Mr. Hawkins

Just when I think I have a hold what contemporary art is or can be, another artist comes along and reminds me that I don't have a hold on what it is or can be. I have seen collage work before, but Hawkins' collages put me in a state of awe and confusion. Pages sliced out of the magazine, taped or pasted on another piece of paper, along with some post-its with his handwriting. His collage felt like rough drafts to future pieces. But to my disappointment, they are the final pieces.

Lately, I am realizing that all contemporary art, not just the art I don't get, leaves me in a conflicted state of emotion. I dislike it, but think I should appreciate it because it is indeed hanging in a gallery space. I like it, but wonder what makes it contemporary art in the first place or if it's considered "good" contemporary art within the art world. Are the pieces hanging in a gallery the pieces that made an artist famous or are they pieces created after the reputation of the artist has been established?

Viewing his work, I became cognizant of the fact that contemporary art takes two ends of a large spectrum. For example, on one end you can have a large print of a photograph that has the finest detail. On the other end, you have Hawkins' disembodied zombie prints. They are large scale prints of pixellated, severed heads. The heads are monochrome but altered to look like zombies. The floating heads are in the front of a colorful background. I feel like I was taught one way (the finer the detail, the better the photograph), but I have been exposed to the exact opposite. Contemporary art has to be at one end or the other--and never in between.

Richard Hawkins work made me question what makes his work contemporary and what makes it so revered (for it is a retrospective). I start to wonder about how much time went into to creating certain pieces and how much care was also put into the work. I wonder if others can accomplish the same reputation by using the same methods as he does. Can photo collage (just as he does) make another as renowned and famous? (I exclude Martha Rosler from this question because her collages are not done in the same way as his are. Rosler cuts to the outline and fits them together whereas Hawkins just slices out large oval-like shapes). I definitely can see the thought behind the works, and wonder if that's enough to get his work. Perhaps that was the whole idea of his work--get to the point in the quickest, simplest way possible.

I did enjoy the Doll Houses though, and I attribute this to the fact that they remind me so much of animated houses, particularly The Last Doll House (2010). They also reminded me of how I once wanted to make doll houses when I was young. Beyond these two initial thoughts, I feel like they are out of place with the rest of his retrospective.