Art and Interpretation

Sorry for the delay in posting. I was gone all weekend because I had to be the best man in a wedding Sunday night (and for what it's worth, I drank to much scotch and gave this long runaway train of a toast.....) Anyway...

I thought John Waters made some interesting points. I know it kicked off our discussion in last week's class too, but he talked about how contemporary art is "you haven't learned the magic trick," and talks about things that you can't know, relating it to a biker gang. This certainly is representative of a lot of work, but I think there is so much art that is so simple that people MAKE it complicated. I got to go the Modern Wing for just a little bit on Saturday but I also tried to bring up art, specifically contemporary art, all week to people who are not involved in it. The general consensus is that most people would say they don't like it because they don't understand it. I think it is a western society notion to be offended by something we don't understand and to personalize a public piece of artwork in that way. Why is it that when we see an installation and don't get it, we get angry? We feel left out of something or like we are somehow the personal target of this artist's message. I wonder if it would even be possible to live in a world where we wouldn't get angry when we step into something we don't understand, but allow ourselves to be overwhelmed, to be filled with wonder, to see something new that challenges the conventions of old. It isn't just us. There was a time when a scientist was called a blasphemer and put to death for observing that the world is round. I just hope that within the art world, we acknowledge that the world is round, that it is mysterious and complex and new and challenging. I like that there are still places that I can go in this world and not understand a single thing. I like not having it all figured out.

John Waters and the Yes Men

On Thursday night after class I went to the Yes Men talk at Columbia College, and they use the same tactics that John Waters is talking about with the gay protester. Their whole goal is to be caught in some big public way because that brings their issues to light generally.

Young artists don’t have the money to fight the law but pornographers mafia lawyers do…. That’s fantastic. It’s true to, people always want to yell and scream about everything that they don’t agree with but they forget that it’s those pushes that (arguably) keep society moving foreword, or at least from stagnating.

Language Language

I feel that there is a lot of truth in the words of John Waters. Personally, his point about the vocabulary of the visual arts was particularly insightful. As a person who for the past few years studied the formation and structure of various language systems, I cannot agree more.  If I had to compare contemporary art to a living language, it would have to be ASL.  This connection goes beyond just its visual aspects.  Sign Language has until very recently been thought of as being comprised of a simple set of gestures which mime the language of the hearing.  Similarly, Contemporary art is often thought of as being a crude bastard offspring of the past generations of artists by the layperson.   Study the structures of ASL and its amazing to find that each word is actually made up of smaller parts just like spoken language but wholly separate from English spoken in America.  As Waters says, contemporary art has its own vocabulary and syntax which an individual must learn before they can decide whether or not to hate or love a piece. The culture that surrounds Sign Language is, however, perhaps even more exclusive than the Contemporary art world.  This piece by John Waters might argue the opposite.

sailing with waters

I think it was interesting how he first starts of by saying that contemporary art is art that wrecks what came before it. I feel like when he refers to it this way it is like a game. Contemporary art is a game, and that game hates you. It's almost as if you never win because there is always going to be that one piece that you wont understand. There will always be that piece that you will scrunch your nose and say "huh?" and then think, "Am I missing something?"

Waters is upfront about the fact that contemporary art is supposed to make you angry, and he likes that it makes the viewer or in his case a buyer angry. I think thats might be the thing that even though seems to be true, I disagree with. What happened to making art to be apart of something larger? making art because you want to say something...something that dosnt make you cringe or whatever. sure sure, I believe in shot value but not all art has to be that. not all art has to be about, "fuck all of you." And yes I may sound like an optimist, and I'm not saying we should have sunshine puppies with rainbow eyes...dear lord no...but I'm asking, why the hell does art today always have to be about finding some clever spoof or making art out of spite?

so to sum it up:

Waters=respectable and cool for owning up to what contemporary art is

what contemporary art IS (according to waters)= thumbs down

Water Bucket

Waters has a ridiculous mustache, not ugly nor beautiful, that lends the words coming out of his mouth a dramatic quality. I am confused about the comment "something that is pretty and beautiful is probably the worst thing you could say today." He thinks "angry" art is beautiful, so is he suggesting that beautiful art is a work that makes us laugh or cry or look harder? He acknowledges that his works don't shock people anymore, not because of the words or the themes, but because they expect it.
In "why you should watch filth" he describes the anti-gay evangelists as "bait", meaning that if you are stunned and follow their every word, then they win, in a sense. His work is also "bait" if you feel that everything he is saying is true. The only difference I see is that he isn't taking a stand against anything, but FOR intellectual thought about his work.
I like his sense of humor. He takes his opinion seriously, but if you did, I think he would change it just for shock value. Life is boring and John Waters finds ways to make it less so.

John Waters

John's comment about contemporary art wrecking what came before it intrigued me very much. In my own work, I've developed some techniques that have angered some people. Mostly people who had a vested interest in keeping the older harder techniques being the ones being acceptable. I work in fiber, quilts specifically, which is steeped in tradition. 

John Waters seems like a true artist to me. He isnt overly analytical, even as he explains the reasons for certain works of art and art practice. There's always some ambiguous phrase or strange tone in the way he expresses his ideas that make them vague and sort of poetic, leaving an audience who expected clarification from his talk disappointed, but affectionately catering to a crowd of people who make things themselves and understand the weird, uncertain process of creating an art object. It truly is confusing. Seldom do I begin a piece and know exactly what I will do or how it will eventually look, and seldom is the finished product any easier to place or describe. Waters does a good job of representing the world of contemporary art without really making sense of it, which is perfectly logical, since it doesn't make sense.

First Hand Feedback

    After class on Thursday, I decided to visit the AIC. To my suprise, I found that the Stone gallery exhibiton was taken down, so I went to the second floor of the Morden Wing.  I chose two paintings, in front of which I each stood for a while to try to catch other visitors' comment or reaction to the artwork. While pretending to study the art work, I had more of my attention on the people around me.
    The first painting is "1951-52, 1951-52" by Clyfford Still from1950s, exhibited in the Karla Scherer Gallery . It is an Abstract Expressionism Field painting. "I do not over simplify, instead I reveal the complex" was one of the sentences among what were written in the label beside the painting. On the appearance, It is basically just a really huge black painting with much texture on the surface of the canvas.
    Here are some of the reactions I came across:
    "Amazing, absolutely amazing!" shouted out by a young man while smiling at his lady company. Then he quickly turned away from the work, and both of them had some giggles.
     Two man came in front of the piece. After looking at it for about half a minute, one turned his back at the painting and towords another piece on the wall beside. The other one looked at it a little longer. Shaking his head he exchanged few words with his friend. The former men looked back at the black painting again and shaked his head too.
    Some other people came to the paining without saying a word except a laughing sound.

    There were only two women seemed to really interested in the work, among all fifteen minutes I stood there. One of them was doing the majority of talking as if she was explaning the work to the other person. I was very suspicious of whether the former women had been teaching in SAIC.
    The other painting I chose is from Mark Rothko called Untitled (Purple, White, and Red) in 1953. I heard comments like "Ennn...I don't understand this thing right here." "Boring! Hehe..." "It's just amazing...!"
    Occasionly I saw some people go to the labels. One totally yarned while he was reading. There were a group of high school looking girls appeared really excited to see the artwork. However, one was expressing her thoughts after they finised the exhibition room. "There are some stuff to see and it was really cool! I just don't see paying handreds for it though" she said.
    After staying in the exhibition room for about half a hour, I thought I got a pretty good view of what the general public feel about even just those two morden paintings --most of them felt pretty disconnected. I just wonder if that is how the public still feel about artwork from the morden art era, how much different should we expect them to feel about the contemporary art now in general?

Ugly Toxic Art

If you listen to the John Waters video (on art) and jot down the nouns and adjectives that he uses to describe contemporary art, you’ll end up with a list of powerful words such as: wreck, hate, toxic, and anger. One of the first things he says succinctly summarizes his overall opinion. “ Contemporary art’s job is to wreck the art before it”. In using the word wreck, meaning: to ruin, destruct, and demolish, Waters interestingly identifies the relationship between contemporary art and the art that precedes it.

 Although Waters addresses the contemporary in comedic tone, the aggression in the words he uses to describe it accurately reflect the contemporary’s in-your-face attitude. As we discussed in class, contemporary art tends to be invested in an idea rather than the execution or the final product. Walters point out that calling an artwork pretty is an insult, not a complement. Understandably, this “ugly art” can make the common viewer feel tricked or outsmarted by the artist and work. On the other hand, contemporary art’s wit, experimentation and continuous questioning blurs boundaries that lead to new discoveries and growth.

 In a sense, I share Waters’ amusement with the newness of contemporary art (even if it is toxic), especially since what we now consider beautiful art was at one point as contemporary and confusing as the art of today. 

Filth and Contemporary Art

I really enjoyed watching John Waters’ interviews- namely “some of the best art is deadly” and “why you should watch filth”. In these videos, he deals with the “shock value” of contemporary art that has been difficult for society to digest. As is often discussed in lecture, we have not yet developed a vocabulary for contemporary art and this difficulty frustrates not only the “lay people” but also those involved in the art world. Adding shock to this seems to further separate the viewer from a logical understanding of a piece, but when deeply considered, as in the films Waters discussed, it adds a interesting interpretation of the work that removes the initial shock and reveals an intelligent response to a contemporary question.

What also intrigued me was Waters statement that many of these artists who do use shock use it to gain attention; “publicity hounds” he calls them. He compares them to the anti-gay extremists and religious fanatics whose sole purpose is to capture public attention through radical acts. By responding to these people, he says, we give them the power they are looking for, we’re taking the bait. Are we, then, to ignore the obscene art that is produced in order to maintain our own power as viewers? Should we write off Waters own art as merely attention seeking?

"Contemporary Art Hates You"

There is something that I was thinking about during class that related to what John said about "contemporary art hating you." He says that those who don't understand contemporary art, don't know the magic trick or the vocabulary. In class, we were discussing how the general public doesn't strive to understand contemporary art. Only when a movement is labeled and defined, and art pieces have been mass-digested, does the public find that type of art "agreeable." Some think that those people don't "deserve" to understand contemporary art, if they don't put in the effort. On the other hand, we also discussed how museums don't exactly go out of their way to provide context for contemporary art pieces other than the name, artist, date, and media. I agree with the latter argument. Speaking about someone from the general public, if a person takes the time and spends the money to go to an art museum, I don't think we can pass judgment on their perceived laziness or ineptness about not understanding contemporary art pieces, if they are not presented with accompanying information. If a person doesn't listen to a recording, doesn't read a panel, or doesn't take the time to do their own "digesting," then we can pass judgment. Otherwise, is it realistic to expect the public to do intense research on exhibits and art pieces they haven't yet seen, in preparation for every trip to an art museum?

eaves dropping

I thought it sounded like a fun idea to wander around the modern wing and eaves drop on conversations especially considering that I have experienced first hand the sort of art disasters that can and often do take place. When my parents came to visit 2 summers ago my dad looked at a Cy Twombly sculpture, said 'whutz this piece o junk?' and then flicked it (holy christ dad, you can't touch anything in gentle appreciation let alone a gesture of disgust) and then my well meaning mother nearly broke her toe when she almost tripped over one of those little post and wire barriers meant to keep idiots away from the art. Needless to say I quickly herded them over to the Impressionist paintings and then out the door.

I was expecting there to be a similar level of hushed insanity going on Thursday night but I was surprised.

I tagged along behind a group of 3 women after I overheard one deliver the oft made comment, "How old are your kids? Five? Couldn't they make something like that? Maybe better?" while they gazed at a Cy Twombly painting (poor Cy Twombly, ever the victim of the uniformed). But as I followed them around listening as they looked at two Jackson Pollock paintings, ("Jackson Pollock? Oh, I thought you said symbolic") I felt like they were being responsible gallery goers.

They sort of floated back and forth between "The Key" and "Greyed Rainbow".

They made comments regarding the difference in styles, went and looked at the dates when each painting was made, talked about the things they liked, and they read the wall text. I feel like that is the responsible way to look at art: Look at a thing. Try to gain knowledge about that thing when you do not currently possess any knowledge about it, and gather as much information as possible from what the people who have the information have deemed appropriate to provide to you. Looking and learning. Sure, one of them made one of those "hey-my-kid-could-do-that" comments but over the course of their visit (at least the portion I dropped in for) they faired far better than some who just breezed through in their polo shirts, khaki shorts, and deck shoes muttering something about "This is what they think art is...hm" while never getting close enough to the wall to find out when this shameful piece of crap was made or how it fits in line with whatever they think art is.

My motto is: if you see a piece of shit that you don't think you want to look at, at least find out what it's called, or look at whatever information you've been given about what the artist intended or what it might be about so you can make a semi informed decision on whether or not you would like to look at the piece of shit longer just in case it gets more interesting than you first thought, or whether it's the type of piece of shit that you would rather pass up because there are way more interesting pieces of shit that you still won't understand but are at least pretty, or complex, or well crafted, or more of whatever it is that you like... but at least take a second look.

John Waters

I love watching and watching John Waters "Some of The Best Art Is Deadly". I enjoyed watching all three, but the things he says in the first video really sums up the difficulty of Contemporary Art. It becomes frustrating because even those who are in the art world do not have a vocabulary for contemporary art, even those who are a part of the art world don't know how to digest it. The plethora of artwork being produced and exhibited doesn't help either. Every other artwork does something new and shocks the viewer in a different way.

What John Waters really touched on and really stuck with me was the idea of contemporary art controversy. The first line of the first video frames the controversy: "Contemporary Art's job is to wreck whatever came before it". After the old masters, he says, each generation afterwords wrecks that. Each generation of art tries to out-shock the generation of art before it. The end result: nothing surprises us anymore. Contemporary Art has reprogrammed the way we respond to things that usually disgust, anger, or repulse us. Though art may disgust, anger, or repulse us, we appreciate it doing so, and now we actually are disappointed when art doesn't disgust, anger or repulse us. We seek out things that surprise us and if it falls short in doing so, well, why are we looking at it. Things that are pretty don't do it for us anymore, Waters remarks, unless it's so pretty it's actually nauseating.

At the moment, I feel like there's only one sure way we know how to digest Contemporary Art: how well and to what extent does an artwork surprise us.

Thanks, John Waters, for always getting us talking!

So yesterday was a truly amazing class! Thanks to all of you, Dear Students, for making it amazing. I also would like to thank our dear John Waters for getting us going ever more ...

Here is a recap (if anyone's keeping track and I hope you are) of what we are throwing around about what Contemporary Art may be ... as I said ... nothing is definitive since we are so post-modern, right?

Contemporary Art is:
* Contradiction (possessing a history while being a-historical)
* Largely began after 1980
* More installation work, differing types of mixed media
* More international (less marginalized than the Modern)
* Use of technology
* Self-Consciousness
* Consciousness of Art History (more art historical fodder to work from)
* Often ignite controversy since it is not yet "digested" by society
* As of yet, not really a vernacular for Contemporary Art

Add to this as you all think of something, and even feel free to argue with this list we made yesterday. Either way, as I always say, back up your claims with a sound argument for what you are proposing.

Have a Post Modern weekend ...
CMc

kehinde on badatsports

Kehinde was on the badatsports podcasts on the Friday of the openings.

Kehinde Who?

I spent my Friday in the West Loop Galleries and was surprised at how manageable the crowds were. Having attended openings where you are literally shoulder to shoulder, hot, grumpy, beerless, and dangerously close to the work, this was a piece of cake.

And speaking of cake: Oh Caleb Weintraub… the things you do to me. If I could gage paintings on perceived levels of deliciousness Caleb Weintraub’s show at the Peter Miller Gallery would be a red velvet cake with cream cheese frosting and sugared pecans on top. I sure do like him a whole lot.

I saw his last show at Peter Miller and was thoroughly enchanted by his ooey gooey painterly style and his spookily violent, wildly militant children in their candy coated Ryden-esque fantasy landscapes. And this year it got better. Weintraub’s gone paint crazy and the alluring viscosity of his work has increased exponentially with his experimentations in using dried pools of paint to cover the surfaces of his mixed media sculptures. The sculptures retain all of the charm and fright of their 2 dimensional counterparts. The children still have angelic faces, the adult figures still have an imposing on-the-cusp-of-death presence, and there is still just enough of the real mixed with the impossible to be convincingly unnerving.

There is something attractively repulsive about the lifelike eyeballs and teeth he’s set into the faces of his mixed media sculptures. There is something so good about the heft of Napoleonic man-boobs and a swinging gut, and that goodness is only magnified by the fact that the figures are covered with vibrant swirling pools of dried paint.

These pools of paint have made previous appearances in his work being carted around, shot, stabbed, hung, buried, mourned, blown apart, gathered like flowers and now worn as skins by his child protagonists.

There were things I didn’t like as much. His paintings in the front room seemed to have lost some of the polish and luster that other canvases (like In the Thick of it 2008) still retain. His work usually seems to have a satisfying balance of brushy dishevelment and just enough pulled together slicked-out beauty to make them magnetic and captivating. I felt like some of the paintings in this show lacked that balance and felt unfinished.

Overall I think his work is super-beautiful, it makes me happy, and I feel like he’s discovered a way to explore the vibrancy and paint-ness of paint on a level that is playful, disturbing, and 100% wonderful.

Galleries Visits--Snow

(Cool, I can do new post now. Though I did on one of the people's comment column. I think I may just copy and paste it here as well.)

Even though I wanted to go visit the galleries Friday evening, it did not work out for me until Saturday. With the company of my husbnd, I first arrived at the Addington Gallery in River North. Dispite of not being able to attend the openning on Friday, I think the benefit of going to the galleries Satuday is that it was not as many people around. In the Addington Gallery, I was fortunate to meet one of the artists whose show was going on there. Joseph Haske, a middle age gentlemen, was willing to talk to the his visitors. The Asian printing influence and his advanture of going to Japan about a decade ago were very interesting to me. My husband and I were very suprised to get into the conversation with him and his wife. I value the communication opportunities between different people. I think I will certainly remember Mr. Haske more than the other ones that I saw because of the conversation. At the same time, I undrstand it was fortunate to talk to an artist in those gallery shows because I know a lot of them are probably usually pretty busy people.
Some other works that impressed me are the "Close and Beyond" group sculpture by Jose Cobo in Maya Polsky Gallery and the work of Sheila Finnigan in Josef Glimer Gallery. The former presented sculptures of little children playing, but in a way that they were almost too pure to be of the real world. I love when art took the focus out of what people usually tend to have in everyday life and helped them to revalue it. The later was a group of drawings that were able to help the viewers to relate very emotionally. I love the art that speaks to the audiences in its own direct and visual way that it is hard to think that other lanuages can have the exact same effect.

--Snow

September 10th, 2010

Ok so this was my first art walk in Chicago. All I can say about it was that it was an satisfying and overwhelming experience. I felt like there was so much to see...almost too much. The time given for the galleries to be open just does not seem like a good enough time to see everything. its like going into AIC and thinking you are going to go through the whole museum in one day. Coming from LA, another big city, I must say that Chicago's art walk feels more classy and the quality of the works was just way better than I remember it being in LA. Maybe I just wasnt looking in the right places. Sure there are the Bergamot Stations that have gallery opening all the time, but that was far from my home and in a somewhat ostentatious part of town. Here, yes there is the schmoozing and upper classmen, but I saw students and people of all kind.

There was so much to see I didn't get to all of it. I wanted to take it all in moment by moment so I was only able to go to a hand full of galleries. Some of my favorites are depicted right here in photos . Seeing how I am more of a visual person, I figure I would put a good set of images up.

And then there were these two...

I had no idea what the hell their deal was.

No soup for me.

I didn't do the art crawl on Friday, as I was headed out of town.

So, I read the last chapter in the What Is Contemporary Art textbook, as Carrie had asked me to and I'm posting some thoughts.

1. First, something I was musing about during the lecture on Friday: Yood mentioned the communications between Picasso and his dealer and there being records of such. Communication put on paper. In 100 years, no one will have access to our communications with our dealers. Will something important be lost because of that? I think so, but I can't remember the last time I put a stamp on a piece of correspondence.

2. Still musing from Friday: If museums can't sell  their art to build buildings, but can sell art to buy more art, can they sell art to buy a building that is art? The textbook mentions the Guggenheim at Balboa as being a piece of art itself. If Gehry did another wing, let's say the Contemporary Wing, would that be art that could be paid for by the selling of another piece of art?

3. In the book, conceptual art is being referred to as part of late high modernism. Does that mean it's already out of style?

4. I like the term "Spruikers", "those who use promote their own cause". I think I could use that to insult people without their knowing it. Also, it sounds like yiddish.

5. I write this note "advocates art that has meaningful involvement in the legends, myths and stories that define cultures. I think I'm going to take that as a cue to explore the myths and legends that relate to my own experiences as a fiber artist.

6. My take on the reading was that contemporary art has no one style that has dominated so far and that we are waiting for one to show up and only time will tell. Also, that time will tell if Jeff Koons and guys like him will be considered part of the canon when looking back. Which is something I've been wondering the past few days, after seeing the youtube of Hirst's lambs in tanks.

I enjoyed reading the other posts about the openings on Friday. Will there be a day like that this spring?

Kehinde Wiley

Last Friday I was able to attend the West loop gallery openings, specifically that tight conglomeration located at Peoria and Monroe. There Rhona Hoffman, and across the street, Three Walls and Western Exhibition opened their doors- as did several other galleries at home in what seems to be converted apartment space of 119 N Peoria.

The Rhona Hoffman gallery began its exhibition of Kehinde Wiley, whose bright canvases and high prices attracted a steady crowd. His images depicting young Indian and Sri Lankan men in contemporary western dress juxtaposed on classical Eastern backdrops were the works I was most drawn to, mainly one that, to me, recalled Nicholas Poussin’s “Eliezer and Rebecca at the Well” (1648).

Wiley’s two figures are positioned in front of what appears to be a well, one figure in a typical Christ pose and the other seemingly receiving his salvation. Also included are several female figures, one with a vase, shadowed and in Islamic attire. His placement of the Islamic temple recalls the architectural element in Poussin’s painting that was meant to mark a point of religious significance. Here however, Wiley’s figures are imposing, their bright lighting and western dress clashing with the reserved attire of the women and the soft background. They stand directly in the foreground of the large canvas, a comment on colonialism and the rapid westernization of Eastern cultures, not excluding the Christianization of the people. The two figures also stand on a cement path separating them from the desert scene and even time period behind them. This could be, perhaps, the notion that these people are now separated from their own culture through space, construction and time.

The Places, the People

A small group of students including myself started off on our gallery excursion in River North. We walked into a good number of the many galleries in the area. It slowly but surely became apparent that the less popular the art, the better the food and wine. For the first hour the aim of the trip morphed into the search for the least commercially viable work. We even found ourselves in a yoga studio turned "gallery". Of course, the food there was top notch.  Food aside, it was extremely interesting to watch the variety of people flowing in and out of the galleries.  We even witnessed a couple buying a set of what appeared to be doll clothes made out of newspaper for approximately 8,000 dollars. The woman who requested the doll piece was tall, entirely clad in black and wore a substantial furry vest. The man wore a clean grey suit and a yellow tie. In another gallery, a glass statue of a homeless boy was priced at 30,000 dollars. 

 We also had an opportunity to visit the west loop galleries, which boasted a very different crowd; art students, plaid shirts and gage earrings seemed to be the standard dress. There was very little food in the west-loop galleries, a hint to the quality and popularity of the work. 

Two Conservative and One Craaaaaaazy

The group I was with made our way over to Superior Street in the River North to check out a few galleries. I really enjoyed the work of Valery Koshliakov at Maya Polsky Gallery. He used paint and charcoal and other media on giant paper that was assembled from many different materials and he made it all seem very Russian. Beautiful work-able to be loose like a sketch yet they were complete, ready to be sold off the wall.

Then we checkout out Ann Nathan gallery which was a group showing of mostly representational, mostly figural work. Great showing of the many different approaches that exist within the same context of the figure and really how broad that topic is.

Finally, we hopped a few buses and did some trekking over to the gallery Roots and Culture (which is a fantastic space by the way) to see Carol Jackson's new work. Incredible show. The scene there is vibrant and youthful, young hipsters and dreamers and screw ups all drunk and looking at art together and it felt like home. No smell of a dealer or a collector. Very outsider. Had a kitchen in the back for baking treats and of course serving TONS of alcohol. Awesome.

Gallery visits --Jessie Plotts

Last friday I went to several gallery openings in both River North and the West Loop. I started in a space that was oriented towards crafts, glass and sculpture, though there was some painting and photography. There were three floors of pieces and it was clear that each area was dominated by a particular artist. Scattered throughout were works by others who I assume are lesser known. I guessed that association with bigger name artists is part of the rather vague structure of the gallery system. For people breaking into the scene, exhibiting work alongside someone like Arturo Herrara or Kehinde Wiley is a valuable form of promotion.

As we discussed in class, the rooms were peopled mainly by collectors, artists and dealers. There were also a lot of students. It was easy to tell the difference between these populations. For the most part, anyone under the age of 30 seemed to be along for the ride and the wine rather than for business, shopping or networking. The setting was pleasant and accessible however--not at all condescending.

Gallery Smattery

I began my trek at McCormick Gallery, which represents local artists Bernard Williams, Isak Applin, Andrea Myers and Jenn Wilson. I didn't write down the name of the artist I was interested in during my tour of this gallery, but his/her sculptures of the anthropomorphized blobs were fantastic. I couldn't imagine a better method to sculpt with plungers and lightbulbs. I prefer to pay attention to details of sculptures/paintings/photographs that are highly technical and aesthetically pleasing. These blobs reminded me of the homunculus drawings in medical textbooks.

While sucking down on my ringpop, I headed upstairs to the Andrew Rafcas gallery representing Wendy White's paintings titled French Cuts. I must say I was not intrigued by these paintings. They reminded me of cheap-looking, kitsch graffiti that kids buy as an excuse for clothing at state fairs. I mustered enough strength (thanks RingPop) at this gallery to digest the paintings and look for something that might catch my eye. I came to the conclusion that not all art is created equal and if I am not interested initially, spending 2 more minutes with the piece probably won't change my mind. Don't judge a book by its' cover? Maybe, maybe not. As in Malcolm Gladwell's book Blink, human's have the capacity to gauge someone or something quickly given few inputs.

My star, maybe my idol of the night was Megan Greene and her Audubon drawing series, whose work was being shown at the Carrie Seacrist gallery. I adored these twisted and dissected paintings/illustrations of birds. I was wholly amazed by this work because of the craftmanship, the color palette, and the use of encyclopedic entries as a beginning point of reference.




















Finally, I made my way over to G.R. N'Namdi Gallery, who is representing Angelbert Metoyer. This work was made oftwo distinct bodies of work: splatter-style paintings and illustrations of horses/men. The writing accompanying the work was really difficult and nearly meaningless to digest, but the work itself was intriguing. I believe the artist was using imagery to question racism in America, with one illustration of a man wearing a KKK mask as evidence of this. In his artist statement he tried to develop the story about the "sprectre of racism."

Gallery Crawl

I went to the Zg gallery at 300 W Superior st. they were showing "Remnants of a Radiant Tomorrow: New Works" by Justin Henry Milller. They were fascinating. The vintage prints which he painted over I thought we the most interesting. Apparently I am not alone as these were the ones that sold. There was something about the expression of the people in the original image, it is as if they aware of the change in their portrait. Some seem confused while others appear so excepting of the new additions to their reality.

-Christine Atkinson
ps i really hope this is the right way to do this, if not sorry internet!

West Loop Galleries

Friday night’s gallery walk at the West Loop was busy and buzzing with energy. Despite the moving crowds however, I felt conscious of the artists and gallerists looking at us (the viewers) looking at the art. That is to be expected though. What would an opening night be without trying to decipher the audience’s reactions?

The first gallery I visited was the Jettison Gallery, which included many brightly interwoven art objects. These sculptures were not sleek but instead imperfect. The uneven stitches and pieces of fabrics that formed the works demonstrated their uniqueness. There were no assembly-line creations; instead the pieces acknowledged the time-based process which it took to create them. In particular, I was drawn to works made from a stack of arches paper, each sheet torn with an irregularly ripped circle in the middle. I can’t quite identify the work as painting or sculpture, but I enjoyed its elusiveness as it contained paint on drawing paper, which was stacked as a three dimensional sculpture.

Carolyn Ottmers’ steel cast plants at the Carrie Secrist gallery were also very attractive. Besides the pure aesthetic satisfaction of being surrounding by enormous chandeliers of metal plants, what they stood for was equally as engaging. I took the works to represent a sort of commentary on the environment and on the disruption of nature’s decay. Seeing delicate flowers dipped in steel was as beautiful as it was disturbing.

I cannot remember the name of this third gallery, although the works are among the most poignant in my mind. As soon as you enter, you are surrounded by taxidermy collaged is fluorescent dry paint. Aside from these sculptures, there are flashy paintings that also appear to be frozen in time (like the dead animals). Both are odd scenes; one depicts a father and daughter at what appears to be the girl’s birthday, and the other is a rendering of little boys in uniforms on horses in the forest. The paintings are beautifully painted but absurdly decorative and decadent. They would make for the quintessential modern day rococo paintings.

Gallery Openings

I went to some of the River North gallery openings. At the time, I thought my notes on the shows were awesome, but now I see that I should have fully written down my thoughts as soon as I got home. However, a few artists' works stuck with me. I liked the work of Andy Paczos. He painted desolate scenes from around, what I assume is, Chicago. His combination of figure-less compositions and dull color-palette made me feel, as a viewer, a certain loneliness and isolation. Thus, they reminded me a little of Edward Hopper's subject matter.

I also liked the work of Shayna Leib. She made these colorful blown glass sculptures, but presented them as if they were paintings. The blown glass came alive out of the squares and rectangles that contained them. It almost looked like the blown glass was moving coral captured mid-wave.

My last observation comes from the Zygman Voss Gallery. This gallery had drawings by Picasso, if I read correctly, and provided prices underneath the name of each piece. This was the only gallery that displayed prices outright. I wonder why they chose to present the art in this manner. Is it more acceptable to display the prices for art from past centuries, and not for contemporary art? Or is this a personal decision made by each gallery?

River North Gallery Openings ... 9/10/10

There were many highlights amid the September 10, 2010 gallery openings in Chicago's River North. The streets and the galleries were buzzing with activity. There were a variety of people in attendance from students, to families, to seniors, all there to see the River North's galleries open their doors and the season.

The galleries with the strongest, most provactive artwork would have to be Catherine Edelman Gallery, Zg Gallery, Ann Nathan Gallery, and Habatat (Echt) Gallery. The works in these rooms were challenging the viewer's notions and expectations of what contemporary art truly is, and by extension, what these gallery openings meant to the city's cultural framework.

Throughout the semester, we will stay tuned into the gallery scene, discussing the issues therein: from the capitalist market of the contemporary art world, to what is important to individual contemporary artists.

Gallery Crawl!!

Gallery Crawl was fun! I didn't get to go to all the districts, but I went to River North galleries. Gallery Crawl was incorporated into date night, which added to the fun :)

The first gallery we went to was the Habatat Gallery on West Superior Street. I really enjoyed Christina Bothwell's work! The title of her series of sculptures was "The Landscape Within". The sculptures were transparent women with child or future child. They were all cast glass with some racu clay and were painted with oil paint. The landscape within, quite literally, was the child or the adventure of the life of the child to come. She also had a piece that reminds you of the Russian nesting dolls--you know, one inside another, inside another, inside another. It was awesome seeing the lineage of great grandmother, grandmother, mother, and child, all within each others' bodies!

They had other cool works in there also, but what distracted me after the Bothwell works was the curator's french bulldog, Stella. She was roaming around the gallery as people were looking at works, and she caught my eye. I admit, I am a HUGE english bulldog and french bulldog fan. This is also the FIRST time I see a french bulldog in person! Long story short, the curator asks me not to steal his dog, which gave me the sense that he probably wouldn't let me take a picture with her. HAHAHA!

The next stop was a couple doors down at a gallery complex. I thought it was super convenient that all the galleries were right next to each other! In this complex, there were a couple galleries we went to: the David Weinberg Gallery, the Judy A Saslow Gallery, the Catherine Edelman Gallery, and the Zg Gallery, Inc. There was also a Jenny Yoo dress collection in the midst of all the galleries--which I thought was good advertisement for her dresses. To be in the middle of all those art galleries, why not check out her chic dresses!

We went to the David Weinberg Gallery first and saw the David Burdeny exhibition. He had some really beautiful large photography prints of international places. In the same gallery, there was also the 2010 MFA Graduate photography exhibition from Yale University School of Art.

We went to the Judy A Saslow Gallery next, where I really enjoyed Rebecca Kinkead's paintings! I did find her "Fountain" piece kind of questionable, but enjoyed the rest of her work. The food station in this gallery was also the best! Massive station to load up on some good food--we were definitely hungry by then. We kept moving around and there were some pieces that were done in pencil on cardboard by (I forget the name). Jermaine did not like those at all. He thought it was robbery for how much they were being sold for. It was interesting to see other works that we found more enjoyable and more developed to be selling for less than what these drawings were going for. I met Rebecca Kinkead too! I took a picture with her and talked with her a bit.

In these galleries, I definitely was able to pinpoint the gallery owners. They were being swamped by some artists that want to show in their gallery and were showing their portfolios right there on the spot. It was interesting to see it happening.

We also went to the Catherine Edelman Gallery to see contemporary photography. I really loved the pieces in there, especially Robert & Shana ParkeHarrison's works! I love the aura and feeling that their pieces had. It was cool to see that a lot of works in the gallery were accompanied by contact sheets, which is something I haven't seen before in galleries.

We then went across to the Zg Gallery where Justin Henry Miller was showing his "Remnants of a Radiant Tomorrow" series. I got to meet him too and talked to him about how he put together his work. He said he went to garage sales, buy old portraits, spray them with something to keep them from deteriorating and then he would paint on top of it.

Throughout the night, I saw the prices and the red dots that Prof. Yood was talking about! I saw some blue dots as well!

(I know it was supposed to be 6-8 sentences, but this was my first gallery crawl)

The Auction

"After I read that chapter, I feel like I need to take a shower," said Prof. Yood as he shivers. (something like that, not exact quotation)

We touched on this in discussion a little bit. It's definitely weird reading "The Auction" and reading about the relationship between art and money from the perspective of the artist.

Prostitution comes to mind whenever I initially hear the word auction. It does feel as if pieces of artwork are high-class escorts on the selling block to the highest bidders. The highest bidders get to enjoy the piece for however long they want, and when they're satisfied or done, the piece is put back in the market.

I know this is not how it is exactly, but when I initially think about art auctions, this is what I think of. I realize it is definitely one of the great ways to sell your work, become recognized and famous, and receive big bucks (well half of the big bucks at least).

I get why artists never attend auctions. It would make their stomach turn. But the hope of some recognition and fame and a check at the end of it all would probably help the stomach turn right side up again.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why buy art and not use that money towards a greater good, like charity?
Very interesting question to ask those with the money. On one hand, yes, charities and research health institutions (like cancer research) would definitely make good use of the funds. There can be hundreds of thousands of kids all over the world that wouldn't have to starve for months or years with that money. There can be hundreds of clean water pumps placed around the world where clean water is almost non-existent. On the other hand, Prof. Yood makes a good point of the preservation of culture. Buy art, put it into the history books, shape culture, etc. The famous and controversial works of arts back then are now part of our culture now. The famous and controversial works now will be part of the culture of tomorrow.

Who knows, perhaps those who buy art DO donate to charities. They probably have enough money in the bank to buy something for themselves--the art-- and also give to charities and other good causes. I'm an optimist, so I'll say I believe that's what really happens.

Hello!

aych eye = hi

I hope this works *cross fingers*

Bienvenido!
大家好！
Hello!

Hello Hello!

:)

Hello...

Hello...

First Post

Hello

Welcome, Students!

This is to be our very own wonderful blog. Here, we will share ideas and discussion about topics we have discussed in class. Have fun with this, and though it is a requirement, it is meant to be a fun, free forum for all of us to share ideas about assigned readings, share events like art openings and cultural happenings around Chicago and SAIC, and to have discussions about contemporary art in general. Post images if you desire if they are pertinent to your post ...

I am excited to be sharing ideas with all of you!

Looking forward to meeting all of you tomorrow in class!