I cease to any longer ask myself what on earth this work is about and where on earth it has come from in the progression of art history. Now I am asking much more practical questions:
1. Was using archival materials not important to the artist?
2. How on earth was this fragile and piecemeal work packed and shipped?
3. How the heck was it assembled in the gallery once it arrived? (because right now I am sitting in front of a wheelchair with fabric, old ribbon, and paint bits strewn over it.)
4. What is going through the mind of that old couple wandering through slowly?
5. How closely am I supposed to be looking at this work? Is it a general overall concept or can I be up close and wondering why the bacon tape is torn on one mirror and not another?
6. Do you as the artist ever wonder what the point of your work is?
7. Does success negate question 6?
Tuesday, July 07, 2009
Questions (more than anything)
As I sit with Isa Genzken's work in the gallery two older women approach and ask if there is anyone who is available to give a tour or explain what her work is all about. They have read the descriptions posted on the walls and have found them too pretentious and indecipherable. I respond by saying I have read them each several times over and have found very little useful info. I scan the room we are standing in and see the mannequins spray painted and placed among trolleys, some of which are overturned. Tape and paint drips, found objects and wheelchairs are set against a wall of stainless steel panels with bits of paper and random photos attached. I have now spent 18 hours with this work and am no closer to sorting it out purpose-wise than hour one.
What I have noticed though is in gallery 9 a whole metallic sheet taped with scotch tape (applied in the year 2000) has just fallen off today. The masking tape holding a few pieces together on the next piece is so old, yellowed and non-sticky that it juts out stiff and straight away from the edges it is meant to attach.
Further on I notice that on the sculpture with bits of white sand and shells on a white board someone's long black hair has become part of it in the last 48 hours. Black on white. I think I'll leave it for effect.
I cease to any longer ask myself what on earth this work is about and where on earth it has come from in the progression of art history. Now I am asking much more practical questions:
1. Was using archival materials not important to the artist?
2. How on earth was this fragile and piecemeal work packed and shipped?
3. How the heck was it assembled in the gallery once it arrived? (because right now I am sitting in front of a wheelchair with fabric, old ribbon, and paint bits strewn over it.)
4. What is going through the mind of that old couple wandering through slowly?
5. How closely am I supposed to be looking at this work? Is it a general overall concept or can I be up close and wondering why the bacon tape is torn on one mirror and not another?
6. Do you as the artist ever wonder what the point of your work is?
7. Does success negate question 6?
I cease to any longer ask myself what on earth this work is about and where on earth it has come from in the progression of art history. Now I am asking much more practical questions:
1. Was using archival materials not important to the artist?
2. How on earth was this fragile and piecemeal work packed and shipped?
3. How the heck was it assembled in the gallery once it arrived? (because right now I am sitting in front of a wheelchair with fabric, old ribbon, and paint bits strewn over it.)
4. What is going through the mind of that old couple wandering through slowly?
5. How closely am I supposed to be looking at this work? Is it a general overall concept or can I be up close and wondering why the bacon tape is torn on one mirror and not another?
6. Do you as the artist ever wonder what the point of your work is?
7. Does success negate question 6?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
i read in 'the story of art' that there is no such thing as art only artist. perhaps you're still working through all this, but what do you think? do theory make up for the lack of skill? or are you seeing plenty of theory and skill in the mix? just me wondering. u needn't go into it, but i am interested in what you think.
It is difficult for me, a skill based artist, to always appreciate a theoretical and non-skill based work on the same level. I think the thinking currently is that theory is better than a skill based art. But it is always nice to see that some powerful skill still blows everyone away however momentarily.
Your other question might be answered a bit in my next blog...brought on by your question. Thanks!
A few more thoughts on Isa Genzken's work:
The show was a retrospective and it is clear to see some form and structure and growth in her earlier work. It was minimalist with elegant lines and modernist ideas. But as the years proceed it grows chaotic and brash and more inward in clarity. A discussion with another artist reveals a breakdown of a marriage to Gerhard Richter among other things that might have influenced such change.
Post a Comment