Art Review: Rogelio Manzio, Dean DeCocker at Skinner Howard

By Dustin on May 11, 2010 | Reply

I attended the show last saturday and it was amazing in my opinion, I first looked at the pictures from the gallery’s website and I was intrigued but when I walked into the gallery, OMG, my jaw dropped, the 6′ by 6′ paintings are breath-taking, of course the rest of the paintings are very interesting as well, but my favorite has to be THE SWING, a “classical” but modern painting of a lady, nice technique that Manzo is executing with those resin panels, I also loved “The Kidnapping of Natalia”, Sac Town needed a new artist like Rogelio, I think he can contribute something new to the local talent besides the typical landscapes that most of the local artist do well, but hey, that’s what digital cameras are for right?
I found a video on youtube that someone uploaded in case you missed it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GDaa1An-bzg
If this link don’t work just browse ROGELIO MANZO and the video will be there 😉

By Luke Gilliam on May 21, 2010 | Reply

Interesting review Old Man Foster. Well done for seeing the relationship between Rogelio’s work and that of Francis Bacon however I must point out quickly that you have made some mistakes. I have seen some works by Bacon in the flesh in the Tate Modern in the United Kingdom where I live. Firstly Bacon rarely scrambles features in the sense of something being disorganised rather features are heavily distorted. When he does this the features are almost never left intact but in becoming distorted they look like they were rotting. There is journalistic proof of this in many writers who keenly pointed out that the apartments Bacon placed his subjects inside were those of the lower class – drab environments from the pre war years with really depressing furniture and wallpaper. Bacon intended to show the ugly side of British life and purposefully distorted his figures to reveal a decomposed class system that I know all too well being British. He painted rotting flesh and is one of the only people who ever did this very seriously – carcass paintings included. Manzo’s decomposed figures raise a very important question – why is the flesh rotting in the first place. To compare his work with that of Bacon in the first instance is a serious compliment. And if I may be bold enough to add that to make a painting that raises a serious question is a very powerful thing.

I think in reality you have seen something you do not like because you want to see faces that are healthy – Manzo has done an excellent job of declaring that his figures are in themselves a search for the roots of identity – to find out what lies beneath the skin and to make an examination of such. On that note I would say that Manzo’s work is on many levels some of the strongest figurative work going on the commercial art market and your faulty rendition of the Manzo Bacon relationship kind of shows you have not looked closely enough at what the artist has communicated. Sorry to burst your bubble. Excellent work Rogelio.

By Liv Moe on May 21, 2010 | Reply

In reading and rereading your comment Luke I’m not sure what your evaluation of Bacon’s work has to do with the above review aside from your desire to express your admiration for Manzo’s paintings. OMF’s observation referred to the formal aspects of Manzo’s painting style leaving the class struggles you’ve outline above beside the point.

By Mark on May 25, 2010 | Reply

Is this how you treat talented artist like Manzo in Sacramento? I hope not…

What you call an “art review” reminds me of the comments done either by a failed artist or someone who never dared to try to be one at all. At the beginning of your “review” you talk pleasantly about Manzo’s work and technique, but then you turned to very offensive comments like comparing Manzo’s works with those of “amateur comic artists with more experience on learning other artist’s styles than looking at real people”. I am sorry mr., and I don’t really know how much experience you are in the art field or how much art you’ve seen, but I think Manzo’s style is one of the most unique, expressive and intriguing styles I’ve ever seen and I could honestly presume I’ve seen enough to state this. You talk about your expectations about Manzo’s work how it doesn’t reflect that of realistic painters and ergonometric details, or what do you mean where you state that he hasn’t paid attention how a suit or a human face should be worn or look like?, in case you haven’t noticed he is not a realistic artist, he would be considered a figurative artist, I guess you confuse terms?. As far as what I could perceive by visiting the show Manzo has a very unique way of isolating his subjects from their clothes, environment and even their facial features, his way of defragmenting the flesh and identity of his characters is what really makes his work a homerun for me. Contrary of what you say I think he has well integrated his subjects’ physical body and their clothes cleverly, by layering the paint and images on the back and the front of the translucent panels he is tricking the eye, so what you might see as disproportions to me they look like a moving or displacing effect whitch makes it them even more intriguing. And the worse part, you’re comparing Manzo’s artwork with the scribbles of Bacon! I don’t need to say more. I sincerely think the only one owing a nod to someone is you apologing to Manzo. I take you didn’t like Manzo’s work which is fair enough, but why to offend his work in such a manner? I just can’t believe you’re posting this as an art review.

My apologies to you Oldmanfoster, if I’m “bursting your bubble” –sorry mr. Luke for using your line- but I just hate to see young talents like Manzo get hammered by amateur art critics who think they’re contributing to their art community. What concerns me the most is who knows who might read this posting and how serious they might take you. I don’t think you have much experience in the field, do you? It would be fair that you take ownership over comments like this with your real name and not by the use of a pseudonym.

Mark Eveslage
Art Collector, San Francisco, Ca