Found this photo on my hard drive; forgot I had it. Taken during my last open studio, when I still had a studio (that wasn't in my home). I had earlier posted an installation shot of this same work, but it's more effective with a human in it for scale. I was talking with M, an artist from Europe, about the relationship of work like this to Peter Kogler's, who is better known across the pond than in the States. In a nutshell, Kogler makes wallpaper of tubular, computer-modeled patterns and coats gallery floors and ceilings with it. It's hard to say what discourse is associated with it--it's his schtick, and M seemed to think it had slid into the realm of kitsch. "Computer-y" for people in the art world ignorant of computers, but too dumbed down for people working in new media with "generative art" models, etc. Screen saver art on an epic scale. Happily, M recognized that I was working in MSPaint(brush) and my work was a lo-tech goof and therefore not particularly comparable. I'm drawn to the "high school science fair" as a visual model, and the community museum Op art shows I remember from childhood, and I would hope the clunkiness of the work would make the irony and failed utopianism theme immediately obvious. Evidently it's not, though, to everyone. I actually backed off doing this type of installation because the response I was getting in my studio was lukewarm. Also I had to ask myself if I really wanted to go from show to show installing these things. The one above took about 8 hours of standing on a ladder--"I'm getting too old for this shit," as they say. I wouldn't rule it out as a component of a future show, so be forewarned.
kitsch, fetish, art object. I'm not sure the distinctions are so important. Although 'keeping it real' is a darn good mandate for making good work. I'm a big fan of clunky myself, and not just in the context of technology, because its a way of letting the viewer into the process. But pernicious clunkiness can border on nostalgia, and then the whole thing folds back on itself and becomes kitsch again. I'm not saying that these pieces are doing that, just cautioning that all rules, even those that are self-imposed, are made to be broken. Same goes for spectacle. It's something to decry until you see work that is spectacular, immersive, and not superficial and then it's the freakin' best. I did not get to see this gallery show of yours, but from the documentation I'd say the installation falls into this last category.
Thanks. I think you're saying you like the video work documentation more than the installations...?
For what it's worth, neither the Raisin Bran piece in the previous post nor the piece above exist, except as photos on the internet and my hard drive(s).
I have components I could use to reassemble both pieces but they wouldn't be done the same way.
|
Found this photo on my hard drive; forgot I had it. Taken during my last open studio, when I still had a studio (that wasn't in my home). I had earlier posted an installation shot of this same work, but it's more effective with a human in it for scale. I was talking with M, an artist from Europe, about the relationship of work like this to Peter Kogler's, who is better known across the pond than in the States. In a nutshell, Kogler makes wallpaper of tubular, computer-modeled patterns and coats gallery floors and ceilings with it. It's hard to say what discourse is associated with it--it's his schtick, and M seemed to think it had slid into the realm of kitsch. "Computer-y" for people in the art world ignorant of computers, but too dumbed down for people working in new media with "generative art" models, etc. Screen saver art on an epic scale. Happily, M recognized that I was working in MSPaint(brush) and my work was a lo-tech goof and therefore not particularly comparable. I'm drawn to the "high school science fair" as a visual model, and the community museum Op art shows I remember from childhood, and I would hope the clunkiness of the work would make the irony and failed utopianism theme immediately obvious. Evidently it's not, though, to everyone. I actually backed off doing this type of installation because the response I was getting in my studio was lukewarm. Also I had to ask myself if I really wanted to go from show to show installing these things. The one above took about 8 hours of standing on a ladder--"I'm getting too old for this shit," as they say. I wouldn't rule it out as a component of a future show, so be forewarned.
- tom moody 10-28-2006 6:50 pm
kitsch, fetish, art object. I'm not sure the distinctions are so important. Although 'keeping it real' is a darn good mandate for making good work. I'm a big fan of clunky myself, and not just in the context of technology, because its a way of letting the viewer into the process. But pernicious clunkiness can border on nostalgia, and then the whole thing folds back on itself and becomes kitsch again. I'm not saying that these pieces are doing that, just cautioning that all rules, even those that are self-imposed, are made to be broken. Same goes for spectacle. It's something to decry until you see work that is spectacular, immersive, and not superficial and then it's the freakin' best. I did not get to see this gallery show of yours, but from the documentation I'd say the installation falls into this last category.
- sally mckay 10-28-2006 9:53 pm
Thanks. I think you're saying you like the video work documentation more than the installations...?
For what it's worth, neither the Raisin Bran piece in the previous post nor the piece above exist, except as photos on the internet and my hard drive(s).
I have components I could use to reassemble both pieces but they wouldn't be done the same way.
- tom moody 10-29-2006 12:08 am