I went to the Drawing Center on Wooster St yesterday to see Non-Declarive Drawings. Two of my friends from Iowa were in the show, Gianna Commito and Jered Sprecher, and it was a good feeling to see their work in New York.
The show was curated under the auspices of a theme that is difficult, and does not give enough credit to the viewer. The idea behind it being that some drawing/painting is Non-declarative and leaves the viewer to form their own meanings when contemplating the image, as opposed to the painting dictating what to think. Or maybe that an agenda is dictated, but its a false lead, and after your first impression your left swimming in your own thoughts wondering where your first read went. I guess I would like it better if it acknowledged that the drawings are starting points, provide clues, instead of insisting on muteness.
I think some of the work was very hard to approach and think about directly, and lead to tangents that were generated by me, by my day etc, but in other cases the work was speaking a visual language that left it in a more accessible place than the show would have you think. Some of the drawings were just quiet, and I went to school in the Mid-West, quiet is not the same as Non-Declarative, you just have to down shift your mind to think in quiet thoughts and understand them.
I did think the show was quietly provocative. In that it forced you to still your mind and search for where the work is.
Ok, enough on the curation. Back to Gianna and Jered, who both made very interesting contributions, and for me made the show very special.
Gianna made some very exciting drawings. I was looking at them, trying to think of the best way to explain them, and I started to accumulate visual analogies: dirt devils with leaves, polygon explosions in video games, shattered glass, something made by a schizophrenic architect, exploding stained glass, they made me think of California too (I have never been there...). The drawings are dynamic and situated in a shallow pictorial space, they pull you around the space in a way that was interesting perceptually because your eyes moved around, under, and over spaces/planes. I like when paintings are objects that can be meditated on, or provide a static illusion of change/flux, in other words when the can be non-specific illustrations for life, like instrumental music on the radio that you realize is synchronized with your driving. You can approach Gianna's work with either a quiet or a loud mind and enjoy it.
Jered Sprecher makes such benign looking things that they can make you nervous, and you wonder if hes pulling a joke on you. If you assert your mind forcefully you will bowl over the image, if you approach it with skepticism you will miss the lyricism, if you can approach them with a calm mind I think that is when they are best. I have a painting of his from about 4 years ago, and it is very subtle, very interesting, it references old photo albums and Renaissance portraiture with the same set of marks. Jered definitely made work for the show that fits in with the curatorial theme, because you will impose yourself on the work unless you have enough self-control to be patient and look closely. There are definite stories being told (or at least re-constructable processes), but it takes a while to understand them, its a slow read. The work itself has become simpler and sparser than I remember his work being, but there were at least three very rewarding moments of contemplation trying to retrace his thoughts/process and pick through the limited info to detect a story.
2 comments:
I guess I'm a little bit confused by your post. I'm not sure why you consider "the theme" of the show "difficult". Do you mean challenging? Not viewer friendly enough or something? What would be a theme that would be less difficult?
And I don't understand why you feel not enough "credit" is given to the viewer. I believe a show that is based on an explicit acknowlegement of the viewer's role would be giving the viewer a lot of credit.
And I wasn't sure in what cases the "work was speaking a visual language that left it in a more accessible place than the show would have you think". I find the phrase "the show would have you think" especially confusing. When you say "show" do you mean the stated theme of the curator or do you mean the work itself?
I don't think it was the curator's or the artist's intention to be NOT accessible or difficult. And who would evaluate and judge those intentions anyway?
I believe viewers, in general, are conditioned to expect a certain kind of confessional reward or some kind of revealing psychological tidbit from the artists whose work they view. Images from one's "childhood" offer themselves in this way. But is that really giving the viewer "access"? And what happens when the artist chooses not to provide these tidbits? Does the viewer feel shut out?
Anyway, I'd glad you saw the show and wrote about it.
Thanks John. I am happy you managed to find my post, and flattered that you responded.
I felt that the work was much more accesible and understandable then the title for show, Non-Declarative Art, and the curators statement in the catalog suggested.
I was reacting to being informed that I walking into a show that I would not have access to, because the artists make hermetically sealed, clueless, artifacts. I feel like the understatment of the work was being turned in a theatrical piece of hyperbole. That is why I wrote:
I guess I would like it better if it acknowledged that the drawings are starting points, provide clues, instead of insisting on muteness
The curator wrote this about the show in Drawing Papers 71:
Misinterpretation becomes irrelevant as the viewer self-conciously realizes that the work is meant to be read in multiple ways. The reversal of the flow and the elimination of dictation gently lead the viewer to become the creator of indefinite meaning
I think this is a calculated rhetoric, and it denies many clues that all the artists in the show use. Maybe they are more apparent to other artists, and the casual attendee will have a different experience.
I appreciate the debate!
(the courage to misspell - D.D.)
Post a Comment