Joash Woodrow - Discovered artist

March 28, 2005 5:35 PM

Joash Woodrow.An artist who's story is not unlike that of Henry Darger - a recluse who's lifetime of work has only recently been discovered. But unlike Darger, Woodrow was British, and a trained artist who studied alongside Frank Auerbach and Peter Blake. And he's still alive. Now this pensioner, who's lifetime of painting, drawing and sculpture was discovered by accident while his family were halfway through incinerating it, is being called "one of the great British artists of the 20th Century" and the price of his paintings, which call to mind Picasso, Soutine and Rouault, are skyrocketing. Aged 77, and confined to a nursing home, he is unwilling to ever paint again or discuss his art, and it is unclear if he is enjoying the benefits of his belated success.
posted by fire&wings (19 comments total)

Damn grammar. First FPP nerves...
posted by fire&wings at 5:42 PM on March 28, 2005

is being called "one of the great British artists of the 20th Century"

By the Yorkshire Post.
posted by raygirvan at 6:01 PM on March 28, 2005

Don't worry about the grammar, this post kicks ass! Amazing talent on this guy, I'll be spending some quality time with your many links, looks like great stuff.
posted by Scoo at 6:11 PM on March 28, 2005

Too often public recognition occurs after a genius is dead, or otherwise incapacitated. Artists often joke about faking their own death, in order to achieve fame. I remember reading a book of short artist profiles -- the great ones, from Davinci to Van Gogh. Out of 100 profiles, I counted nearly a third who died in poverty or close to it. It doesn't pay to be too far ahead of your time.
posted by ember at 6:13 PM on March 28, 2005

Real artists just make art to express themselves and life ... they don't need the art market nor the public to 'be'.

The act of creation is the art ... after that it's just a 'piece of something' you can exhibit for others.

I think all his art should have been destroyed.

@ember: I don't think artists are ahead of anyone - or better say society will never catch up. Artists are in some way willing/driving to explore and/or express themselves in a way most fellow citizens are unwilling to do. Art - as spirituality and politics - means to get your hands dirty and get personally into action, dedicate yourself to something and make a statement. Once again - most people are simply unwilling to do that. No matter if it has been the period of Ovid, Voltaire, DaVinci, Picassso ... or Joash Woodrow.
posted by homodigitalis at 6:45 PM on March 28, 2005

wow, I guess i dont' see that excitement here. Is it that he hid his work? Because the work is pretty low-grade, right?

Darger is more interesting, on so many levels.
posted by undule at 6:58 PM on March 28, 2005

I find Darger more interesting too, but I wonder if that's just a matter of taste.

This guy's work seems a lot less reliant on the "crazy recluse" angle, a lot more capable of succeeding on its own strengths. Some of those landscapes are gorgeous. But a lot of it just looks like every other damn cubist, and cubism has never really done it for me. Just a personal preference.

(Is "cubist" even the right word? I recognize the style, I've seen plenty of it in galleries, but I'm not sure what to call it.)
posted by nebulawindphone at 7:16 PM on March 28, 2005

Woodrow sent just five pictures for exhibition during his lifetime. Faded labels show that two were rejected by the nearby Cartwright Hall in Bradford, one from the Royal Scottish open exhibition, and two by the seminal John Moores competition in Liverpool, where they were not even shown among the also-rans.

Some cannot take criticism or even the mildest negative commentary at all. Possibly explains his life-long consistency at not sharing and lack of engagement now? I think there must be lots out there who, if they could only endure the worlds opinions, might be great actors, musicians, authors.
posted by scheptech at 7:28 PM on March 28, 2005

I'm not seeing it. Maybe the price of the paintings are skyrocketing, but all that means is that flighty rich people have been told they want them.
posted by blacklite at 7:34 PM on March 28, 2005

A note on Henry Darger: There is a very good documentary on him called In the Realms of the Unreal. It really brings to life some of his 15,000 page epic and has some interesting information on his life.
posted by mjresin at 7:38 PM on March 28, 2005

These art-recluses seem, sometimes, to lack manners.

If someone appreciates your art, it is polite to say thank you. There are ways of acknowledging appreciation that minimize your risk of being exploited by the appreciaters.
posted by By The Grace of God at 8:45 PM on March 28, 2005

I'm no art scholar but I do very much like about 25% of the linked pix. They may be often reminiscent of other artists but to me they still stand up/out distinctly on their own merits.

--These art-recluses seem, sometimes, to lack manners.--

But it is HIS prerogative not to want have anything to do with it all. He hasn't tried to foist his works on people - others are tramping into what seems like a lifetime of shy emotiveness if not pain and he's fully entitled to have done with it all. They are assigning arbitrary titles, framing them as they want and selling / displaying them at their whim and Mr Woodrow has to endure the unwanted fame and incursion into his private world. Anyway, he didn't tell them to piss off. And he must have given consent in one form or other.
I'm still intrigued by his shunning of things artistic - you wonder what triggered the withdrawl and whether he's bitter or regretful or if there's been some cognitive degeneration in the background. Artists & writers are so often seemingly incapable of balancing their acute emotional antennae with the outside social world.
posted by peacay at 11:16 PM on March 28, 2005

fire&wings, this is a beautiful post.

I don't understand talk of manners. Woodrow isn't combative or petulant, but from what the few who know him say, someone with a fragile, lonely cast of character who chose to remove himself from the world. Yet the pictures are so tender. He kept watching what he couldn't bring himself to join, and expressed what he saw, from what I can see with eyes constrained by the limits of my screen, with grace and skill and charm.

I imagine he spent a great long while building the courage to have his work seen, then gave up at its rejection, then talked to himself until he didn't have anything left to say. And now that his story is known and the market is doing what it will predictably do, it's easy to react with immediate cynicism. These are investments now, and every word in their defense is suspect.

But I would like to see these paintings myself before I make any lasting judgment. And whatever falsity comes with this story, it doesn't change my natural, instinctive sympathy for an old man so long alone but still painting, still alive to the world inside himself, and now lost to all the attention, good and bad, swirling around him years too late.
posted by melissa may at 11:19 PM on March 28, 2005

I'm no art scholar but I do very much like about 25% of the linked pix. They may be often reminiscent of other artists but to me they still stand up/out distinctly on their own merits.

--These art-recluses seem, sometimes, to lack manners.--

But it is HIS prerogative not to want have anything to do with it all. He hasn't tried to foist his works on people - others are tramping into what seems like a lifetime of shy emotiveness if not pain and he's fully entitled to have done with it all. They are assigning arbitrary titles, framing them as they want and selling / displaying them at their whim and Mr Woodrow has to endure the unwanted fame and incursion into his private world. Anyway, he didn't tell them to piss off. And he must have given consent in one form or other.
I'm still intrigued by his shunning of things artistic - you wonder what triggered the withdrawl and whether he's bitter or regretful or if there's been some cognitive degeneration in the background. Artists & writers are so often seemingly incapable of balancing their acute emotional antennae with the outside social world.

Good FPP fire&wings...especially so as it is your first!!
posted by peacay at 11:19 PM on March 28, 2005

[off topic]
"Food? I don't want any food now. I want more of this feeling..."
Sorry, I have always loved that, F&W.
posted by zoinks at 11:39 PM on March 28, 2005

is being called "one of the great British artists of the 20th Century"

By the Yorkshire Post.

Right. Make sure to subscribe to all the correct opinions by picking the right newspaper.
posted by ori at 12:10 AM on March 29, 2005

Just mild cynicism over the habit of UK regional newspapers to over-hype regional efforts. Last year the Devon papers were all raving about a groundbreaking invention: a device for converting colour to sound for colour-blind users - never mind that you've been able to buy such things from disabiity-gadget suppliers for around a decade.
posted by raygirvan at 2:52 AM on March 29, 2005

Just mild cynicism over the habit of UK regional newspapers of over-hyping regional efforts. Last year the Devon and Cornwall papers were raving about a groundbreaking invention: a device for converting colour to sound for colour-blind users. It was a very good device, but not so groundbreaking; you've been able to buy such things from disabiity-gadget suppliers for around a decade.
posted by raygirvan at 3:00 AM on March 29, 2005

Zoinks - Wow, I chose my username because I didn't think anyone would know what it was.

As for the Yorkshire Post, I think they are reporting on the phenomenon, not passing their own judgement. And you can read some other critical opinion in The Times article, or in the book.

That said, I think this guy is a good example of how a group of critics can get together and create an artist. It's hard to know exactly how to take this story, and his art, which is why I thought it would make a good post. Glad some have enjoyed it...
posted by fire&wings at 3:24 AM on March 29, 2005