TL;DR
Get business pricing on tools and workshop supplies
- Business-only prices and quantity discounts
- Tax-exempt purchasing
- Multiple users, one account, clear invoices
A Hyperallergic art review examines “David Reed: Terrible Idea,” an exhibition at Rodder featuring the artist’s paintings and drawings dated from 2013 to 2026. The review compares Reed’s approach with Roy Lichtenstein’s and describes how Reed’s optical effects draw on earlier artists while remaining open to revision.
A Hyperallergic review of David Reed’s exhibition “Terrible Idea” at Rodder examines paintings and drawings dated from 2013 through 2026, describing how Reed carries his interest in optical effects into recent work while drawing on artists from earlier eras. The review’s title, “David Reed Went Where Lichtenstein Wouldn’t,” frames that discussion through a comparison with Roy Lichtenstein.
The exhibition brings Reed’s paintings and drawings together, a presentation the review describes as uncommon in his exhibiting history. It includes works spanning more than a decade, among them “#808” (2024–26), made with oil and acrylic on polyester, and “#809” (2025–26), also in oil and acrylic on polyester.
The review describes Reed’s concerns as including color relationships in opaque forms, layered transparencies and shifts between figure and ground. It says his sources of influence range from artists including Barnett Newman, Piero della Francesca and Giovanni Battista Tiepolo to conversations in his studio and emails about paintings in progress.
Rather than presenting the work as a fixed endpoint, the article links Reed’s practice to continued experimentation and revision. It draws on a 2010 interview in which Reed said he wanted to make paintings for the process of finding out about painting, and that he liked getting works back to rework them. The review also recalls his interest in paintings being encountered in the quiet, half-awake space of a bedroom.
Reed’s Paintings Stay Open to Revision
The exhibition matters as a view of an artist’s work across paintings and drawings and across a broad date range, rather than as a presentation of isolated finished canvases. The review suggests that Reed’s optical effects are part of an ongoing inquiry: formal choices such as transparency, color and figure-ground relationships connect to his stated interest in using paintings to test possibilities.
That approach also shapes how viewers might encounter the work. Reed’s 2010 comments, quoted in the review, describe paintings as open to continued alteration and as objects that can be absorbed outside an exclusively analytical setting. This offers readers a way to understand the exhibition’s combination of technical experimentation and personal looking without treating the artist’s statements as a definitive interpretation of every work.
The Lichtenstein comparison in the review’s headline signals a point of art-historical contrast, but the supplied report does not spell out the comparison in detail. The clear takeaway is that Reed’s work is being discussed in relation to both modern optical painting and a wider lineage of artists he has named as influences.
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
A 2010 Interview Informs the Review
The review returns to an interview with Reed conducted by its author in 2010. In that conversation, Reed described paintings made to advance his practice and to let him discover something different. He connected this approach to Milton Resnick’s idea of “studio paintings,” as cited in the interview excerpt reproduced by the review.
Reed also described wanting to be a “bedroom painter”: he liked looking at paintings while falling asleep or waking, and imagined viewers connecting them with dreams and half-formed thoughts. The review uses those remarks to illuminate a show whose dates extend from 2013 to 2026, while noting Reed’s interest in influences that can come from both art history and immediate studio exchanges.
“My paintings are about process but hide the process.”
— David Reed, in a 2010 interview quoted by Hyperallergic
professional artist drawing pencils
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
The Lichtenstein Comparison Needs Detail
The source material provides the review’s headline but does not explain in detail what Lichtenstein would not do or which specific works or artistic choices support that comparison. The article’s full argument about the title cannot be reconstructed from the supplied excerpt alone.
The available material also does not give the exhibition’s opening and closing dates, the number of works on view, or further information about the gallery’s plans. The works’ listed dates establish a range through 2026, but the excerpt does not clarify whether every work was completed before the review or how the dates relate to the show’s schedule.
canvas panels for acrylic painting
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
The Exhibition’s Run and Further Coverage
The immediate next step for readers seeking practical details is to check Rodder’s exhibition information for the show’s dates and access arrangements; those details are not included in the supplied report. The review documents the works and Reed’s stated ideas but does not announce a later exhibition or a new project.
Further discussion may clarify how the review’s Lichtenstein comparison relates to particular works and how the exhibition’s paintings and drawings connect across their different dates. No additional event or forthcoming milestone is confirmed in the source material.
artistic optical effects painting book
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
Key Questions
What is “David Reed: Terrible Idea”?
It is an exhibition at Rodder featuring paintings and drawings by David Reed, with works dated from 2013 to 2026.
What does the review say Reed is exploring?
The review describes his interest in color interaction, layered transparencies and figure-ground relationships, alongside sources ranging from earlier artists to ideas arising in his studio.
Why does the review mention Roy Lichtenstein?
Lichtenstein appears in the review’s headline, “David Reed Went Where Lichtenstein Wouldn’t.” The supplied excerpt does not explain the comparison in detail, so its precise basis remains unclear.
What did Reed say about revising paintings?
In a 2010 interview cited by the review, Reed said he liked to get paintings back and rework them, adding that he almost felt he never finished anything.
Are the exhibition dates and visiting details available?
The supplied report identifies Rodder as the venue but does not provide the show’s opening or closing dates or visitor information. Check the gallery’s current listing for those details.
Source: rss
Halloween Picks
halloween
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
