REGARDING THE FIRST.
I'm sure that it's a requirement of the assignment that there must be a five-paragraph essay accompanying each piece. Or at least I hope so, because I never like to see that. I maintain your art should be able to speak for itself, that you should never have to explain each and every symbolic thing you have done, nor should you have to explain ad nasuem what it means, particularly if you aren't going to explain it beyond "Robert Irwin" and "Sufficiency Economic Philosophy" again and again and again. (the existential individual in society). Even more especially so if you cannot write, refuse to explain certain very poignant elements in your installation (like the giant plates of clear acrylic plastic), and use pretty much the same explanation for each and every piece in the show. It wasn't literally cut-and-pasted into each description, but it sure felt that way. Okay, this part represents Irwin and this part represents Sufficiency Economic Philosophy. Great. But why are the strings not touching the photographs of the children? Why is this piece in black and white and this one is in color? Why do two pieces use candles and the others don't? Come on man USE YOUR MEDIUM.
Frankly, if you must include writing I think it should itself be art, and it should shape what it is you've already done. Maybe ask the viewers questions or say a few scant sentences to get them on that wavelength or mood. You should NOT try to spell things out, particularly when you are incapable of doing so. Art is for expressing, and if it can't express something without the use of words, then really you aren't making art, you're making a life-size picture book or magazine. And that's okay (hell that's really AWESOME now that I think about it...) but only if you're doing that ON PURPOSE.
I'm sorry. Kind of. It's just I expect better from a graduate solo show. You don't really have to prove anything to anyone at that point, so you'd think that would be your one real chance to try something really fresh and out there so you can work on all the dry getting-a-job stuff after your graduation. But then again, I suppose the "nothing to prove" thing speaks differently to the uninspired. Instead of "golden opportunity" it just means "I don't really have to try".
REGARDING THE SECOND
Very typical student show in that it was hit-and-miss, but the hits were pretty cool. There was a film someone had made with a lot of 50's stock footage and soundtracks, that was vaguely about the dangers of the outside world (homosexuals, getting lost, losing your eyesight) and how great machines are. The best part about it though was the TV was in this kind of steampunk cabinet with all these great copper tubes, vents, and facets and stuff. Really cool.
There was a really good typography peace, instructions on writing a love letter. Very knock-knock (playing with the idea of a form letter) but it wasn't that exactly, and it was really nicely done. Good crisp design, read well, made sense.
I was kind of put off that there weren't any title cards, since I know a lot of people in this show I am sure, and I can't send them a little note that says "great teapot!" or anything because I'm not sure whose is what. I will have to do some snooping on DA and on facebook, but even then I won't catch everyone. I did see a painting by Fabian (his style is pretty stable, and also his signature is very legible), and I think Ben may have done the drawing of reflective cups that I really liked, but everyone else got lost in the shuffle, which is a bummer.
The drawing of the cups confirmed for me that drawing (in academia anyway) is still about what it's always been about: tiny, difficult detail and precision. Very little big, expressive stuff done in drawing still -- nothing like my 2nd semester cubist still-life or anything like the apples in the drawing world. That would be too easy, you have to prove you can do something. I'm kind of surprised hyper-realism went to painting rather than drawing, but then again I think the idea is painting is harder, so to get that crisp detail in paint is more of an achievement than doing it on paper with colored pencils.
And why. Was that collage there. Why was there a great big board cut into puzzle pieces with a slapdash collage all over it. That was also a graduate entry, according to the sign, but ugh. Who cares. If that's all the graduates are doing, why are they spending so much money to do it?
I don't think collage, computer graphics, installation, or any of the "new" media need to be alienating, but that seems to be a thing that happens pretty often, and I'm not sure why that is. They can look really good. Or, they can create a poignant dissonance -- make dissonance and ugliness for a very specific reason. Yet whenever you see them in student shows they don't look good, they aren't engaging, and they don't really seem to say anything. It's just like the people are playing with the new medium, and then quickly decided to sneak them into the show. I think there has to be some sort of aesthetic value or at least complexity about a piece, otherwise were just going to assume you did this randomly with no motive and we are going to move on. And that isn't your goal surely?
At least I know I've not been missing anything really. Aside from printmaking -- I still want to get that going once I'm all graduated and moved to my new big table(s).
No comments:
Post a Comment