The Donald Young Gallery is located on Michigan Avenue inside the Santa Fe building. With a prime location probably comes a prime real estate cost, and so the gallery is forced to take advantage of all its space. It has a small front room set up like a more traditional gallery, but the rest of the works are packed in a small hallway, around the reception desk, and inside two offices.
The artworks outside the main space are positioned in places that make the viewing experience awkward. To view Rodney Graham’s A Glass of Beer and Vancouver Sun, one has to hang around the reception desk while people are working there. Some works located in the offices are difficult to spot, like bear figurines on the desks, and Bruce Nauman’s work on a computer screen; other works don’t recieve their proper space like Chromatic Modernism and photographs from the Glass House Series. In a business sense, displaying work in an office allows potential buyers to see works in a less formal space. However, the choice to use the offices seems to have more to do with space, rather than curation.
In the front room, works are displayed in a more traditional fashion (white walls and pedestals). The contrast between how works are arranged on the south and north sides of the room is distracting. The south side houses four sculptures arranged by color and size. At the center is Rosemarie Trockel’s Abuse of Beauty, to its left is Martin Puyer’s Facedown and to its right are Joshua Mosley’s George Brown and Freidrich Hayek. Mosley and Puyer’s works face in towards Abuse of Beauty. Mosley’s works are placed next to each other and both given white pedestals. This gives the works a sense of unity, and together they are a comparable size to the other two works. The north side of the gallery is not as neatly arranged, and the disparity between the two sides of the room is distracting. It needed to be one way or the other, both was just weird.
The current show is not worth going to see. However, the next exhibition in September will be of Dan Flavin’s work. It is a little surprising to hear his work will be on show, and it will be interesting to see what kind of space solutions the gallery comes up with. While they may have been able to get away with work in offices during the current group show, it will be near impossible with his work.
Sunday, August 9, 2009
Thursday, August 6, 2009
Cy Twombly: The Natural World
The Cy Twombly exhibit, The Natural World, at the Art Institute divides his floral inspired works from 2000 to 2007 into a few clumps of work meant to represent the overall body of his later years. Located in the newly opened Modern Wing, the exhibit seems to be very self-conscious. Somehow, the curators have made the normally assured and unregulated work of Twombly seem tame and aseptic. His works on paper are tied down by frames, and every sculpture has a pedestal. All but one of the rooms had his works arranged perfectly symmetrical by form and color. On one door leading into the galleries, it denotes that the patron should enter the other doors so they can experience the exhibit the way it was meant to be seen: from lighter colored works on paper and sculptures at the beginning, through progressively larger and darker paintings at the end. The curation seemed so strict and opaque, it undermined the intuitive nature of the work itself. Twombly's work continues to stretch the ways we taxonimize art with combinations like photographs of sculptures and paintings/drawings, both on paper, and the continued incorporation of language. Despite the presentation, Twombly's newer works prove that after all these years, he still has not gone soft.
A New Home for Old Friends: The AIC Modern Wing
The Art Institute Modern Wing, which opened in May of this year, is still attracting masses a few months later. The wing brings a sense of pride to Chicagoans and has become a destination for tourists. It is the defibrillator the Art Institute needed. While the museum has always boasted an impressive collection, the works now in the Modern Wing never really had a proper home. They always seemed sparse, tucked away, or just oddly placed. However, now they all have one home that gives them proper due.
The Modern Wing was designed by architect Renzo Piano, whom is probably best known for his work on the Centre Georges Pompidou in Paris. Piano used as many opportunities as possible to highlight the relationship between the museum and the city. The Nichols Bridgeway connects the museum to Millennium Park, and offers brilliant views as the patron passes over Monroe Street. The Bluhm Family Terrace offers a special view of the city from within the museum, but there are plenty of skyline glimpses available from within the galleries as well. Even when viewer enters the wing from the main body of the museum, they get a North facing view of the skyline from within Griffin Court. The frequent views of the city, which one does not find often in museums, are a constant reminder of the symbiotic relationship between museum and city.
Griffin Court, the atrium of the wing, can be entered from the North by way of Nichols Bridgeway and South through the museum. The center is opens to all three stories, and the specially designed skylight floods the wing with natural light. Piano's use of glass, open spaces, and stark white walls make the Modern Wing feel breezy and light, a welcomed contrast to the stoicism and gravity of the museum's main body Neo-Classical architecture. The only aspect of the wing that breaks the mood is the obligatory donor names plastered everywhere; but hey, you gotta make money somehow.
The deceptively slim looking atrium, leads to a surprising amount of gallery space. Just off Griffin Court on the first floor are the Abbott Galleries and the Carolyn and Matthew Bucksbaum Gallery. The Abbott Galleries, located to the West, will house different exhibitions. This is where the Cy Twombly works from 2000 to 2007 are being shown. On the East side, the Bucksbaum Gallery now houses the museum's photography collection. The Contemporary and Architecture and Design galleries are located respectively on the East and West side of the second floor. Both collections have had some recent additions, but the most surprising were the acquisitions for the Contemporary collection. Along side old favorites from the likes of Eva Hesse and Gerhard Richter are recently purchased works by Jeff Koons, Robert Gober, Charles Ray, and Bruce Nauman. The museum has really made an effort to build up their Contemporary Collection, as well as bring out pieces patrons have not seen in a while. Upstairs, the third floor houses the Modern European Collection, containing works by Picasso, Matisse, Dali and others.
A hefty collection is to be expected, but the sheer amount, quality, and diversity of work the museum has on show, combined with the architecture itself, is absolutely breathtaking. The Modern Wing far exceeded my expectations. I would highly recommend it for visitors to the city, and would expect Chicagoans to check it out to welcome the newest member of the city.
The Modern Wing was designed by architect Renzo Piano, whom is probably best known for his work on the Centre Georges Pompidou in Paris. Piano used as many opportunities as possible to highlight the relationship between the museum and the city. The Nichols Bridgeway connects the museum to Millennium Park, and offers brilliant views as the patron passes over Monroe Street. The Bluhm Family Terrace offers a special view of the city from within the museum, but there are plenty of skyline glimpses available from within the galleries as well. Even when viewer enters the wing from the main body of the museum, they get a North facing view of the skyline from within Griffin Court. The frequent views of the city, which one does not find often in museums, are a constant reminder of the symbiotic relationship between museum and city.
Griffin Court, the atrium of the wing, can be entered from the North by way of Nichols Bridgeway and South through the museum. The center is opens to all three stories, and the specially designed skylight floods the wing with natural light. Piano's use of glass, open spaces, and stark white walls make the Modern Wing feel breezy and light, a welcomed contrast to the stoicism and gravity of the museum's main body Neo-Classical architecture. The only aspect of the wing that breaks the mood is the obligatory donor names plastered everywhere; but hey, you gotta make money somehow.
The deceptively slim looking atrium, leads to a surprising amount of gallery space. Just off Griffin Court on the first floor are the Abbott Galleries and the Carolyn and Matthew Bucksbaum Gallery. The Abbott Galleries, located to the West, will house different exhibitions. This is where the Cy Twombly works from 2000 to 2007 are being shown. On the East side, the Bucksbaum Gallery now houses the museum's photography collection. The Contemporary and Architecture and Design galleries are located respectively on the East and West side of the second floor. Both collections have had some recent additions, but the most surprising were the acquisitions for the Contemporary collection. Along side old favorites from the likes of Eva Hesse and Gerhard Richter are recently purchased works by Jeff Koons, Robert Gober, Charles Ray, and Bruce Nauman. The museum has really made an effort to build up their Contemporary Collection, as well as bring out pieces patrons have not seen in a while. Upstairs, the third floor houses the Modern European Collection, containing works by Picasso, Matisse, Dali and others.
A hefty collection is to be expected, but the sheer amount, quality, and diversity of work the museum has on show, combined with the architecture itself, is absolutely breathtaking. The Modern Wing far exceeded my expectations. I would highly recommend it for visitors to the city, and would expect Chicagoans to check it out to welcome the newest member of the city.
Sunday, July 26, 2009
(under)Exposed
(under) Exposed at Carl Hammer Gallery, was a sort of pupu platter of contemporary work. Work ranged from a painting of refugees by Grace Graupe Pillard to a dodecahedron of “Cloud Gate” by Nathaniel Smyth. While it is difficult to judge the show as a whole because of the disparity of work, there were a few artists who stood out amongst the pack.
Alex Fleming's Flying Carpets were tucked away behind the gallery desk and didn't receive the visibility they deserve. The work consisted of two Persian rugs cut into the shape of airplanes. While the two were similar, the more successful was when the carpet was cut to mimic the interior forms of the plane. Whereas the other just seemed to be two scrap pieces combined to fill the space. Fleming's work addresses the issue of globalization in a very simple yet sophisticated way.
South Korean artist, Seung Wook Sim, displayed the work Black Mutated Ornamentation. The piece was a black, oblong blob consisting of layered hot glue on top of a non-visible metal structure. While the work itself is nothing new (actually somewhat reminiscent of some Eva Hesse work), it was a great opportunity to see some of the work coming out of Korea.
The most exciting pieces in the show came from artist Rebecca Kardong. Her works Reverse Alchemy and Inverted Void look like two cherubs gone horribly wrong. The works, which are an extension of her early work with dolls and figurines, are like over exaggerations of fleshy baby dolls. The figures bulge and twist in a way that show off Kardong's strong knowledge of anatomy, to the point she can manipulate it into a believable contorted form. The forms are finished of with iridescent coats of paint, which contribute too their eeriness. I was impressed by what I saw of Kardong's work in the gallery and then online, I highly recommend you take a look.
Alex Fleming's Flying Carpets were tucked away behind the gallery desk and didn't receive the visibility they deserve. The work consisted of two Persian rugs cut into the shape of airplanes. While the two were similar, the more successful was when the carpet was cut to mimic the interior forms of the plane. Whereas the other just seemed to be two scrap pieces combined to fill the space. Fleming's work addresses the issue of globalization in a very simple yet sophisticated way.
South Korean artist, Seung Wook Sim, displayed the work Black Mutated Ornamentation. The piece was a black, oblong blob consisting of layered hot glue on top of a non-visible metal structure. While the work itself is nothing new (actually somewhat reminiscent of some Eva Hesse work), it was a great opportunity to see some of the work coming out of Korea.
The most exciting pieces in the show came from artist Rebecca Kardong. Her works Reverse Alchemy and Inverted Void look like two cherubs gone horribly wrong. The works, which are an extension of her early work with dolls and figurines, are like over exaggerations of fleshy baby dolls. The figures bulge and twist in a way that show off Kardong's strong knowledge of anatomy, to the point she can manipulate it into a believable contorted form. The forms are finished of with iridescent coats of paint, which contribute too their eeriness. I was impressed by what I saw of Kardong's work in the gallery and then online, I highly recommend you take a look.
Framework
Framework, a show hosted by the David Weinberg Gallery, featured the sculpture of Bob Emser and photography of David Weinberg. Overall, the two artists' work complemented each other well, because the general focus of both bodies of work is the breaking down and building up of structures into their component parts. While this was the focus, the most interesting aspect of all the work was the interaction between structure and light.
Bob Emser's work consisted of maquettes for larger public sculptures, and sculptural wall hangings. His materials include steel, wood, and glass and create an overall industrial feel that is furthered by his minimalist, clean lined construction. The work itself is a microcosm of architecture and design, and begins to address the question as to how these differ from fine art. As stated above, the element of light is what gives Emser's work life. The shadows created by the work are probably the most interesting aspect of the work. The level at which some of the sculptures were hung became very distracting. They quickly went from art to shelves when hung at eye level. While the work borrows from design and architecture, I don't think it wants to mimic it exactly, so next time just hang it a little higher to avoid misinterpretation.
David Weinberg's black and white photographs are abstract images of buildings. His works, which are titled Deconstruction and assigned a number, rely on making the familiar unfamiliar. He does so by photographing reflections of buildings, or zooming in on different parts of a structure to eliminate their use and focus on their form. Part of the fun of looking at his work, is trying to figure out exactly what is being photographed. In one of the secondary gallery rooms there is a photograph of an entire greenhouse that explains what the other photographs are of, and really ruins part of the experience. The strength of his work is really in not knowing, and having to appreciate form itself.
Framework was a successful show. The work complemented each other well, and worked towards a common goal. However, the minimal aesthetic combined with notions of construction and destruction, and industrial materials really make for a masculine feeling show.
Bob Emser's work consisted of maquettes for larger public sculptures, and sculptural wall hangings. His materials include steel, wood, and glass and create an overall industrial feel that is furthered by his minimalist, clean lined construction. The work itself is a microcosm of architecture and design, and begins to address the question as to how these differ from fine art. As stated above, the element of light is what gives Emser's work life. The shadows created by the work are probably the most interesting aspect of the work. The level at which some of the sculptures were hung became very distracting. They quickly went from art to shelves when hung at eye level. While the work borrows from design and architecture, I don't think it wants to mimic it exactly, so next time just hang it a little higher to avoid misinterpretation.
David Weinberg's black and white photographs are abstract images of buildings. His works, which are titled Deconstruction and assigned a number, rely on making the familiar unfamiliar. He does so by photographing reflections of buildings, or zooming in on different parts of a structure to eliminate their use and focus on their form. Part of the fun of looking at his work, is trying to figure out exactly what is being photographed. In one of the secondary gallery rooms there is a photograph of an entire greenhouse that explains what the other photographs are of, and really ruins part of the experience. The strength of his work is really in not knowing, and having to appreciate form itself.
Framework was a successful show. The work complemented each other well, and worked towards a common goal. However, the minimal aesthetic combined with notions of construction and destruction, and industrial materials really make for a masculine feeling show.
Friday, July 24, 2009
Gallery KH
Gallery KH's latest show celebrates new work from artists Michael Fitts and Cristine Guerrero. While both artists have very different content and style, the ways in which they paint are very similar to one another. In both cases, the artists paint on flat backgrounds; Guerrero on stark white and Fitts on scrap metal. The two also paint in a photo-realistic way. While from there on, the two bodies of work diverge, these common denominators make for a solid pairing.
One man's trash is Michael Fitts's treasure. His body of work consists of paintings of throw away items on pieces of metal. The subjects, which were meant to be hauled off to the garbage dump to eventually decay, are now memorialized on a material that will span the test of time. Items Fitts has chosen to freeze frame include a Twinkie package, paper planes, a popcorn box, and dress patterns. While the other subjects are classic items that resist dating, the dress patterns are clearly from the 1960's era. They also stand out because the subject matter being painted is flat and more readily shows flaws in creating form, making these works appear less realistic than the others. Overall though, Fitts's body of work is a very poignant way of addressing throw-away culture.
Cristine Guerrero's work consists of several pairs of images in which the formal elements mimic each other. In Dulce IV, a woman wearing a shiny-red dress with a sweetheart neckline is matched up with a red heart-shaped lollipop. Fresquita Como Una Rosa II pairs a pink frilly skirt with a pink rose. A woman's behind is paired with ice cream in Quedarse Helado. These and all the other works juxtapose parts of women's bodies with food, flowers, or objects from traditional women's work (i.e. sewing needles). The work has good intentions in addressing the commodification of parts of the female anatomy and clothing contributing to this, but the way the work is executed takes away from the content. Each juxtaposition is created by accentuating common formal elements between the two images, and the work goes directly to the same sort of strategy used in advertising a few years back.
One man's trash is Michael Fitts's treasure. His body of work consists of paintings of throw away items on pieces of metal. The subjects, which were meant to be hauled off to the garbage dump to eventually decay, are now memorialized on a material that will span the test of time. Items Fitts has chosen to freeze frame include a Twinkie package, paper planes, a popcorn box, and dress patterns. While the other subjects are classic items that resist dating, the dress patterns are clearly from the 1960's era. They also stand out because the subject matter being painted is flat and more readily shows flaws in creating form, making these works appear less realistic than the others. Overall though, Fitts's body of work is a very poignant way of addressing throw-away culture.
Cristine Guerrero's work consists of several pairs of images in which the formal elements mimic each other. In Dulce IV, a woman wearing a shiny-red dress with a sweetheart neckline is matched up with a red heart-shaped lollipop. Fresquita Como Una Rosa II pairs a pink frilly skirt with a pink rose. A woman's behind is paired with ice cream in Quedarse Helado. These and all the other works juxtapose parts of women's bodies with food, flowers, or objects from traditional women's work (i.e. sewing needles). The work has good intentions in addressing the commodification of parts of the female anatomy and clothing contributing to this, but the way the work is executed takes away from the content. Each juxtaposition is created by accentuating common formal elements between the two images, and the work goes directly to the same sort of strategy used in advertising a few years back.
Thursday, July 23, 2009
Magnificent Mile Arts Festival
The Magnificent Mile Arts Festival was a major let down to say the least. I had good expectations for it, considering it was a juried show, but left thinking , “Who's responsible for this mess?”
The general set up of the festival was not clear. It was easy to navigate, but there was no flow or continuity from tent to tent. The show had painting, photography, sculpture, and jewelry. It felt really odd going from a jewelry tent into a painting tent. It seemed like it was set up so there were different types of work sprinkled everywhere, but it failed to create any sense of unity within the festival as a whole.
The show featured very traditional work, and didn't try to push the envelope. It was weighed down by paintings of landscapes/seascapes, flowers, and abstract work. One of the most interesting phenomena I noticed were a number of “self-taught” women painting in a type of abstract expressionist style (wrong gender and 70 years too late). The show ignores art movements from the second half of the 20th century, let alone post-modernism. The show just felt very pedestrian, and like connoisseurship was put on hold so the work would appeal to a greater audience base (and most likely have a greater chance of selling). However, to show watered down work to people only perpetuates the “my five year old could make that” attitude towards contemporary work. I'm not saying the whole show needed to be super progressive, but maybe challenge the viewers (just a little)?
On top of expecting a higher caliber of art, because it was a juried show, I expected the artists to be there to talk. I don't know the exact rules for being nominated, but I do know they are expected to show. However, a number of artists were not there; some had a friend or family member in their place (who typically didn't know much about the work) and others had no one. I feel like if you're going to have proxies at the festival, you might as well just have gallerists representing their clients work.
There was good art there, but it was overshadowed by the festival's faults. I will do those artists a favor and not mention their names. The names I should be mentioning are the jurors, but unfortunately I couldn't get a hold of them.
The general set up of the festival was not clear. It was easy to navigate, but there was no flow or continuity from tent to tent. The show had painting, photography, sculpture, and jewelry. It felt really odd going from a jewelry tent into a painting tent. It seemed like it was set up so there were different types of work sprinkled everywhere, but it failed to create any sense of unity within the festival as a whole.
The show featured very traditional work, and didn't try to push the envelope. It was weighed down by paintings of landscapes/seascapes, flowers, and abstract work. One of the most interesting phenomena I noticed were a number of “self-taught” women painting in a type of abstract expressionist style (wrong gender and 70 years too late). The show ignores art movements from the second half of the 20th century, let alone post-modernism. The show just felt very pedestrian, and like connoisseurship was put on hold so the work would appeal to a greater audience base (and most likely have a greater chance of selling). However, to show watered down work to people only perpetuates the “my five year old could make that” attitude towards contemporary work. I'm not saying the whole show needed to be super progressive, but maybe challenge the viewers (just a little)?
On top of expecting a higher caliber of art, because it was a juried show, I expected the artists to be there to talk. I don't know the exact rules for being nominated, but I do know they are expected to show. However, a number of artists were not there; some had a friend or family member in their place (who typically didn't know much about the work) and others had no one. I feel like if you're going to have proxies at the festival, you might as well just have gallerists representing their clients work.
There was good art there, but it was overshadowed by the festival's faults. I will do those artists a favor and not mention their names. The names I should be mentioning are the jurors, but unfortunately I couldn't get a hold of them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)