First Friday Highlights, March 2015 (Experiential Collaboration Forever!!!)

I haven't updated about art I've seen in a while, but a couple of the shows I saw last night made a strong enough impression that I feel like remembering them here.

Andrea Morales' exhibition "Public Play" at Practice Gallery spoke to me as an investigation of the complex social dynamics involved in dating--specifically, how we perform personas within varying social contexts.  The premise of the exhibition was Morales having organised a consecutive series of dates through OKCupid and Craigslist, to be carried out within the gallery.  Documentation of her correspondences with her dates were plastered on the walls for viewers to read when they weren't acting as voyeuristic observers of the activities of the dates themselves.  The dates/ exhibition were all documented throughout the night, and the plan is for the edited footage to be exhibited at Practice for the remainder of the month.

There is so much about the concept and the execution of this piece that I love.  I love that the artist is directing and composing these interactions for the express purpose of manifesting this exhibition, while leaving room for risk, chance, play, and vulnerability (to her collaborator and her audience).  I love that live performance, the documentation leading up to the performance, and the documentation of the performance itself are all integral aspects of the piece.  I love the fact that, even though you are in the room with the artist and her dates, observing their interaction and reading their correspondence, there are elements of their conversations that do remain private/ intimate/ just between them.  Sure, you can see their body language, maybe even catch snippets of dialogue, but you remain at a distance, a member of the crowd--you can't see and hear every element of the exchanges that build the date they are on.

I only had the chance to see one of the dates--the third of the night.  When I walked in, the space was illuminated by red lights.  There was music playing, and I could see the artist and her date sitting on a bench behind parted curtains.  They were both hunched over a camera, presumably shuffling through images.  In speaking with one of the members of Practice, I gleaned that this date had actually been photographing the earlier dates, so they were looking through the images he had taken.  I wanted to make it back to the final date of the evening, which was supposed to be with a female partner, and verge on more sexually charged content, but I missed it unfortunately.

I was sorry to miss the rest of "Public Play," but I was so happy I made it out to New Boone for "Forever," a collaborative exhibit featuring paintings by my studio-mate Kim Altomare and audio commentary by Anne Pagana.  If I had to express my overwhelming impression of the exhibit in one adjective, I would use 'refreshing'--everything about the approach felt like a sigh of relief followed by a breath of fresh air.  First and foremost, the experience of seeing Kim's paintings hung and lit within the context of a gallery space was thrilling for me--so much luster and detail that is hard to recognize when they're leaning against a studio wall came suddenly alive.  It felt like the paintings themselves had been energized/ taken on a new life, and I was so filled with joy for them!  The curatorial detailing--the incorporation of a friendship bracelet-making station [they'd run out of string by the time I got there :( ]; the integration of vibrant pom poms, shimmery sequins, tinsel, streamers, and googly eyes; the coordinated vignettes built out of objects contributed by Kim and Anne's artist friends, placed to keep the paintings company; the hand-articulated signage and decorated CD-players with headphones whose color matched the vibrancy carried throughout--all contributed to the overarching spirit of friendship and collaboration coursing throughout the show.  Walking into the space, every aspect seems to squeal, "Hi! We're so glad you're here! Come be our friend! Stay a while! Look and listen and contemplate with us!"  And how can you refuse that?

Which isn't to say that the content of the work presented is necessarily light or superficial--Kim's paintings incorporate symbolic imagery that alludes to death and violence, and Anne's commentary is deeply meditative.  There is an audio track corresponding to each painting.  I didn't listen to all of them, but those I did made it clear to me that Anne's spoken words access avenues of thought that are quite serious, and speak to a genuine desire for mutual understanding within the insular context of a friendship that exists within the broader, but still insular context of art-making.  There is a sensitivity and consideration for the differences and commonalities in hers and Kim's experiences with and approaches to art and life.  There is frustration and confusion, but also serenity to the acknowledgment that not everything can necessarily be fully understood between two people.  I felt honored to be invited to listen to these meditations, and though they were focused on a personal relationship, I felt included because the concepts being considered speak to interpersonal relationships in general, and art-making practices more broadly.  I got the sense that, though these are complex and difficult territories to navigate, underlying currents of hope, togetherness, and fun can carry us through.

Looking at the show through a feminist lens, I was struck by how it sits within the context of art history, which is so frequently dominated by men celebrating, commenting on, responding to, competing with each other, usually in a very egotistical way that has a lot to do with proving who has the most "genius". The mode of collaboration in "Forever" is definitely in dialogue with that tradition, but from a much more authentic, sincere, down-to-earth perspective.   Celebrating each other does not have to be about proving anything--it can be about inviting everyone into this dynamic of mutual consideration and dialogue, of approaching things in a genuine way, together.

I think I responded to strongly to both of these exhibits because I like what they indicate about where art practice and art exhibition is heading.  There is a sense of breaking things down and exploring them from new angles that I find so empowering and exciting.  It makes me feel a sense of freedom, like there is license to explore new territories and just try things to see where they go.  As there should be.  No more musty, tired art shows ever please!

Final Crit Notes 5/7/12

Me: play video (Face Fill)

SD: Did you do this the night of the senior opening, when you showed up with your face covered in red?

Me: No, I did this 4 times.  This is footage of the first attempt--the night of the opening was the 4th

SD: It's interesting, because this really makes you think of getting ready to go out, and you actually did.

JG: Like a teaser--switching around the chain of events; implying there's more information to be revealed/ building interest

JW: Was each recording different?

Me: The color and light and path of the movement changed each time, because it was spontaneous, and I wanted to try it with different shades.  This one worked the best

TF: Are we seeing what you see? How did you set this up/

Me: Using the camera as a mirror

CA: You filmed this on your own?

Me: Yes

SD: Compared to the other videos--simple and basic.  Action appeals to painting--space to fill.  Sensory thing not in the other work

CA: Simplicity of action. More echos and meanings than prior video--more provocative in simplicity. Why stop at face?

Me: I didn't actually, but the face part worked best.  Filming my body was difficult and choppy and I didn't get what I wanted

MS: Places in video where you could stop--image of eye, nose--think of reversing it

SW: conceptual idea with face? Seems more deliberate

Me: Thinking about contour drawing directly on face

SD: Like deliberateness of how you're filling in--precision around eyes and nose is very satisfying.  When I saw you at the opening, I compared it to Wild At Heart, thinking of a more manic action, but this is really purposeful and paced instead

TF: Like the idea of exploring--sense of joy when you go outside the lines of your lips.  Ending dilemma.  Mistrel shows, baggage of painting face.  Compelling energy.  Conveying sense of 'what if I did this?'

CF: Love the travel of it--going from mouth to cheek to nose, etc.  Trying to figure out what's going on/ what comes next.  Associations fluctuate from clown to war paint--think I have a sense of what it is, but then it isn't--keeps changing

SD: You've been dealing with these cultural norms of beauty (50s icon).  This video is far more interesting than that imagery because it speaks more abstractly about decorating the body--goes beyond social norms

SL: See it as a mask?  Was it like wearing a mask at the opening

Me: That was more of a spontaneous decision as a result of poor time management...But yes, the mask aspect of it is important

TF: Going to the opening, it's like you wanted to continue to contextualize the experience

Me: I was thinking about it as applying to get ready and go out, and thought to try recording the removal as though I'd actually gone somewhere, in later attempts.  Thought it would be more authentic if I actually wore it out somewhere--opportunity to test it.  Also wanted to play with the ending/ prolong the looking at the end

CA: Address that next time.  Ritual paint--there is a point where we wait for gaps to fill in (forehead)--you could edit more; add other sequences in (like Matthew Barney), push more absurd.  Get someone to shoot for you.  Edit to underscore important moves--what would happen if you continue onto body--foot, floor, whole room, whole building?

SD: Can be a trap to push singular action.  This could be the beginning of something else entirely--this video doesn't have to be the main focus.  The next thing might look nothing like this.

TF: Kusama--polka dot environments--how she generates.  Your process is a part of that flow

CA: Keep thinking of that sequence in Cremaster 4 with the tap dancing---absurdity is reinforced with other activity--on screen for less time/ folding in other things actually ends up extending/ prolonging duration.  Take advantage of medium of video.  Love it.

GC: Rooted in high degree of realism--beauty of seeing eye, spots on tongue.  Covering with color makes realist manifest, more powerful--closeness to camera very blunt, where the power is.  Distance from the camera is powerful.

JW: Seems really important for camera to follow where your eyes see, for the narrative.  Elements where the color (flesh/red) or something doesn't work--formal elements?  Narrative is resolved, so crisp.  I feel like we shouldn't be waiting for the resolution we're expecting--we know how it's going to end.  Would like to see a resolution that isn't just the completion of the narrative.

MS: Finding where to suspend what we are waiting for--increase that tension

JG: Messing with chronology (by going to the opening) is really interesting--another level to realism.  Traveling through immediate narrative, but also larger narrative--social cues, class (choosing Revlon versus Chanel; your nose ring--signs that this is a certain person using a certain brand.  How would you apply Chanel? More precious because of price? Different narrative)

SW: Another moment could be capitalized on--concentrate on the gesture.  Moment where time is suspended/ where narrative is frustrated--ending should be longer, slower, elongating time with action

RR: Really rich setup.  Site specific drawing.  So many things--too complex, but you need to figure out.  Sense of descent, abstraction, self-loathing, desire not to be--the color could go to the edges more--when face is not in space but is space--poetic: pace, timing.  Notion of makeup being employed in a way that makeup is not supposed to be employed--should be explored.  Essay on makeup--one on men and one on women.  Masking, purpose of masking seems important.  Eye, mouth as oracle--present, but not given a voice.

GC: Very poetic--very tender in gesture; sensual--strikes me differently than clown or morbid overtones.  Can see you admire yourself; the application is so delicate--caressing, like a lover's finger.  Beautiful moments--on eyelid.  Narrative of topography/ journey of head/ structure of head dictates movement.  Adornment.

SD: Realist--useful way to not just cycle through the literal choices.  Next time maybe not lipstick or makeup.  Surrealist elements could be pushed (most surrealist artists used hyper-realistic imagery)

GC: good journey--start with drawings--keep going!

DF: From my angle, sometimes half the screen would be obscured.  Keep thinking about painting/ covering up part of the screen--become more interesting when things are obscured/ partially revealed

3/12/12 Critique

Me: The audio in the installation is coming from a dream archive I've been keeping since 2007--I've started using it as a way to access myself through personal material. Imagery in the photos is from a 1938 dating guide for single women--I kissed them, scanned them, and blew them up. For the video, I asked people to film themselves applying red lipstick and performing an action--it's a rough copy.

JW: What about the paper form in the installation?

Me: My original idea was to write out the dreams and incorporate them physically into the structure. I built the structure to be this interior space inside another interior space--sort of a parallel to my internal dream space, and once I had it, I decided a sonic environment would be better than directive text.

SPW: Is this the way you imagine the video being installed?

Me: No. Ideally, each vignette would have its own screen

SPW: Organized how--cube, circle, stands?

Me: Something like the Isaac Julian piece at the ICA--surrounded by screens, sometime the images sync up, with choices of where to look. It's been frustrating to have to put it together this way--one sequence

AL: Are you editing them more to focus on the lips?

Me: I haven't cropped or edited them--part of the interest for me was seeing how the people I asked would frame it for themselves--they're not directed

SD: In your previous work, you're creating an aesthetic. What is it like to now be pulling together found images/ other people--a given aesthetic.

Me: Initiating something and then responding to what I get. Embracing my impulse to archive, record, organize--different approach. Only way I could think to make work.

SD: What's your relationship to "archive"

Me: Impulse to record what might matter, organization. The dream archive was never intended for anyone else/ to be shared, but I wanted to make something personal, and it's the most personal thing I've got

SD: Most artists have an archive of some form--hoard images to have an archive that nourishes the work/ feeds us. It's different when that archive actually becomes the work

Me: Investigation of that impulse/ what it's about--initiating and gathering community

SD: Why this action (applying lipstick)?

Me: Thinking about red lipstick as a social signifier--personal experiment: wearing it to see if it changed my mood/day. It did, so I wanted to open it up to more people to explore the relationship of the gesture/material--if the context/associations changed when it wasn't just me

SD: But you're still aestheticizing them--you're not asking them to wear it all day and write about their feelings/experience.

Me: I didn't want to impose it on them...

SPW: What does it signify socially?

Me: Glamour, beauty, power, sex--that's how it's sold

SPW: Interesting to choose video as medium because cinema is used in the same way. History of application of red lipstick

MS: Interesting to see people choose to apply lipstick in the bathroom--very private space

SD: If you're really investigating, you should be skeptical of your own responses to social norms/ tropes--really break things down/ let it expand, rather than stay within agreed-upon response/tropes. The color red is a powerful color in general (if you're walking in the woods and you see something red, you stop to look at it--danger, poison, etc.)--maybe that's why it's come to be used as cultural signifier

Me: Yeah. I want to talk about those tropes and why they're agreed-upon/ expected

SD: That's a trope too, of art language--re-examining the historicized perspectives of eras like the 50s with our "updated" viewpoint. Why not use current source material?

Me: I want to talk about them because they're not in the past, actually. I guess I just like the aesthetic of these better than Cosmo. When I printed them off the Internet, I pinned them up on my wall and just had them there for weeks, not knowing how to approach them, but knowing that there was something worth talking about. Binary thinking still exists--absurd, but serious (funny and bad)

AL: Others experimenting with red lipstick seem not to go to what you're talking about--it seems more like they're approaching it on the level of a daily routine thing.

Me: That's why I wanted to open it up, so it wouldn't just be me obsessing/ my biases.

SL: Want to see more--more imagery incorporated (billboards, etc.). Keep thinking of the form of the lips--Man Ray. Loaded icon. Don't feel the irony in the kiss photos

Me: I didn't feel ironic doing it

SPW: There's more sincerity

Me: Yeah, it's also just beautiful as well, so it's confusing/complicated for me

SD: Important to not just have the work reinforce original conceptual phase. All you say is trope--binary thinking. History of feminism--second generation using against itself. Could it also just be beauty of form?

GC: You need to be the one photographing them

Me: I didn't want it to be just me directing

GC: But this ends up being a collage of what you think looks good together anyway

Sean: Have you made any discoveries?

Me: It's hard to say--I think a lot of people were mostly anxious about filming themselves.

JW: Can see attraction in this. Your clip is totally different--you know what you want. The rest is just pulling together of the group. Yours is most effective. Go after it more clearly. Look at Marylin Minter's video--painting from combined materials--slipping, sliding, visceral attraction/ simultaneous repulsion--all comes from orchestrated video. Installation: house-like, room-like. I went in in the middle of a dream, and stayed through the end of the narrative--that minute and a half was very evocative--I could tell that it was something personal. Relation to you but not to others. Driving at something more forceful. Clearly pushing toward something. Drive at that much more. You going after what you want to say. Strength and conviction.

GC: Color choice. Look there at the image of those 2 lipsticks. Your choice to wear the yellow with the red and the white background--you are conscious about color in a way that those you've asked to participate might not be thinking about those compositional elements. Care less for the bottle image--we've all seen that. But the movement in the eyes in the mirror, or the other sequence when the hair cuts the image straight through...

DF: Disagree about the bottle--yes it's phallic, but when do you ever look at someone like that, just drinking

TF: Long term project, but will be worth it

SPW: Agree with JW and GC--you doing this thing. Sympathetic gesture. The connection of all of these pieces is you as a performer. Cinematic, subjected, appropriated. Not ironic/ agree with SL. Performing to it. Sexualized symbol. Reading dreams and giving people a space to retreat. collecting and performing--desire to re-situate/ document performance

MS: Might not hurt to think about how others arrange their moments (Internet)

GC: See this as bigger impulse. Very Eastern

AL: Confusion coming from involving more people. Think Cindy Sherman--self as perpetuation. What if you were embodying these things. More interested in self--more investigation of self

SPW: Always fail to embody the other as self

TF: Like lipstick as common denominator. Getting someone else to read your dreams could be just as effective (people hearing it wouldn't know). The acoustics of that room are so particular--what if you moved it to a different space. Keep exercising that. Think about focusing the video vs. open call

SD: You're using an aesthetic/ visual approach--own it. It comes through more in the choices you're making with the stills. Aggressive aesthetic action vs. inclusive editing system.

KM: Thinking about your paper pieces last year--flimsy/ fragile. Now this paper piece with igloo-like shape. Audio hard to understand

Me: Echoes/ muffled somewhat through the speaker

Joe: Like the mystery in that

Final Crit Notes circa 12/16/11

This is really belated, but I've finally got some time. It's February break, and I'm visiting with friends in San Francisco! This is my first time here, and I'm loving it--the weather is perpetually my most favorite incarnation of weather (mid 50s with just enough sun and cool breezes to balance each other out), and people I love are here, and the food is astounding and there are palm trees and flowers and mountains and puppies everywhere! Anyway, my friend is working today, so I'm taking a break from being enthralled in order to backtrack and mine this sketchbook before I fill its remaining few pages.

Without further ado, the notes from my final crit all the way back in December:

Me: The installation was the most significant thing for me this semester. Pretty much everything here is an artifact or documentation from it (photos, de-install video, sculptural leftover paper form, drawings made from rubbings/monoprints off of the walls)

RG: Given the energy you spent, this kind of record-keeping, how do you feel about what you're presenting versus the original installation?

Me: I think of these things as an archive--keeping artifacts that I can save or re-use, giving it a new life/ shape. It's not the same experience as walking in/ being inside the original thing, but it offers hints

SPW: I'm interested in this idea of an archive--think about how it is constructed, seeing both. If you think about archival presentation--feels like record-keeping. Performance of de-construction--interesting to you?

Me: Yes, ways of expanding on it

SPW; Hand held--constructing video. Moving like drawing+ objects.

Me: Thanks, that's great because I think about basically everything I do in relation to drawing

SF: What do you want documentation to do? Photos have greater sense of space than video.

Me: Photos are kind of all that's left of what it was

SPW: conducive to archive. Each form does a different thing--how do they operate in relation to each other?

JW: Photo process provides idea of elegance of process--photos point out what was lacking from the installation--think of as a stage, draw from photos. Think about what works and what doesn't. Miss the juxtaposition in the installation. The installation was like a large still life. Need to figure out what it is.

SD: You ask about stance in work--where is the work coming from; how do you push forward. What is your stance on the work--how do you position yourself in the work?

Me: Working with shapes that come from everywhere--manifest into their own thing. Think about energy I want--talk about horror--made this piece darker--looked at how others reacted--people felt afraid.

SD: Watch the Five Obstructions--think about the principle of the film--which things are variable vs constant. Find them and work from--start to inform material choices

SPW: How do you see parallel

SD: sensibility/ taste vs. material. Haven't made it your own. Hasn't allowed it in. Vague--the work is vague

GC: Doesn't like photos/ documentation. Power of the installation was being able to get inside--got inside of what had previously been a planar relationship--photos take it back to 2. Need the interior-ness. Ambitious notion to get inside those shapes--a challenge to explore how to be inside 2D. Danger of documentation is that it returns so rapidly to flatness--lose interior needs of form. Delicacy of big drawing not brought to the installation--rough construction of forms. Crudity--push this notion. How do you get to the interior of the 2D world? Big challenge. Worth exploring

SD: But the photos bring up ideas of light, value not in the 2D constructions. Very useful.

SPW: very specific to photo--having the permission to stare. in imaginary environment

GC: viewpoint so frontal though. In the installation, you are surrounded and that is lost in photos--greater ambition to see what you are proposing. Think about how to explore this--sculpture?

RT: More sculpture--get off the wall. Allan Sarat (sp?). Fine wire mesh--holding own weight--changed the air. John Chamberlain--Dia Beacon. Form of sculptures can inform. Maybe paper too weak, material poor, but wire is good for tape/paper. Move to center of room.

AG: So familiar to how to draw--when scaled up in the big drawing--how do you translate in scale? Don't see beautiful drawing qualities in flatter drawings. What is the right form for this experience. Plaster? Heaviness of form. Love tension. Confrontational vs. fragile. Theme has been in your drawing before. Graceful vs. heavy could be an extension in sculpture. Materials give themselves up as construction. Natural formations--ice/ snow. Gravity. 3D

SD: Photo=different material to think about. Silver-ness--you can't tell it's duct tape--how do you transform materials in the room? How could you? Black takes on strange quality. Get into your work--test material

SPW: material is evident in work. Photo is another material to think about. Ink + paper--how can you explore this material. Broken printer?

RG: Hold onto the intensity/ energy of the room/ in your personality. RT is right--bring into center of the room/space

GC: you move through shapes. 2D can be experience when back is turned to it--can have a presence without seeing it--change the nature of the room. Take 2D and see what it looks like inside of itself. The roughness of paper is right. Look at Keith Hilton. Reduction of color/ world are good way to proceed

AG: Leonardo--good at drawing--seeing body cut open, realizes how inadequate he is, but taught himself how anyway. You did too! Camera is too quick, but way to re-invent yourself--go back and experience slow process of re-invention and discovery--build it again--teach yourself how to see.

SPW: Photo is another way of seeing--not the same as drawing

GC: need different camera--allow to capture the meandering/ surrounded-ness. Photo goes against original notion of expanding 2D--returns to flatness--counter-intuitive

AG: Bloom made drawings of outside/ forest--you are in it.

Crit Notes 9/19/11

Some visuals for reference:







And here we go...

Me: I've been collecting broken glass that I find on the street--that's what these boxes consist of. The canvas is covered in torn paper (that was a summer project), and the wood pieces are scrap...That's all I'll say for now

SD: Can you say more about where it comes from/ the motivating choices?

Me: Basically, just walking around the street, picking up glass--I guess I'm attracted to the way it reflects light, contains color; the aesthetic of the gutter/ the spray paint patterns that happen on the sidewalk--it's like a whole weird construction language. There are all of these found compositions...I take a lot of pictures

AS: Is that in the work here? That jaggedness/ graffiti effect

Me: Not necessarily--the idea of the discarded/ forgotten objects is I think

SD: I think there's a change here from your work from before. There are stronger sensibilities--color choices were more about design principles/ they were more polite. Now things have gotten this gothic-y, more baroque symmetry/ this primary color idea. That could be pushed. Reminds me of artists dealing with subcultures without tropes. Choosing specific sensibilities--you could pressure the tension--how do they grow

AS: Louise Nevelson's wood sculptures--transforming something found into something...spiritual? You're amassing material, line inside of the entire building of it. But also challenged by the paper--the contained experience working on the canvas versus the semi-pictorial structured sculptures

Me: I feel like the canvas was kind of a vehicle toward the boxes. I started gathering the glass because the shards were like physical, ready-made color versions of the paper scraps. It's a more organic thing in a way, picking them up and deciding how to use them

AS: I'm more drawn to the wall sculptures. The painting alone is inward versus opening up. You have this mass-oriented aesthetic. Think about limiting it/ canceling out, trying out help focus/ work with the mess

Me: It is kind of limited already--the palette is limited by virtue of the glass--it's chosen for me. There are predetermined elements--it becomes more about how to present them

AS: Even more

PK: And the color for the light comes about how...

Me: Experimenting, figuring out how it works. The red and yellow made sense. For the green and blue, I had to play around--red was too much, etc.

PK: How are you choosing the texts?

Me: Basically, they physically fit in the space underneath the boxes, so they worked in that utilitarian way. Other than that, I mean, they're books that I chose to buy and read and have around on a shelf in my studio

PK: Did you compose the boxes so that we'd see the books/ the egg carton?

Me: It sort of just worked out that way--I needed a support system for the light bulbs, and that's what I had on hand that worked best (I tried tupperware containers, but they weren't stable enough)

PK: If we run with the clues (the associations that can be drawn from the books), is that good or bad?

Me: You can do that. It might not be what I'm doing explicitly, but sure...

SD: off of what PK's saying, the relation to subject matter--you talk about detritus, but then you use this perfect abstract, formal language to make the objects. Push the deliberateness of the subject; pressurize provisional decisions (what fits better, and why?)

Me: You mean, in terms of why I decide that something works better than another? (like, why blue light vs red light?)

SD: Yes. Formally, not purely balanced. But what you look for points to what you need to find--strong feeling.

PK: I mean, you have these propped up on books about women artists and art school...I just think that's something that can be pushed, directed

CA: I'm interested in the wall sculptures and how they relate to everything else. Yes, the process is similar, appealing, created in the same environment, but there's a huge difference--painting the wood white obliterates the content. Plywood, 2x4s have content--painting them all white papers over the distinctions. The books retain their content--they're intact--that's a different strategy in play. Not saying the same each time, but is the content of the wood not important?

SD: Suspiria, Dario Argento--shattered colored glass--> 70s horror, but not bad. Your visuals/ interests illustrate/ enrich the subject

JW: Are the wood sculptures done?

Me: Don't know--gesso'd them to unify them, but it's only one layer, not really enough, but basic

JW: Gesso'd with intention to paint them?

Me: not really...

JW: It's clear that you're still building a language, that it's really early on--kinks still need working out. I like the expansiveness of the process, that it's inclusive--it's clear that it's in process. I lose the location of the light when I squint, which makes it better--it's not quite the transformation it could be (with the light bulbs). Maybe if the cube could disappear. That pink reflecting on the wood is my favorite part. You're in a tough but great spot. The problems, but also the options are at the forefront. Your folded drawing uncollapsed. Branching out. Push on, expand more, focus on taking it to the level as is implied--theatricality/ subcultures--focus, open towards; make decisions inside the work

SL: Excessiveness--organic out of nonorganic parts. Not the light-- out in the woods/ in the thicket. light unneeded--out of destroyed is glowing of light--stained glass--> spiritual, serene form. The white wood pieces are moderate in scale-- trying to hold back/ be succinct?

Me: More like outbursts--the canvas was such a slow process, wanted something faster to get out what I was trying to do, engage in 3D. Scale is determined more by my arm span/ the table than anything

SL: Out of flat?

PK: The light boxes with broken glass are starting to create space--created, animated explosion. The way they're arranged with the wood pieces creates the kind of space I think you're trying to go for more than any individual piece (walking around the box and almost colliding with the wood piece on the wall behind it, etc.). The red one more than the blue one

NL: Are the boxes finished?

Me: not necessarily. They're the kind of thing that could be built up forever...I'm still collecting glass, I could see adding to them

NL: Have you thought about pushing the drawing farther out from the wall?

Me: Not really. I did turn it around a lot to see horizontal vs vertical...

PK: is the light behind the canvas attached to the wall?

Me: yes.

GC: Do you have a guide for judging when something is working, for judging what is right and wrong? Interest in the impulsive. Reciprocity in how you are doing?

Me: It's more like trying to get at a feeling that matches the feeling of the initial encounter. If it translates, if the feeling matches, then it's 'right' or 'working', if not, then it isn't

GC: since you make a large number of works, is there room for one to critique another? Agree with JW, you're in an interesting place, but this is homeless work, unclaimed, on the cusp of something. You are always open with your work, always granting and responding intuitively--your intuition s getting really strong, but the next step is to bring in torque and tension to that. Important issue to contemplate through making work? Have discourse in the work

SD: work could get a lot more fierce, develop language. divine from the tea leaves, telling you about standardized installation, graphic. suggest and say something, divine the manifesto being presented by the work. Don't keep in niche. Charles Burns--graphic artist. you've got the language of traditional modern, formalized abstraction, but what's emerging is fierceness as sense from the work--that's what could be pushed

GC: said differently, there is of course always a level of energy involved in your work, but the ways of reaching it are not quite up to the same pitch as the energy you're bringing to it. Think blunt and dumb--if you glue the books together , how is the visual image compromised? Even for the gesso--there's something so recognizable about gesso--its absorbency...the white on the wood pieces could reach the same pitch in an energetic way--not that any of this has a laissez-faire energy or the energy of a yawn, but some resolutions don't meet on the same plane.

Me: when I was talking to you before about the mirror piece feeling contrived, I think that issue of pitch is exactly the perfect explanation for what is wrong

(this is the mirror piece, which I didn't show at the crit)

GC: Try in this process. Be flat-footed. Don't ignore or be a gymnast. Seen it from the beginning--theatrical, more lighting from behind doesn't take off. Black-white drawing has its own quality--it hasn't begun to transcend itself. Too accustomed. What is your task-master? What disturbs, pushes? I mean, to me, the lights turn it into some kind of jack o-lantern pumpkin piece...which is really selling it short

CA: picking up on GC etc. Bold moves--all problems on the table but critical eye to see what parts work. You say you have more boxes made, but why aren't you questioning the fact that they're boxes. Are the boxes really doing a service? Alright, it's a quick fix, but how can you make the intuitive better? What if you build forms from just the glass--what about one color? What would that drawing look like with just one light? Does it have to be those colors? Put out with a response, go back, question the elements, one premise at a time. Methodical for critical eye, come back again and go beyond contrivance

SD: make a lot of work. more raw--pull out again--look for what happens in the in between spaces--taking shots of work. I like the little glows--subtlety could come in. Red and blue vs black and white

GC: photograph, draw, paint, document from it, take it apart and put it back together

Extremely Belated Notes from my Final Review

I just realized that in the whirlwind, I completely forgot to post the notes from my final critique, which a friend and classmate of mine took for me...Here they are, about a month late...

Me: I’m playing around with different textures, space. To access something beyond illustrating what I like or what I am attracted to. Figure out what works and what the best way is to go about what I’m trying to do – experimenting with different media and different ways of making what it is I want to make

JL: too much! [I brought a lot of work, because I'd made a lot of work]

SD: how many things do you make a day?

Me: Some days I crank out 50 mono-prints

SD: You have an incredible amount of energy and urgency. It’s a great time to put up certain parameters to get more of a sense of where things are going. Take energy that you make 50 thing in one week and make one thing (smaller). You know that you are going to keep making and making and making, begin to implement structures

Me: Had to stop (come closer) because I was going to go crazy if I kept working on it, this one (come around) was more specific – about space

SD: Definition for ambition changes [when you have this much work] if you did something 10x more ambitious, what would that be?

JL: Your work, more and more has a style. You work towards a signature style, crazy production in the service of creating a very distinctive style

SD: Some of these resist that style, force you to think on your feet a little

SL: (come closer) I like this because it is so inconsistent, has so many styles and layers, find some of the other things too consistent and fast. I think having something bigger than you so you are out of control of is good

KM: Wish I had your energy, always had so much to show me. Not sure if this [9 panels] goes much beyond shreddedness. Think about pushing it, where can you take it? Think about putting something crazy next to something that is less crazy, most successful when it’s crazy next to something more peaceful that I can rest my eyes.

TF: (sculpture) you didn’t feel impulse to put paper on top of this?

SD: Such an urgency about your ideas that you just have to get out ideas and move on. See that really intimidating way, (compare to Picasso show) try so many different ways of attacking the same subject. I think you have to keep nurturing the things that create these things, the feelings, and intuition

SL: doesn’t look like you undo and redo – you don’t stay with one thing and question it enough. How the metamorphosis of one thing can take you different places

JL: waiting for diagonal gesture that cuts across the whole process. Maybe the thing about this work is how much of it there is. I think it would be interesting to consider -- I’m sure you don’t like the idea that the most interesting part of the work is the quantity, but maybe recognizing something like that it might help the work to move forward. All of a sudden there is tons of work, and then the most noticeable part of the work is that there is tons of it – its all about finding some sort of act that can cut across the whole process, to redefine the field.

GC: Here we have a senior undergrad, in a way you can begin to see that there is a system, a belief in a certain sort of language, I think this is a pretty stunning development, changes that are made of it. Within liberal arts context, having the amount of time to make this much stuff is very impressive. I’d like to have it stated that this has been a tremendously important year in terms of opening up the systems of belief in your own structures of working. It is important to make sure you are challenging yourself so you aren’t repeating yourself. Language has opened up a world, this semester this world has been more embracing of different stimuli. How does anyone get into this language when they decide this is what they want to do? This doesn’t seem over productive. But there are things here that need to be picked up on about what they propose.

SD: If I was to think about what are the most important pieces, never seen a senior that has this much quantity to choose from. Take advantage of ability to dive in and give yourself a bunch of evidence – idea of choosing which are best, or is how they are arranged, do they need to exist as a single unit? Do they require a sense of quantity?

PK: I find it frustrating that I can’t figure out [looking at work on ground] if there is a “whole” or entirety. I find this one exciting (come closer) because it has an entirety? – if quantity isn’t something that is satisfying, then you need to figure out what it is about

SD: Working toward a style, resist idea of working things out to a completion. Robert Smithson “all clear ideas tend to be bad”

GC: I think you flirt with just about everything, and nothing is left out. Real journey from earlier pieces hard to imagine that last 10 x 8 would get itself out of painting that is leaning against that wall, but it did. I would rather that it be an evolution, pushing, I think you do respond well to what is visually there and present. It just looks like a lot but it isn’t a lot. Its not about quantity, but it is recognizable in this situation.

AG: What I recognize here is that you’ve allowed the structure of the drawing class to manifest itself in a way that you continue into the painting class. The one place that has shifted this dynamic is when you made (come closer). The only thing you need to do is move away from the beginning of the structure of the drawing class, build 10 of these (come closer) it will slow you down. You had a wonderful year, one that I could not have predicted. You have reinvented yourself with exuberance and incredible energy.

SL: Last summer you said you were interested in the idea of peeling walls, have you abandoned that? Is it inspiring, metaphoric of the kind of image that you want to make?

BU: I’m always looking at things that have elements of things I’m looking for. (pictures of branches, decay, textures and patterns that exist in the world) don’t want it to be that I’m illustrating these things.

TF: these (small, original cut paper studies) are really monumental to me, they are very different than the (9 panels). Never seen the rug look good until right here (white cut out piece)

GC: there is so much happening in this work that we aren’t recognizing, what is the possibility? What is the potential of a non representational shape? What can it carry? What can that world be? We see it in Islamic art. I don’t think it’s building toward object hood, I think it’s building toward the mystery of the layering, what gets locked into that kind of orientation. What gets subtracted and added? Are you really looking at what is below the clusters? Its very mysterious, How do those paintings feed themselves? The work is very delicate and very demanding in terms of looking.

JL: biomorphism is not form, it is anti-form. That can partially account for whether or not there is a lot or not of work. Biomorphism will endlessly proliferate itself, not a way of producing a sequence of forms. So in that way I think this is a lot of stuff, part of the reason that there is a lot of stuff is because you might be regarding these images as a sequence of forms when I’m not actually so sure that they are.

GC: total misreading. This comes out of shape not form. The shape begins to journey through a narrative by the way that is folded. Looking at Picasso’s folded steel sculptures. It isn’t about looking for form, it’s a shape narrative that becomes form.

Honors Review

I just had my Honors Review, which means I stood in the gallery in front of the full studio faculty and explained the progression of my work/ where I'd like it to go, in the hopes that they will let me be a candidate for Honors. It was really fruitful--they gave me a lot to think about. In the interest of remembering, I'll post the notes from the review here:

Me: Explained how I'm sort of in two places at once, but with the same concentration--xacto drawings; tactile paintings, both involving shapes, layers, intensity. Goal is to somehow bring those the two together. Told them how I'd made 3 large 8'x5' canvases, how one is designated for the potential touchable painting idea (explained/described)

JL: Thinks it's asking a lot for people to touch a painting--painting especially because it's so ingrained. Painting is tactile with out having to touch it--you don't have to touch it to experience it--it's enough to want to touch them. Not sure if breaking that particular barrier is in the particular concern of painting

TF: Likes that the same relationship to paper can be seen in relationship to paint--useful and informative--feed off of/ into each other. Also likes assemblage woodcut pieces--like the tip of a great explosion. Also liked consideration of install

SD: Asked if I've thought about different scales--4x8 sheets of plywood--see where that goes.

Me: Told about crates of excess woodcut shapes, desire to gesso them, build them in a way that allows them to climb and creep around over the wall

SD: Liked decision to hang pieces at different levels--freedom

AG: Idea of transformation/ touching paint/ audience participation: agrees with Justin, encourages me to be primary participant/ be the one to transform the painting--eliminate restrictions and initial impulses. Just think about transformation as continuation of what you're doing. Book is testament to how, when focused within limitations (the lightness and subtlety that comes out in those compositions), it can succeed. Paint from that. Different premise--don't be distracted by pre-determined thing. Last year--staying with it transformed. Dwell (move the red, move the orange, find the shape)

SD: In the same way as breaking out of the square, think about breaking away from the wall--cutting open, opening up into the space

JL: Suggested book: High Times, Hard Times about work in the 70s that questioned a lot of the same things--forgotten for a while, but feels relevant again. Interrogating painting--interviews about process/ coming off the wall

SL: More tactile, atmospheric than older work--painted plane was more impenetrable. Likes areas around big globs--like landscape, dissolving into shimmering distance. Would be interesting to touch. But what if you focus your interest on touch, and the painting ends up not looking good? Willing to compromise visual aspects? Some paintings you want to eat, but you don't do that. Seductive quality is the tease--look but don't touch--they do incite the desire

GC: Work coming out of the fact of the material? Book is a physical fact--cuts into material generate the object. Dilemma=positive/negative space. Physical fact sustained--enough ordinary/ extraordinary. Making decisions external to the painting, then back

TF: Suggested Mark Bradford at ICA--video: sanding/ peeling back paper

JL: Interested in what Graham was talking about. Forming shapes, creating support, but isolating surface from support--could get too collagey, not sure of the solution. Woodcut pieces end up looking folksy

GC: Decorative almost

JL: Brought up Supports/Surfaces: Parisian group of artists (André-Pierre Arnal, Vincent Bioulés, Louis Cane, Marc Devade, Daniel Dezeuze, Noël Dolla, Toni Grand, Bernard Pagés, Jean-Pierre Pincemin, Patrick Saytour, André Valensi and Claude Viallat). Questioning boundaries.

AG: Cover of book is solution to painting


So tomorrow they have a full departmental meeting (with Art History) to decide who will be eligible for honors. I'll find out on Wednesday (fingers crossed!)