Katz is very good at his sort of work, which qualifies as a brand, like Warhol was at his. I think he's more Pop than Color Field, but it's what could be called Patrician Pop or Haut Pop or Vogue Pop. It obviously works for enough people with enough money and influence to sustain a long and successful career. No doubt he is a serious, dedicated and committed artist, which is certainly respectable, but he is also a rather limited and mannered one, which puts me in mind of something like Art Deco.
As for the show in question, going by the work shown, I'm afraid it's not for me. The figures look stiff and awkward, like so many posed dolls of the Barbie and Ken type, and the effect is dangerously close to laughable, especially given that this is a rendition of professional dancers. There is a certain color and compositional sense to it, but to paraphrase Gertrude Stein, there's simply not enough there there. And that, in a nutshell, is how I see Katz's oeuvre, though I admit part of my resistance to it is knowing how much money it fetches anyway (and no, I am not a jealous artist, or any artist at all).
A nastier review, which I considered writing, would have called him the Erté of his time. But he's better than that, and standing in front of them was a more satisfactory experience than I was expecting, given that everything you say about him is basically true.
The comparison with Erté is interesting and not unfounded, albeit Erté was primarily a graphic artist and designer focused on fashion who was never seen as a painter.
Katz's work is pleasant in a bland and vapid if stylish way, and as I said, he's quite good at his sort of thing, for which there's certainly an audience. At his best, he can put one in mind of Japanese woodblock prints, which I mean as a compliment. The problem is his work can only do so much and go so far, and the answer to "Is that all there is?" is Yes.
Katz is very good at his sort of work, which qualifies as a brand, like Warhol was at his. I think he's more Pop than Color Field, but it's what could be called Patrician Pop or Haut Pop or Vogue Pop. It obviously works for enough people with enough money and influence to sustain a long and successful career. No doubt he is a serious, dedicated and committed artist, which is certainly respectable, but he is also a rather limited and mannered one, which puts me in mind of something like Art Deco.
As for the show in question, going by the work shown, I'm afraid it's not for me. The figures look stiff and awkward, like so many posed dolls of the Barbie and Ken type, and the effect is dangerously close to laughable, especially given that this is a rendition of professional dancers. There is a certain color and compositional sense to it, but to paraphrase Gertrude Stein, there's simply not enough there there. And that, in a nutshell, is how I see Katz's oeuvre, though I admit part of my resistance to it is knowing how much money it fetches anyway (and no, I am not a jealous artist, or any artist at all).
A nastier review, which I considered writing, would have called him the Erté of his time. But he's better than that, and standing in front of them was a more satisfactory experience than I was expecting, given that everything you say about him is basically true.
The comparison with Erté is interesting and not unfounded, albeit Erté was primarily a graphic artist and designer focused on fashion who was never seen as a painter.
Katz's work is pleasant in a bland and vapid if stylish way, and as I said, he's quite good at his sort of thing, for which there's certainly an audience. At his best, he can put one in mind of Japanese woodblock prints, which I mean as a compliment. The problem is his work can only do so much and go so far, and the answer to "Is that all there is?" is Yes.