He knew all the right art-world people but hated most of them and was sure they hated him. He was an aggrieved traditionalist with a pop-culture itch, equally entertained by Rubens and tabloid cartoons. He was a sophisticated artist who helped shape early Modernism, not in a Paris studio but in an attic room over a novelty shop in a resort town on the North Sea.

- Holland Cotter, NYT, 06.25.09

i never saw this work until tonight. thanks moma. “Conservatory” 1902.

James Ensor, Belgian print-maker, seems to be growin’ in popularity.  I wouldn’t be too great of a person to say for sure, cause i ain’t all that old or too involved in knowing the who’s big in the art history world.  Ensor, however, does seem to be everywhere i look in recent times.  Years ago my discovery of him was as a blurb under printmakers chapters or a footnote.  That’s pretty historic itself, not many make that, but i wouldn’t describe him as well known.  This led me to seek works and finding bits here and there.  Later i’d hear people raving about him and see more and more papers or articles on Ensor.

There’s currently a MOMA show goin’ on, so mainstream identification should only grow.  Maybe he’ll move a bit beyond the artists’ artist to the typical college or artsy person’s artist.   Pasted to dormwalls beside Klimts and Van Goghs.  Maybe screenprints on yer tote bag of his Christs or skeletons.  Good i suppose, anything to rid us [or at least lesson us] of all that Warhol and art noveau.

Of course, its probably the paintings that are most catching on.  They are good.  Strong works I couldn’t take anything away from.  The paintings offer some differences from his prints and drawings.  Less about light, more accessible, experimentation with application of the paint.

“Death Chasing Flock of Mortals,” 1896

Here are some things about Ensor as a person that make him cool.

+ didn’t spend his days flocking to artist meccas.  No Paris.  Made do with his home and found his voice through practice and individual focus.

+ political deviant.  advocate for some undefined socialism/anarchism from what i’ve read.  Nothings clear, historians usually lumping him with Socialists or just Anti-Imperialist, but the works seem pretty addressing of power in a variety of forms.

+  scat humor.