Love (and Ninjas) for Sale

recruit.jpgOkay, so a couple of weeks ago, I was panic shopping in the pouring rain. I needed a gift and I needed one fast.

Luckily, Artist-Xchange is right down the street from me on 16th between Guerrero and Valencia. It’s an odd consignment gallery space that’s kind of a cross between a craft sale and a shared studio.

In the back, I found a nice selection of tee shirts featuring adorable ninjas. No, really. These ninjas were soooo cute. So I scored one of those and wandered around a bit.

The shop has a lot of interesting jewelry, some okay painting and sculpture and some stuff that looked like it would be better suited to hanging off-kilter in a mediocre coffee shop. But as a whole, it was pretty cool. The rent can’t be cheap, but just about everything is reasonably priced, perfect for a patron-in-training.

Currently, I am intrigued by the disembodied pin-up art of Roger Licot. It reminds me a little of the classic falling-panties-and-celery-stalks work of Art Frahm.

Take “The Little Recruit,” above. What has she signed on for? Won’t she be cold? How do her pleats stay so sharp?

4 Comments so far

  1. shy (unregistered) on January 22nd, 2005 @ 1:08 pm

    she would be cold if she was in toronto. oh my god it doesn’t look like it’s going to stop snowing!

    cool post, btw. :) i love san francisco. miss my visits.


  2. Gilllian (unregistered) on March 4th, 2005 @ 11:27 am

    About R Licot’s art: I must say that I am a bit surprised myself by the comment you made, though I respect your opinion , there are people out there thinking that Licot is certainly not painting desembodied pinup art. He represents a facet of erotism rarely seen today, never showing any nudity nor vulgarity. As for the “Little Recruit” you mention, it’s obviously a painting full of humor, who cares what she signed up for?And if you look at many paintings (for example at the Legion of Honor Museum) you’ll see many people dressed in long pleaded costumes, without wondering how the pleats stay so sharp…it is called the Flemish style. And since Licot seems to be from Belgium, his Flemish school is hardly a surprise. I think his erotism and mixture of classic realist technics are very interresting and should not be compared to pin up art.

    But again, I respect everybody’s opinion as well.


  3. bronwyn (unregistered) on March 4th, 2005 @ 12:03 pm

    Well, first of all, the “what has she signed up for” and the bit about the pleats was a joke. A bit of a stream-of-consciousness one, but a joke nonetheless. For someone who can see a painting “full of humor,” you’ve managed to completely miss the humor in my post.

    Second of all, Art Frahm aside (see, another one of those joke things you may have heard of), pin-up artists ARE artists. Ever seen a painting by Olivia? Eroticism and realism don’t get better than that.

    Anyway, wasn’t Botticelli just painting pin-ups? Isn’t it all just about the artist’s and the viewer’s notion of ideal beauty and erotic enchantment? I think you’re misinterpreting the use of “pin-up” as an insult. I did not intend it as one. I don’t believe in this high-brow/low-brow snobbery business. Don’t you think good art transcends all that?

    The bottom line is that I woudn’t have wasted blogspace on Licot’s painting if I didn’t like it.


  4. Gillian Jourdan (unregistered) on March 4th, 2005 @ 11:29 pm

    I certainly have no problem accepting a criticism, and

    indeed, you are right: I certainly did not understand you were joking in your writing at certain points. I have a sense of humor, but you know, writing is not speaking…there’s no ‘tone of voice’ giving clues as whether a sentence is said in a kidding tone or serious tone. (hence the use of emoticons in email and such.). So,yes, I understand and apologize for misunderstanding. I guess the main issue though, is about the art itself, true Art Frahm is an artist, and your Botticelli example is right as well. The difference, (to my eyes anyway,) is that Frahm was mainly depicting girls loosing their underwear in public, and all his girls look like from the same pinup molt, as Licot’s girls or women

    are never shown in a embarrasing moment, they never are the center of attention (ie: everybody looking at the

    girl loosing her underwear) and Licot’s painting also picture women of different types ( I remember seeing at that gallery) the “Voluptuous series” paying hommage to plump women, for example. I just think that in the erotic field of art there is so much of the same

    type of “girls-from-the-same-mold” and Roger Licot is just more of a ‘master’ of composition. But of course, I certainly respect your point of view as well, and certainly did not mean to “jump at you” with my previous post. The main thing really is that we both appreciate art, and I respect you for that as well.



Terms of use | Privacy Policy | Content: Creative Commons | Site and Design © 2009 | Metroblogging ® and Metblogs ® are registered trademarks of Bode Media, Inc.