hunter’s imaginary landscapes glow with hazy, indirect light filtered through translucent pigments. Subtle variations in sky and earth tones are caused by different shades of gold leaf. Ms. Boochever uses a similar technique in pairs of gilded panels and textured canvases, contrasting matte surfaces with metallic sheen. Mr. Gimblett’s quatrefoil-shaped wood panels are based on intersecting and overlapping circles. This ancient motif is enlivened with gilding and glossy varnish.
            The opulence of pure gold and its sensuous appeal are exploited by Martin Cary Horowitz, who applies it to found and fabricated objects. In “Floor Curve” and “Center Bend,” minimal wood and bronze shapes are treated to a rich coating of 24 karat leaf, like priceless artifacts from a Pharaoh’s tomb. The gilding on “Gold Bomb I,” a deadly missile encased in an iron cage, makes it appear too valuable to destroy.
            The show’s other artists use plastic glitter flakes, cellophane, aluminum foil and fake gemstones in works that range from subtly understated to deliberately garish. Maura Robinson’s “Speechless” series of rhinestone-encrusted wood panels looks like the remains of a set from “The Wizard of Oz.” For Daniel Dueck, glitter recalls the starry skies and aurora effects he experienced in his native Canada, while Jamie Vasta uses it to simulate the sparkle of flames.


December 19, 2003
Boston Globe
Mary Boochever at Genovese/Sullivan
by Cate McQuaid, Correspondent

Genovese/Sullivan mounts a lovely complement to Carter’s black-and-white work with a series of small computer-generated prints by colorist Mary Boochever. The artist has always tuned in to the way color plays with the viewer’s eye and soul. Here, she takes off from the theories of philosopher Rudolf Steiner, who suggested that colors could heal and devised eleven color-based treatments.
            Boochever comes up with eleven of her own “treatments,” in a rainbow of palettes. Each small print features subtly shifting tones; Boochever stirs them up or contrasts their stillness with a variety of patterns. “Treatment VII” looks the most akin to a standard color chart, with concentric squares in pink, red, orange, gold, yellow, and green that are vital on the page until they vanish along the top. “Treatment IV” shows a shimmering panel of coppery pink, like a door ajar. In her colors, Boochever moves toward ethereal; in her forms and patterns, she pulls us back to earth. That’s a necessary balance; if she worked in color alone, her prints would be too dreamy and pretty.


Abstract Painting in the late ’80s
Barry Schwabsky post from InLiquid blog

Mary Boochever
David Diao
Stephen Ellis
Mary Heilmann
Ika Huber
Stephen Westfall

It is more than a simple historical irony thanks to which even the most clamant exponents of the century’s avant-gardes, those whose work was seen by others or even by themselves as “anti-art,” have succeeded above all in expanding the resources of art by opening up the range of its materials, its techniques, its critical vocabulary, in short its possibilities in every sense. At the same time, artistic avant-gardism, like the Leninist idea of the leading role of the party to which it offers a partial correspondence, can today appear as little more than an instance of the most arrant nostalgia.
            As the critique of political economy now begins to register the loss of any Archimedean point outside capitalism from which to displace it as a totality and instead must seek the seams along which a molecular disturbance within the system might effect critical transformations, so art seeks neither some impossible place “beyond” itself – not even that small – time out proffered by the pinched academic ironies so common in the mid-to-late eighties – any more than it can rest easy in some ‘kinder, gentler,’ neo-conservative complacency with its own firnitations (here one might cite certain practitioners of the so-called New Romantic Landscape). Rather it demands a more determined examination of the contradictions, not so much of its own semiotics (which have already been ransacked beyond all patience) but of its own ontology.
            It is more than a simple historical irony thanks to which even the most clamant exponents of the century’s avant-gardes, those whose work was seen by others or even by themselves as “anti-art,” have succeeded above all in expanding the resources of art by opening up the range of its materials, its techniques, its critical vocabulary, in short its possibilities in every sense. At the same time, artistic avant-gardism, like the Leninist idea of the leading role of the party to which it offers a partial correspondence, can today appear as little more than an instance of the most arrant nostalgia. As the critique of political economy now begins to register the loss of any Archimedean point outside capitalism from which to displace it as a totality and instead must seek the seams along which a molecular disturbance within the system might effect critical transformations, so art seeks neither some impossible place “beyond” itself – not even that small – time out proffered by the pinched academic ironies so common in the mid-to-late eighties – any more than it can rest easy in some ‘kinder, gentler,’ neo-conservative complacency with its own firnitations (here one might cite certain practitioners of the so-called New Romantic Landscape). Rather it demands a more determined examination of the contradictions, not so much of its own semiotics (which have already been ransacked beyond all patience) but of its own ontology.
            In a famous and misunderstood passage, Harold Rosenberg spoke of the Abstract Expressionists’ discovery of the canvas as “an arena in which to act.” His (and their) insight remains valid, at least to the extent to which we can purge it of a certain prejudicial sense of melodrama. Rather than an arena for action, we can simply say that painting is a delimited space in which an event takes place. What kind of paradoxes, I would like to suggest that what transpires in painting is the appearance of a disappearance. Let’s take some signal examples. In 1988 the Metropolitan Museum displayed, thanks to a loan from Barbara Piasecki Johnson, Mantegna’s Descent of Christ into Limbo. As is conventional for this scene, the gateway to Limbo is the mouth of a cave. What is significant for us is the nature of that cave: not simply a hole, it is truly the entry into a vast and irrational (because measureless) space, a space greater than that of the picture itself, a sublime space -or rather than an entry into such a space, perhaps, it is instead the entry of that space into painting. If this is illusionism, it is one that devours itself, that turns itself inside out. Even more so is the late work of Velazquez, also recently exhibited. When we see a portrait such as that of Juan de Pareja, the incredible solidity and reality of the depicted figure draws us in to view it more closely, but as we do so the image dissolves into the very matter of the medium itself. Velazquez depicts not merely the flesh but also its evanescence in time. In the cubist works of Picasso and Braque, lately seen at the Museum of Modern Art, signs and fragments of space continually elicit their own appearance and disappearance, so that the moment of dissolution can no longer be isolated as a part of the picture, like Mantegna’s cave, or even as a moment in the process of its viewing, as with Velazquez, but is dispersed throughout the picture and throughout one’s perception of it; indeed this “anthology of destructions,” in Picasso’s phrase, has become identical with painting as such.
            This is the great tradition of painting, and it is one that in our time has been maintained primarily (but not exclusively) through abstraction. It touches the work of Mary Boochever, David Diao, Stephen Ellis, Mary Heilmann, Ika Huber, and Stephen Westfall at various points. Rolfe once wrote of one of Boochever’s paintings, “as something which cannot possibly be entirely present.”
            Diao’s paintings may be elaborate in-jokes about the history of modernism at one level, but at another they are eulogies to a sense of touch so refined as to translate that history into a kind of fairy tale now faintly heard as one falls into the sweetest sleep. And his is only the most obvious example here of how a highly intellectualized, highly sensualized nostalgia for painting as a sequence of prestigious historical practices can lead to a reclamation of some of its conventions not on the basis of their credibility, but of their fictiveness. The grand destructions of modernism having been definitively performed, there remains the possibility of rigging up creations out of the fragments. But what is created is still the sublime space into which something appears to be disappearing. In Westfall’s, case, for instance, this will often be a color that seems to have disappeared behind another color, some light disappearing through other light.
            Ellis’s paintings seem to be about a process of measuring or mapping something whose fluid nature is released by the very act of trying to set out its boundaries, which are thereby blurred, just as with Huber light devours the matter that subtends it.
            With Heilmann and Boochever, the constantly signifying imprint of some painterly activity (extending, in Boochever’s case particularly, to the very construction of the object to be painted) leaves traces suspended in the space between the action that produced them and the meaning toward which they tend. In none of these cases is painting primarily a sign for painting, as with “neo-geo”; it is rather a world where things come into existence in order to depart, joining a silence in which the memories of many paintings murmur.

Barry Schwabsky




REVIEWS

Jeremy Gilbert-Rolfe once wrote of one of Boochever’s paintings, “as something which cannot possibly be entirely present.”