|
|
|
|
|
|
by Chris Jagers
|
|
July 2010 |
From July 2 - August 1, Northpark Center is displaying an exhibit of various buildings in Downtown Dallas made entirely of Legos. These are HUGE models, many of which focus on the new Dallas Arts District (including the new park over Woodall Rogers). The location is on the second floor, beside the Barney's entrance. Girls, you know exactly where that is.
This is not meant as an fine art exhibit, but rather benefit for East Dallas Community Schools, sponsored by HD Net. Still, its "good strange" and worth a visit. A few pics below and more on my personal Flickr stream.
|
|
Last Updated ( July 2010 )
|
|
Kana Harada just had an opening at the MAC, displaying almost a dozen of her plant-forms. The combination of trees and flowers reminds me of the forest within the movie Avatar. Part plant, part self-aware, these wilting organisms feel like they are from a dreamscape both familiar and wondrous. More pictures here.
Technically, the forms are made with very simple materials, cut foam, glue and sometimes found items used as an armature. The foam has a marshmallow-like surface that captures and holds the light, so that it almost disappears as a material. The construction seems related to oragami, or other paper crafts, where shapes are precut, then shaped and then assembled. Of course, these feel very "open" as if she was able to invent and respond during the construction process. And yet, the sillouette of every leaf feels perfectly natural.
Also wondrous are her low prices. Below is a detail from a full size tree that is around $2000 (the most expensive one). The thing would command any space: Every leaf is handcut and shaped ... the pure labor and attention to detail is stunning. If you are a young collector looking to get started, look no further.
During this time when so many people are arguing about theory vs form, visual vs social, object vs meaning ... it is so refreshing to find an artist that has so effortlessly collapsed all these things into a single practice, almost a meditation. Her beliefs and inspiration come through clearly via her visual form. Her creation of content through aesthetic means (rather than literal means) feels inspirational and provides a model for "the way home."
|
|
Last Updated ( May 2010 )
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Chris Jagers
|
|
March 2010 |
A podcast has recently been released on Frieze Art Fair's site with a panel discussion about Art and Theory. (The most notable figure being Robert Storr, but the entire panel is excellent). When you have 1hr 30min to spare, take some time to listen. It starts slow with a few prepared remarks, and then really gets going during the interaction:
Storr is not saying artists cannot read/practice/apply theory ... but he is calling for a closer examination of theory's relationship to practice. Below, I have (very) loosely paraphrased a few thoughts that stand out to
me:
- I am a phenomonelgist, so I am interested in the thing itself and the attempt to describe that thing. It's ashame when conversation get's reduced to a shorthand of name-dropping authors (the code) to communicate something about a piece in order to get quick communication (the payoff), without the hard work of description. That kind of talk is ultimately unclear and lazy.
- Rather than drown a work of art in theory, I am more interested in getting pulled into the orbit of an object, and then discovering which theoretical tools are most appropiate.
- Theory is transitive, it always has an object. For instance, there is a theory of tap-dancing, a theory of music, etc ... there is no such thing as "theory" by itself.
- It is problematic when an artist promotes a theory out of fear ... as a desperate attempt to legitamize a practice, after the work has been done.
- I have a problem when theory is taught as this thing that is downloaded by art students, and then used to make art. It doesn't work that way.
- Art that is simply an illustration/embodiment of a theory is either bad art, or bad theory.
For more thoughts on this topic, here are two more articles by Robert Storr:
|
|
Last Updated ( March 2010 )
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Chris Jagers
|
|
March 2010 |
 Photo via NY Times
The Sunday edition of the NYTimes featured an article on Ken Price titled " The Blobs Aren't Talking ," by Nick Stillman. While I am happy to see such a worthy artist get the spotlight, the article read more like a Wikipedia survey. The primary contributions by Mr. Stillman's (beyond good gathering of facts) were his perplexity about the work not having explicit "meaning." Even the highlighted quote of the article states, "Ken Price may be having his moment, but don't ask what his alluring sculptures mean." Also, "When it comes to discussing what these oddball shapes might mean, Mr. Price is notoriously elusive."
Would you ask that question about any work of art? To pretend art is simply a vehicle for some message reduces viewers into passive recipients rather than active experiencers. We don't view artwork for knowledge, but rather experience. I am frankly surprised that this "lack of topicality" became the central theme when highlighting Ken Price's career. While survey's can be useful, I would have preferred an attempt to unpack why these quirky visual forms are so enigmatic and attractive.
I enjoyed the article overall, but can't stand it when writers act like "meaning" should be something more concrete and readily accessible.
UPDATE: Perhaps this theme was just a "hook" for general audiences, a (very) subtle introduction to abstraction? I can't tell ...
|
|
Last Updated ( March 2010 )
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Chris Jagers
|
|
February 2010 |
If there were three balls on the floor (1lb, 50lbs, 100lbs) but all the same size, shape, color and surface ... could you tell the difference from just looking? The questions of mass, ambiguity and perception seem to be Jay Sullivan's starting point. I had previously written about his rock-forms here , and now he has just opened a new show at Conduit gallery: More pictures here.
This show included his straw-based figurative work, drawings and his new direction - manufactured "rocks." This includes the smaller "rocks" from before, which people have to touch to understand: the materials are not really natural after all. This context casts into doubt the two large rock-forms in the center of the space, which look semi-natural. You have to knock on them to figure out they are cast iron. But what are they cast from?
Jay has been designing rock forms digitally, a mode that is the seeming anti-thesis of rough natural forms. The line-based prints on the walls are actually schematics of rock-forms he has designed. I overheard him say that he "became interested in how an ambiguous looking design could represent such an un-ambiguous form."
Looking at my photos later, I started to see a relationship between his straw figures and these prints. The line in the prints have wire-like quality, very similar to the wire which pinch his straw-based work into a figurative shape. Except in the prints, the flat schematic lines push on each other.
It is as if Jay progressively isolates one part of his studio practice, and then expands on it. This is a great example of how sorting out the parts of one's activity can become the representation.
|
|
Last Updated ( February 2010 )
|
|
| | << Start < Prev 1 2 3 4 Next > End >>
| | Results 1 - 9 of 34 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Add Comment (0)
