On this blog, we will explore several major aesthetic theories from realism to postmodernism and engage in a dialogue about the very nature of art. Key contemporary artists will be explored in depth as each theory is unpacked and examined.
Each response should be between 150-250 words in length. These are due on the date listed at the top of each entry,
Wednesday, September 28, 2011
Art Review
Please post your art review comments here no later than Friday, September 30th. This can be a response to a review from www.artreview.com or any review of Leigh-Ann Pahapill's work from another website.
I read a review on Analia Saban’s work. Analia has a very interesting body of work especially her “Grayscale” series. The title of the series gives away the fact that all of the paintings are grey which spoil the initial surprise factor for the viewer. However she made up for this by cleverly manipulate her limited choice of gray to produce a very creative work. In one of her work called Representation of a Chair she painted an acrylic mixed with wax encaustic on top of a chair, wait for the paint to dry, peel off the paint skin, and stick it on a canvas. This work really strikes me because it really reminds me of Magritte’s pipe as well as our class discussion on Plato and realism. In a way her chair is more “real” than any other representational painting of a chair because her paint was actually one with the chair (that was made by a sculptor – only twice removed). She also puzzles the viewer by introducing a third dimension into her painting which makes it difficult to categorize her work as a painting or a sculpture. A good example of this is in her piece called Representation of an Apple where she constructed a three dimensional apple out of a pure lump of gray acrylic paint mixed with wax encaustic.
I honestly do not know what the reviewer of this particular article, Jason Foumberg, is trying to say. Seriously: WHAT IS HIS FREAKING DEAL. What I essentially got from reading the review was that Foumberg needs everything spelled out for him. He bemoans the lack of clarity in Leigh-Ann Paphill's instillation piece at DoVA Temporary, says that her choice of materials are outdated (as are her choices of philosophical thought) and that her work is inaccessible. First off, his lame attempt at a joke concerning the model of projector that Leigh-Ann used is anything but funny. Number one: maybe is was a conscious choice on her part to use older equipment (I remember her saying that nostalgia played a key role in this piece, concerning people's emotional response to the old chair in the room. Maybe that bled over into other objects in the room too). Number two: maybe it was all she had to work with. Either way, what is your freaking deal, Mr. Foumberg? "Alongside the overhead projector are schematic diagrams or maps of theories—one can’t be sure since they aren’t labeled. Removed from whatever textbook they first appeared in, here the line drawings only serve to represent an idea, or Idea, without any specificity." What if that was the point? I think that is an ideal that Leigh-Ann is interested in pursuing. She continuously mentioned the "tip of the tongue" state of mind that she wants viewers to enter into and if you want things to be all nicely labeled and explain to you (like in a textbook) why don't you just go read a text book? Huh? Punk?! He seems so frustrated that the entire explanation for her work isn't set out for him on a silver platter and I am so beyond frustrated that he won't try to work it out for himself.
Foumberg also whines about the fact that in the video being presented, the gesturing hands are cut off from the rest of the figure. He states that presenting the hands without the rest of their bodies renders the moving hands meaningless. Uhm. Why in the world does it render them meaningless? I think that it's really interesting that Leigh-Ann is exploring language in a nonverbal way and displaying a set of images or "codes" that everyone experiences daily but might not pay attention to without their attention being purposefully focused in that area. Oh my god, this review makes me so angry.
Maybe I just find his review wildly unhelpful and needlessly rude. Criticism is good! Criticism is wonderful and healthy and can really strengthen your work. But this guy just comes off like a snob and doesn't really even explain why he doesn't like the piece. His biggest complaint is that the work is cluttered. I believe that that is just a quality that goes along with Leigh-Ann's work. It's a stylistic choice. Saying her work is too cluttered is like saying Picasso's work is too flat. Please write something when you have something interesting to actually say, Mr. Foumberg. In the mean time, go away.
I read a review of a double exhibit featuring Barbara Hepworth and Eva Rothschild at the Hepworth Wakefield in Yorkshire. The two artists are both sculptors and the reviewer, Oliver Basciano comments on what an unlikely pairing they are. Hepworth was a modernist whereas Rothschild is a contemporary with a minimalist style. However, Basciano comments on how surprisingly successful the merging of styles is. In fact, it becomes evident that Hepworth influenced Rothschild’s work in many ways. Rothschild takes Hepworths ideas and moves them in a different direction. In the exhibit the viewer is taken on a journey through time and through the transformation of style. Basciano also comments on the importance of the space their art is displayed in for the success of the exhibit. The art gallery is designed specifically to light the work in the most beautiful way. Basciano spends an entire paragraph talking about the success of the space before he even talks about the art. I think it is important to recognize the impact the surroundings can have on an exhibit and Basciano does a fantastic job of describing the intricacies of the space and the effect the rooms have on the work. Also, I think Basciano uses language well to help the viewer imagine the exhibit. He describes details when necessary but also steps back to look at the greater picture and the interplay between the two artists.
I enjoyed this review more than the one from the New York times. There were more pictures though I thought since the work being discussed was video based it would have been nice to have a short clip. The main thing that bothered me about the review was all of the adjectives. Description is great, amazing even, but there comes a point when I don't want to read more adjectives. I thought the review did a nice job balancing criticism with construction. It said positives and the "negatives" were phrase in a way that wasn't a turn off to the reader of the review.
I chose the review of Ryan Trecartin at the MoMA PS1. I did not see the work in full in the review because it is video pieces which were not offered. However I saw the still frames of them and I really enjoyed the work. It was different and interesting and played with humans which I thoroughly love in photography. The reviewer seemed negative even though what he was saying was not inherently bad. His tone just felt very sarcastic. I feel that this is a trend in art reviews which is interesting. He said that the pieces were realist at it's finest because they played on the cheesiness of America sometimes. I like the way he said that. And I suppose videos are one of the highest forms of realism because they take away the still moment which is just another wall between reality and the expression.
I chose to discuss the review of “Richard Serra Drawings: A Retrospective” by George Stolz. The author begins the review with an anecdote from the personal life of Serrra; as a young boy, Serra would walk along the beach and constantly re-trace his steps, noting how the experience was always different although he walked the same stretch of land. I enjoyed this story because it reflects the origins and ideas implicit in Serra’s work. Stolz then discusses the techniques behind Serra’s drawings, which aren’t so much drawings as large painted sheets of linen. The author’s description of the creative process, Serra’s inspirations, and the inclusion of multiple pictures make his review stimulating and helpful in understanding the exhibit as a whole. While Stolz does criticize the flow of the exhibition, he notes the power of Serra’s images in shaping the perception of space, especially in the corners of the gallery. His final sentences describe a video installation by Serra featuring a disembodied hand grasping at falling pieces of lead, and likens the subject matter to Serra’s own artistic quests. Although he may put himself in situations where he cannot grasp what he searches for, his artistic experimentation and novel ideas solidify his place in the minds of viewers and the art world as a whole.
I read a review about Richard Serra's Drawings a "Retrospective" that was shown in the Met during the summer. George Stolz does not over praise Serra; but definitely commends him for accurately achieve his goal. Serra wanted to comment on the body and how it moves through space and Stolz thinks that these massive, technically considered, drawings does exactly that. The pieces that are shown are large "Belgian" cloth with black paint on them. They are very two-dimensional and have hard edges on these large squares. I personally cannot connect with what Serra and Stolz see just by the review pictures online. I think it would cause a big difference in my opinion to be able to see these in person, especially because I am familiar with Serra's work.
I read a review of Jim Hodge's work at the Camden Arts Center. Laura McLean-Ferris talks about "preserving something young and lovely". According to Ferris, Hodge's work is about preserving memories and creating "frozen relics" of things of the past that should not be forgotten. Ferris focuses on the aspect of "loving too much". Hodges sometimes excessively decorates to create a sense of obsession or love. Ferris believes that these over-decorated aspects of Hodges work provide an escape, an escape to another time or a distant memory. I agree with McLean-Ferris's review of Hodge's work. I believe that the work provides an escape because when I first looked at the work I was completely captivated and focused on it. It is interesting to look at decorating as a comment on loving too much. Decorating and aesthetic beauty can do more than just catch the eye, they can express.
I also ready about Analia Saban’s exhibition "Greyscale." Interesting, either my computer will not load a photo which should accompany the review or this is just a bad website with good reviews.... there is no visual representation on her work. To me, a visual learner, a review is only worth half of its value if there is no visual representation to accompany the review. Anything for gods sake! Its kind of torture. It is equivalent to having to read about a fantastic dish at a fantastic restaurant and not being able to taste the food for yourself... ever. I would give the review a C+ because of its folly. I do appreciate the language though. "in paintings stranded somewhere between wet and dry, soft and hard, finished and in-process, Saban approaches such grand themes as life and death "
I chose an art review of Keith Farquhar’s "More Nudes In Color", shown in Glasgow. The reviewer Susannah Thompson commends Farquhar’s statues and uses positive terminology when describing the works. She goes over the process that was used to create these sculptures. The artist used live models and covered them in the “painterly, gestural manner of Abstract Expressionism and Yves Klein’s Anthropometries. The next step was to photograph them and print them to life size on cardboard sheets. These “print-on demand” statues are a kind of monumental mail art. Thompson looks back on Farquhar’s previous works sharing that the “artist’s broader oeuvre are present: the irreverent titles of the Nudes (Marble Arse, Purple Tuft, Bare Bum, Blue Sky, all 2010) are characteristic of the artist’s love of puns and sixth-form wit, while the careful placement of the works in the gallery is typical of Farquhar’s interest in sculptural ‘staging’". This body of work reminds me of the work that Magritte was doing. From a Far they do look like torso sculptures and the closer you look, you come to realize that you are looking at a picture on cardboard. Its not a sculpture but a photo of a sculpture made to look like one similar to "Ceci n'st pas une pipe".
I read a review on Leigh-Ann Pahapill's work on NewCity Art on her work at DOVA Temporary. The review talks about an installation of her's that reminds of an old classroom setting. The critic sounds like is not a big fun of the exhibit as she goes hard on it. The reviewer specifically states "While Pahapill’s art claims to explore the nature of meaning itself, her installation better succeeds at questioning how an arrangement of objects can possibly express a complex philosophy." Through reading this statement someone can immediately tell that the reviewer is not happy with what she sees as she believes that Pahapill has gone of her topic and her work does not have the effects it should have to the viewer or answers the questions she is interested in. From my perspective, even though I think Pahapill has set up an interesting composition and has interesting aesthetics, I also can not see any exploration of meaning in this work, unless she wants to question the meaning of education and how liable it was back in the day that the objects used in her work depict.
I found a review on a retrospective on Richard Sierra entitled Drawing. As the author of the article points out and I am quick to agree that there is really not much drawing at all in this show, though it is not his usual metal work that one would expect either. Instead, Sierra is showcased by large squares of linen that have been painted completely black and hung in groups or alone, given names like No Mandatory Patriotism, which one could say embody the mood of these black squares. Though there were some videos of Sierra catching lead at this retrospective, in addition to the black squares, it really did not sound like a very in depth retrospective and even the author of the article seemed to feel that the show was some how lacking. I personally adore most of Sierra’s work. I am not quite sure how I feel about these black squares but its just another aspect of his art that makes him unique.
The artist/body of work I read a review on was centered around Keith Farquhar's More Nudes in Colour. In this series of work, Farquhar paints the torsos of live women in an Abstract-Expressionist style, photographs them, and then makes cardboard cut-outs of the torsos. He then arranges these torsos in a circle, allowing the viewer to reflect on the piece while immersed in torsos. The reviewer, Susannah Thompson, seemed to praise this artists' work as being very visually interesting as the flat cut-out form contrasts nicely with the photographed, detailed subject. I really found this exhibit fascinating just through images alone, and after reading Thompson's review I especially want to go experience this strange installation.
I read a review on Analia Saban’s work. Analia has a very interesting body of work especially her “Grayscale” series. The title of the series gives away the fact that all of the paintings are grey which spoil the initial surprise factor for the viewer. However she made up for this by cleverly manipulate her limited choice of gray to produce a very creative work. In one of her work called Representation of a Chair she painted an acrylic mixed with wax encaustic on top of a chair, wait for the paint to dry, peel off the paint skin, and stick it on a canvas. This work really strikes me because it really reminds me of Magritte’s pipe as well as our class discussion on Plato and realism. In a way her chair is more “real” than any other representational painting of a chair because her paint was actually one with the chair (that was made by a sculptor – only twice removed). She also puzzles the viewer by introducing a third dimension into her painting which makes it difficult to categorize her work as a painting or a sculpture. A good example of this is in her piece called Representation of an Apple where she constructed a three dimensional apple out of a pure lump of gray acrylic paint mixed with wax encaustic.
ReplyDeletehttp://art.newcity.com/2009/02/09/review-leigh-ann-pahapilldova-temporary/
ReplyDeleteI honestly do not know what the reviewer of this particular article, Jason Foumberg, is trying to say. Seriously: WHAT IS HIS FREAKING DEAL. What I essentially got from reading the review was that Foumberg needs everything spelled out for him. He bemoans the lack of clarity in Leigh-Ann Paphill's instillation piece at DoVA Temporary, says that her choice of materials are outdated (as are her choices of philosophical thought) and that her work is inaccessible. First off, his lame attempt at a joke concerning the model of projector that Leigh-Ann used is anything but funny. Number one: maybe is was a conscious choice on her part to use older equipment (I remember her saying that nostalgia played a key role in this piece, concerning people's emotional response to the old chair in the room. Maybe that bled over into other objects in the room too). Number two: maybe it was all she had to work with. Either way, what is your freaking deal, Mr. Foumberg? "Alongside the overhead projector are schematic diagrams or maps of theories—one can’t be sure since they aren’t labeled. Removed from whatever textbook they first appeared in, here the line drawings only serve to represent an idea, or Idea, without any specificity." What if that was the point? I think that is an ideal that Leigh-Ann is interested in pursuing. She continuously mentioned the "tip of the tongue" state of mind that she wants viewers to enter into and if you want things to be all nicely labeled and explain to you (like in a textbook) why don't you just go read a text book? Huh? Punk?! He seems so frustrated that the entire explanation for her work isn't set out for him on a silver platter and I am so beyond frustrated that he won't try to work it out for himself.
Foumberg also whines about the fact that in the video being presented, the gesturing hands are cut off from the rest of the figure. He states that presenting the hands without the rest of their bodies renders the moving hands meaningless. Uhm. Why in the world does it render them meaningless? I think that it's really interesting that Leigh-Ann is exploring language in a nonverbal way and displaying a set of images or "codes" that everyone experiences daily but might not pay attention to without their attention being purposefully focused in that area. Oh my god, this review makes me so angry.
Maybe I just find his review wildly unhelpful and needlessly rude. Criticism is good! Criticism is wonderful and healthy and can really strengthen your work. But this guy just comes off like a snob and doesn't really even explain why he doesn't like the piece. His biggest complaint is that the work is cluttered. I believe that that is just a quality that goes along with Leigh-Ann's work. It's a stylistic choice. Saying her work is too cluttered is like saying Picasso's work is too flat. Please write something when you have something interesting to actually say, Mr. Foumberg. In the mean time, go away.
I read a review of a double exhibit featuring Barbara Hepworth and Eva Rothschild at the Hepworth Wakefield in Yorkshire. The two artists are both sculptors and the reviewer, Oliver Basciano comments on what an unlikely pairing they are. Hepworth was a modernist whereas Rothschild is a contemporary with a minimalist style. However, Basciano comments on how surprisingly successful the merging of styles is. In fact, it becomes evident that Hepworth influenced Rothschild’s work in many ways. Rothschild takes Hepworths ideas and moves them in a different direction. In the exhibit the viewer is taken on a journey through time and through the transformation of style. Basciano also comments on the importance of the space their art is displayed in for the success of the exhibit. The art gallery is designed specifically to light the work in the most beautiful way. Basciano spends an entire paragraph talking about the success of the space before he even talks about the art. I think it is important to recognize the impact the surroundings can have on an exhibit and Basciano does a fantastic job of describing the intricacies of the space and the effect the rooms have on the work. Also, I think Basciano uses language well to help the viewer imagine the exhibit. He describes details when necessary but also steps back to look at the greater picture and the interplay between the two artists.
ReplyDeleteMy review: Ryan Trecartin at MoMA PS1
ReplyDeleteI enjoyed this review more than the one from the New York times. There were more pictures though I thought since the work being discussed was video based it would have been nice to have a short clip. The main thing that bothered me about the review was all of the adjectives. Description is great, amazing even, but there comes a point when I don't want to read more adjectives. I thought the review did a nice job balancing criticism with construction. It said positives and the "negatives" were phrase in a way that wasn't a turn off to the reader of the review.
I chose the review of Ryan Trecartin at the MoMA PS1. I did not see the work in full in the review because it is video pieces which were not offered. However I saw the still frames of them and I really enjoyed the work. It was different and interesting and played with humans which I thoroughly love in photography. The reviewer seemed negative even though what he was saying was not inherently bad. His tone just felt very sarcastic. I feel that this is a trend in art reviews which is interesting. He said that the pieces were realist at it's finest because they played on the cheesiness of America sometimes. I like the way he said that. And I suppose videos are one of the highest forms of realism because they take away the still moment which is just another wall between reality and the expression.
ReplyDeleteI chose to discuss the review of “Richard Serra Drawings: A Retrospective” by George Stolz. The author begins the review with an anecdote from the personal life of Serrra; as a young boy, Serra would walk along the beach and constantly re-trace his steps, noting how the experience was always different although he walked the same stretch of land. I enjoyed this story because it reflects the origins and ideas implicit in Serra’s work. Stolz then discusses the techniques behind Serra’s drawings, which aren’t so much drawings as large painted sheets of linen. The author’s description of the creative process, Serra’s inspirations, and the inclusion of multiple pictures make his review stimulating and helpful in understanding the exhibit as a whole. While Stolz does criticize the flow of the exhibition, he notes the power of Serra’s images in shaping the perception of space, especially in the corners of the gallery. His final sentences describe a video installation by Serra featuring a disembodied hand grasping at falling pieces of lead, and likens the subject matter to Serra’s own artistic quests. Although he may put himself in situations where he cannot grasp what he searches for, his artistic experimentation and novel ideas solidify his place in the minds of viewers and the art world as a whole.
ReplyDeleteI read a review about Richard Serra's Drawings a "Retrospective" that was shown in the Met during the summer. George Stolz does not over praise Serra; but definitely commends him for accurately achieve his goal. Serra wanted to comment on the body and how it moves through space and Stolz thinks that these massive, technically considered, drawings does exactly that. The pieces that are shown are large "Belgian" cloth with black paint on them. They are very two-dimensional and have hard edges on these large squares. I personally cannot connect with what Serra and Stolz see just by the review pictures online. I think it would cause a big difference in my opinion to be able to see these in person, especially because I am familiar with Serra's work.
ReplyDeleteI read a review of Jim Hodge's work at the Camden Arts Center. Laura McLean-Ferris talks about "preserving something young and lovely". According to Ferris, Hodge's work is about preserving memories and creating "frozen relics" of things of the past that should not be forgotten. Ferris focuses on the aspect of "loving too much". Hodges sometimes excessively decorates to create a sense of obsession or love. Ferris believes that these over-decorated aspects of Hodges work provide an escape, an escape to another time or a distant memory.
ReplyDeleteI agree with McLean-Ferris's review of Hodge's work. I believe that the work provides an escape because when I first looked at the work I was completely captivated and focused on it. It is interesting to look at decorating as a comment on loving too much. Decorating and aesthetic beauty can do more than just catch the eye, they can express.
I also ready about Analia Saban’s exhibition "Greyscale." Interesting, either my computer will not load a photo which should accompany the review or this is just a bad website with good reviews.... there is no visual representation on her work. To me, a visual learner, a review is only worth half of its value if there is no visual representation to accompany the review. Anything for gods sake! Its kind of torture. It is equivalent to having to read about a fantastic dish at a fantastic restaurant and not being able to taste the food for yourself... ever. I would give the review a C+ because of its folly. I do appreciate the language though. "in paintings stranded somewhere between wet and dry, soft and hard, finished and in-process, Saban approaches such grand themes as life and death "
ReplyDeleteI chose an art review of Keith Farquhar’s "More Nudes In Color", shown in Glasgow. The reviewer Susannah Thompson commends Farquhar’s statues and uses positive terminology when describing the works. She goes over the process that was used to create these sculptures. The artist used live models and covered them in the “painterly, gestural manner of Abstract Expressionism and Yves Klein’s Anthropometries. The next step was to photograph them and print them to life size on cardboard sheets. These “print-on demand” statues are a kind of monumental mail art. Thompson looks back on Farquhar’s previous works sharing that the “artist’s broader oeuvre are present: the irreverent titles of the Nudes (Marble Arse, Purple Tuft, Bare Bum, Blue Sky, all 2010) are characteristic of the artist’s love of puns and sixth-form wit, while the careful placement of the works in the gallery is typical of Farquhar’s interest in sculptural ‘staging’". This body of work reminds me of the work that Magritte was doing. From a Far they do look like torso sculptures and the closer you look, you come to realize that you are looking at a picture on cardboard. Its not a sculpture but a photo of a sculpture made to look like one similar to "Ceci n'st pas une pipe".
ReplyDeleteI read a review on Leigh-Ann Pahapill's work on NewCity Art on her work at DOVA Temporary. The review talks about an installation of her's that reminds of an old classroom setting. The critic sounds like is not a big fun of the exhibit as she goes hard on it. The reviewer specifically states "While Pahapill’s art claims to explore the nature of meaning itself, her installation better succeeds at questioning how an arrangement of objects can possibly express a complex philosophy." Through reading this statement someone can immediately tell that the reviewer is not happy with what she sees as she believes that Pahapill has gone of her topic and her work does not have the effects it should have to the viewer or answers the questions she is interested in. From my perspective, even though I think Pahapill has set up an interesting composition and has interesting aesthetics, I also can not see any exploration of meaning in this work, unless she wants to question the meaning of education and how liable it was back in the day that the objects used in her work depict.
ReplyDeleteI found a review on a retrospective on Richard Sierra entitled Drawing. As the author of the article points out and I am quick to agree that there is really not much drawing at all in this show, though it is not his usual metal work that one would expect either. Instead, Sierra is showcased by large squares of linen that have been painted completely black and hung in groups or alone, given names like No Mandatory Patriotism, which one could say embody the mood of these black squares. Though there were some videos of Sierra catching lead at this retrospective, in addition to the black squares, it really did not sound like a very in depth retrospective and even the author of the article seemed to feel that the show was some how lacking. I personally adore most of Sierra’s work. I am not quite sure how I feel about these black squares but its just another aspect of his art that makes him unique.
ReplyDeleteThe artist/body of work I read a review on was centered around Keith Farquhar's More Nudes in Colour. In this series of work, Farquhar paints the torsos of live women in an Abstract-Expressionist style, photographs them, and then makes cardboard cut-outs of the torsos. He then arranges these torsos in a circle, allowing the viewer to reflect on the piece while immersed in torsos. The reviewer, Susannah Thompson, seemed to praise this artists' work as being very visually interesting as the flat cut-out form contrasts nicely with the photographed, detailed subject. I really found this exhibit fascinating just through images alone, and after reading Thompson's review I especially want to go experience this strange installation.
ReplyDelete