Review #4: LA MOCA's Collection from 1980-present at the Geffen

The Geffen in downtown LA is currently playing host to the Los Angeles Museum of Contemporary Art's permanent collection since 1980. The collection includes work from prominent post-modern artists such as Kiki Smith, Lynda Benglis, Felix Gonzalez-Torres, Mike Kelly, Jeff Koons, Kara Walker, Paul McCarthy, Roy Lichtenstein, Robert Rauchenberg, Jackson Pollock, and Cindy Sherman, among many others. Seeing as much of the work we have been discussing in this class appears in this show, in this review I will attempt to chronicle the experience of seeing this art all together in a single show, as well as how the show has been constructed in what I believe to be a level playing field between Western and non-Western art.

First of all, the initial experience of walking into this show is utterly overwhelming. There is so much art on display (all of which is relevant to the history of modern and post-modern art that has been laid out in class), that there is a sense of paralysis concerning the scale of the exhibition, of which the architecture of the Geffen warehouse plays a significant part. Because of the venues extremely high ceiling and temporary walls which barely reach half its height, there is a distinct departure from the experience typically expected from an art exhibition in a major metropolitan gallery. I believe that this choice actually reflects the concerns of many of these post-modern artists, who strived to challenge the role of the art institution and the manner in which art is presented to the public. This show in particular lacks the baroque and pretentious style of presentation which many major contemporary galleries have, simply by favoring a single open space with a distinct lack of decoration, save for the art itself. Having said that, the temporary walls are just thick enough and spaced evenly enough so that the space does not feel too empty and open, which would diminish the interaction between art and viewer. This allows the art to be considered on its own terms, and not in relation to a gaudy context. Therefore, even the architecture itself supports the struggles of many of these artists.

Second, I noticed a distinct lack of cultural bias or a Western superiority complex in the selection of works, and especially in the physical placement of pieces in the show itself. For instance, on the second floor there was a piece by Kara Walker next to a disturbing depiction of a Santa massacre by the ever-shocking Paul McCarthy, which itself was next to the marble statue "Hong Kong Island", by Yukata Sone. All of these pieces had very different approaches to medium and content (although I would argue that all three pieces deal with memories of violence linked to cultural traditions which have been re-appropriated as commodity, whether it be on the large cultural scale for Walker, and Sone, or the individual scale for McCarthy), yet here they are, grouped together with a seemingly purposeful randomness. In my opinion, this allows for the art to be viewed on its own terms, and not as part of a labelled "cultural aesthetic", or some other constructed method of differentiation between Western and non-Western art. Imagine what a shame it would have been if the show had been segregated according to the artists origins (i.e. an Asian section, an American section, a female section, etc.)! I believe that this approach allows for each art piece to have its own impact, on its own terms. This also allows for strong juxtaposition between each art piece and the others around it, instead of a passive categorical grouping.

Therefore, the exhibition of LA MOCA's permanent collection achieves an inclusive nature, not just in the relation between art and viewer, but in the relation between the disparate pieces of art from all over the world. It is amazing to see that so many artists from all around the world are all grappling with issues of art in the age of mechanical reproduction (credit to Walter Benjamin for that highly influential essay, which amazingly is still highly relevant today, and especially to this show), and identity in the digital age. The show runs until May 3, 2010, and I highly suggest that anyone with even the slightest interest in contemporary art go see it. It is a great launching point for further studies into post-modern art, and many of these pieces are very large-scale, something which seeing digital reproductions cannot match (Benjamin would call it the "aura" of the piece - something lost upon digitization or mechanical reproduction). In short, this is a highly successful show, and something which should be visited.

Brandon Bird: Celebrity and Humor

"Lazy Sunday Afternoon"

"Arete"

Here's another artist that engages some of the themes I brought up in my previous posts, namely celebrity, humor, and their place in contemporary art. Bird's drawings and paintings range from incredibly detailed to almost childish sketches, but all of them exhibit the same regurgitation of pop culture personalities and imagery. I think that Bird is using this imagery (Norris, Harrison Ford, Lincoln, the Nintendo, the Sega Genisis, etc) as ready-made objects to be placed in a different context. Taylor states that, "Readymade object-sculpture begins from the premise that an existing object presented in a new fashion can be aesthetically more powerful - given certain assumptions about authorship, originality, and "presence" - than a newly crafted one" (Taylor 92).

These paintings also exhibit an opposite approach to depicting celebrity in art than Richard Avedon. Avedon preferred to present his subjects in amazing detail, mostly against a stark white background or in focus against a blurry background, however, Bird's approach depends on the context in which the iconic person is viewed (hence the Readymade connection). For instance, the two pieces above completely depend on the context Walken and Norris are in - Walken is presented as a mad scientist and Norris as a subject in a Rembrant painting. Without these juxtapositions, the pieces would have no potency in their humor.

Bird also utilizes his strange sense of humor in descriptions of his work, preferring to parody the process of dissecting iconography in an image, as seen in the quote below, which describes the painting "Bad Day on the High Sea":

"Here, raw sexual aggression is symbolized by the sperm whale, while the squid acts as a thinly-disguised metaphor for the multi-armed oligarchies of Rockefeller, Hearst, and Morgan. Their battle plays against the backdrop of the sea, standing in for--what else?--the vastness of the unconscious mind."

"Bad Day on the High Sea"

"No One Wants to Play Sega With Harrison Ford"

"King of the Cage"

Review #3: LA Printmaking Society 20th National Exhibition

The process of printmaking has been an integral part of art in the latter part of the 20th century. Originally made famous by Andy Warhol's

repetitious use of Marilyn Monroe's image in a series of silkscreen prints, printmaking has become a popular manner of image-production. This show, at the Los Angeles Municipal Art Gallery, showcases 20 years of printmaking art from around the country, and goes back even further with art from the Los Angeles area. Eve

n a cursory glance at these pieces reveals that the process of printmaking deals with a multitude of different mediums, which skilled artists often combine in interesting ways. Because this manner of mixed-media production highlights the way in which these pieces are produced,

and much of our discussions in class have been about art which focuses on modes of production, I will focus on a few pieces from the show which are self-reflexive in their blending of different mediums. While not all of these artists satisfy the requirements of a critical post-modern art, their pieces can be placed within the trajectory of art in the late 20th century that we have been studying.

The first artist which incorporates a self-reflexivity in their printmaking is Jeremy Lund, whose piece "Migration (Midst)" is featured below. The piece featured below is a screenprint made from various photos that Lund has taken of birds in mid-flight. The action of taking a series of images of single birds and combining them to create the illusion of an entire migratory flock reveals a focus on image-production as part of the art. Lund himself states, "Our representations of the ecosystem have brought me to a place of reworking schematic images to create an artwork that reflects the elusive nature of life. Obscured objects, ghosts images, and unfathomable numbers of living organisms that have captivated my imagination, are combined with the very literal schematic representations found in books and photography. the combination of printing techniques, bookbinding, photography, and drawing has created a final artwork that is not simply schematic, but a work that is the convergence of the known/unknown, literal/metaphorical and the real/fictional". In this way, Lund consciously chooses his medium in which to call attention to the way in which images are produced, similar to the "Pictures" generation of post-modern photographers, or painters such as Richter.

The next artist is a man named Phillip Dvorak, and his piece "La Pensador" utilizes three mediums: etching, gouache, and watercolor. While Dvorak's vision is a strange amalgamation of the grotesque, macabre, and sexual, his approach to printmaking resembles that of the neo-impressionists in that he supports aesthetically pleasing art simply because the process of art-making is pleasing to him. Dvorak says of this piece: it "is very much about the pure and sensual pleasures of looking a drawing". What this piece lacks in a critical statement it makes up in its surreal combination of lines and figures, which function together with the combination of mediums that Dvorak has chosen. Therefore, it fits into the history of modern art which we have been discussing as an example of a neo-expressionist approach to experimenting with different mediums.

The final piece which I want to discuss from this show is by a man named Bobby Rosenstock, and I selected it because I believe it relates to art from the early 90s: an emphasis on an individual story told with bold text, something which was absent from much of the art from the 70s and 80s. The title of the piece, a mixed medium of woodcut and letter press, is "19th and Walnut". Rosenstock says of this piece, "The subject matter of my current work is how stories and art can elevate ordinary people and events into fantastical tales and myths.

The LAMAG 20th National Exhibition has literally hundred of pieces by artists who use multitudes of different printmaking mediums, and there is something for everyone who is even slightly interested in the process. There are so many mediums represented in this show that one cannot come away from it without a respect for the depth of the printmaking process, and those who choose to produce art with it. I highly recommend a trip to this show, even if these three pieces do not strike your fancy.

Nicole Eisenman

Just wanted to put some images up of painter Nicole Eisenman. I'll make sure to write a longer post on these later, but I feel that these images contain a great and relevent intersection between humor, impressionism, and (in the first two) feminism. I think this is an example of a painter finding a way to express herself without conforming to any specific paradigm or political/artistic platform.




"Alice in Wonderland"



"Durer, portrait of man with bra"



"Beer Garden"



"Untitled"

Show Review #2: Richard Avadon at SFMOMA

Richard Avedon began his photography career in the realm of fashion, but his unconventional style of portraits combined with his ability to find interesting and captivating subjects created a niche for him in the consumer-driven art world. This current exhibit at the San Francisco Museum of Modern Art presents a selection of work from his entire cannon, ranging from photos taken in the 1950s all the way to 2004, the year of his death. His work as a whole reveals the artist’s obsession with the human body (especially the face) as an aesthetized form. This review will address critiques of Avedon’s approach to photography and discuss whether he deserves a place within the realm of “high” art.

In Abigail Solomon Goddeau’s article “Art after Art Photography”, she notes that “the importance of photography within [postmodern art] is undeniable” and that post-modern photographers are successful because their “respective uses of the medium had less to do with its formal qualities per se than with the ways that photography, in its normative and ubiquitous uses, actually functions” (pg 2). Avedon’s work exhibits none of this critical analysis of methods of production, rather, he and his audience become engrossed with the subjects depicted in his work – here is an artist whose life work displays a fascination with persons and forms, not theories and experimental practices of art production. Because Avedon’s cannon exhibits a major emphasis on content, I will attempt to do an analysis of this alone in order to see whether or not Avedon is successful in producing anything other than glossy glam-art. If anything in the following three paragraphs sparks academic debate or conversation, then one must argue that Avedon’s work exists as something worthy of examination, even if he is not on the cutting edge of experimental practices.

What makes Avedon's portraits stand out is the dynamic combination of the slick professional black and white film and a real candid approach to his subjects which allows for the piece to be viewed simultaneously as an artistic composition and an examination of character. MOMA made the excellent decision to include both his portraits of famous people (such as Marilyn Monroe, Bob Dylan, Bjork, and Janis Joplin, to name a few), as well as works from his book, "In the American West", in which Avedon traveled around the Western United States, photographing people in their place of employment. The two pieces from this collection featured below - entitled "Slaughterhouse worker on the kill floor Omaha, NE", and "Thirteen Years Old Rattlesnake Skinner, Sweet Water, Texas", were taken in Texas in 1979. I have purposefully put these two pieces next to the portraits of Bob Dylan and Marilyn Monroe in order to note Avedon’s examination of celebrity and anonymity in American life, celebrating the commonalities between those who enjoy (and suffer from) intense fame in our culture and those whose portrait otherwise would never become circulated amongst the larger community. This begs the question: for Avedon (and his viewer), does anonymity simply become another form of celebrity? What I mean by this is that the extreme anonymity of these people exists as a big draw for someone to pay to see or own one of these prints, in the same way that Dylan or Monroe’s fame pulls people in.

In this way, Avedon's work is highly utilitarian (if one were to ignore the glaring fact that he sells his pieces for a high price). For instance, the contemplative looks on the slaughterhouse worker and Bob Dylan are almost identical. Also, Avedon chose to shoot the slaughterhouse worker in his place of employment and Bob Dylan in Central Park, where he spent his formative years as a street musician. In this way, Avedon is presenting two distinct moments of contemplation by an anonymous member of society and one of the greatest poets of the 20th century as features of the same human experience, in which our life and work is defined by the place we inhabit, and vice versa.

I see a similar connection between the two lower portraits as well. Aside from the fact that both subjects are blond, there is a definite compositional parallel between these two pieces. Both of these portraits are examinations of the intersection between individual identity and the identity one assumes upon entering the workplace. For Monroe, this means hours of hair and make-up, and for the Rattlesnake Skinner, this means hours of gruesome work which informs his hair and appearance. Now this second point might be taking the comparison too far, but I am going to write it anyway: the lower half of each frame presents a secondary subject which is a cornerstone of each person's respective work. Yes, I am talking about the breasts and the snake. Both of these are organic entities which have become objectified for the purposes of each person's job - Monroe's breasts (and the rest of her body, to be fair) and the snake both become commodified in each respective workplace in order to achieve an aesthetically pleasing goal: the celluloid image of the breasts on one hand and the object of the snakeskin on the other.

Therefore, Avedon's work as a whole exists as an interesting look into the human side of both celebrity and anonymity in American culture. The black and white film and candid introspective moments which he uses and captures serve as methods with which the artist can level the playing field, forcing the viewer to look at these portraits as an examination of character and humanity in relation to specific work and specific places. In this way, Avedon’s work encourages discussion of history and American life as it relates to people, their faces, and the places they work (as well as the work itself). Of course, one could simply walk by and become immersed in the image with no critical eye, but the possibility of meaning through the juxtaposition of these portraits still remains. Is Avedon a successful post-modern artist? No, because he makes no attempt to situate himself within the language of post-modernity, and makes no emphasis on the modes of production. However, this does not mean that his work has no potential for a critical reading other than a dismissive one.

Cindy Sherman vs. Troy Brauntuch: Different approaches to a similar goal

Last week, we discussed the "Pictures" show from the late 70's, and I thought I'd elaborate on a comparison we touched on briefly during the lecture. Both Cindy Sherman and Troy Brauntuch are famous for highlighting the process of photography and mechanical reproduction in their pieces, as well as suggesting a larger narrative which takes place outside of the photographic frame. However, the two artists go about it in two drastically different ways. Sherman highlights the cameras ability to imitate, augment, or re-contextualize an image or point of view by utilizing dramatic angles, heavy make-up, a shutter speed which closely approximates the medium of film (film plays at 24 frames a second, and it appears that Cindy is shooting at around 1/15th of a second, which replicates the cinematic look), and back-lit projection, another common filmic trope. These images also suggest a larger narrative taking place; there is not a single one in which Sherman or her subject are looking directly at the camera lens. Instead, their eyeline goes away from

the camera lens (sometimes just by a little, like

in the top photo). This creates a feeling of anxiety and incompleteness, all of which has to do with Sherman's choice of medium, combined with the fact that by the 1970's, most people had an understanding (whether conscious or subconscious) of cinematic language upon which a certain horizon of expectations are built (for instance, that if a character is looking offscreen, the audience can rightfully expect to see what that character is looking at. Sherman denies her viewer this). All of this serves to heighten the viewer's awareness of photography as a medium, and the process of producing the photographic image is the real subject of these pieces.

In contrast, Troy Brauntuch utilizes photography in order to call attention to the look of

film itself when examined in either a zoomed in or fragmented form. We talked in class about his installation piece "Hitler Asleep in his Mercedes", in which Brauntuch re-appropriated an image from 1934 of Hitler's back, blew it up, displayed it next to a detail (blown up even more), and framed it with two images of stadium lights which themselves were blown up past the point of recognition. The image above uses this same approach, however the images themselves are reduced to a mere interruption in the white negative space. These images below utilize similar techniques which serve to distort the clarity of the photographic image, while still suggesting a larger story which could be happening outside of the frame. The picture at the bottom utilizes two different points of view (the birds eye of the town contrasted with the portrait), which engages the relationship between cinema and photography because these two images interact in a similar way as an establishing shot which cuts into a character.

In conclusion, both Sherman and Brauntuch utilize photography in order to heighte

n the viewers awareness of the medium itself and its capabilities, although they use drastically different approaches.

Gallery Review #1: “28”

Painting in the 21st century faces the challenge of occurring after an entire generation of artists abandoned it almost entirely, only to return to the medium in the 1980s, which in turn raised questions concerning the authenticity of painting in the postmodern era. Theorist Benjamin Buchloh declared painting in the late 20th century as an obsolete mode of production which did not “disappear but rather drift in history as [an] empty vessel waiting to be filled with reactionary interests in need of cultural legitimation” (Figures of Authority: Ciphers of Regression 55). In other words, due to mechanical reproduction and the imminent reproducibility of any image or sequence of images, what purpose does painting serve other than to communicate a socio-political agenda? “28”, a student art exhibition for second-year MFA students at the Claremont Graduate University, manages to display an engaging series of paintings that encourage reconciliation of the medium with the technological offerings of the digital age.
Because of the scale of this exhibition (as the title suggests, there work of 28 graduate students was on display), I will focus on three artists in particular who offer different approaches to the re-contextualization of painting in the age of digital reproduction. The first piece which will be considered is Kevin Scianni’s “Lost Clusters”, seen below:

















This acrylic on canvas painting engages the viewer with its emphasis on bold lines, and the flamboyant analogous color scheme certainly catches the eye. However, this piece also engages the debate concerning painting’s place in the digital age through the seemingly random arrangement of lines and negative space. The jagged lines in the right portion of the frame allude to digital representation of form. For instance, if one were to look closely at their computer monitor and examine the text in this review, they would find the exact same sort of lines in each letter of each word. In fact, this sort of line exists in every piece of technology which characterizes our time: Ipods, TVs, computers, digital advertising, etc. In this way, Scianni presents a form native to the late 20th and early 21st century, but blown up and placed into a context in which the viewer must examine it anew. The medium of painting exists as an important factor in this engagement, for this is what forces the viewer to see this type of line in a new way. Therefore content and form function together in this piece in order to re-contextualize a distinctly post-modern object – the jagged digital line.

The second artist which engages the prospect of painting in the 21st century is Azadeh Tajpour, an Iranian-American woman whose piece reproduces instances of her facebook homepage which contain correspondence concerning the June 2009 election fallout and violence:


(detail)


















These frames, printed digitally, appear to have been applied with broad brushstrokes, giving the piece a gritty spontaneous feel. However, the meaning of these pages juxtaposed against each other becomes obfuscated due to the fact that these sporadic brushstrokes effectively hide the content of each page. For instance, a close examination of one of these frames reveals that Tajpour is facebook friends with Mr. Mousavi, the reformist candidate who challenged the results of the election, but it is impossible to see exactly what he said on that day. Clearly, Tajpour wants to comment on the fact that communication during this strenuous event was almost entirely digital (even major news networks were about an hour behind network sites like Twitter), but she also seems to be focused on a lack, or negative space, in the communication. This could refer to the thousands of people who were being arrested and silenced during this period, but it suspiciously looks as if the brushstrokes merely exist to differentiate between the easily reproducible facebook pages and her art. In this way, the brush strokes enact Buchloh’s statement from earlier – they conveniently reference the medium of painting simply because it is so recognizable.

The final artist considered in this review is Allison Allford, whose paintings utilize a unique method of engaging the possibilities of painting as a medium:
















At no point in Allford’s process does a brush come into play: these compositions are achieved by carefully pouring the different colors on the canvas, so that they interact with each other organically. Allford, who was available for interview, stated that she was inspired by satellite photographs of landscapes from space, and these paintings clearly show an interest in the relationship between large-scale environments and the physicality of the medium of painting, which can create forms even with minimal and careful intervention from the artist. Also, because of the Allford's initial inspiration came from satellite photos, this piece confronts issues of digital and distinctly modern representation of Earth (the satellite photo) utilizing the painting medium.

Therefore, painting still has a place in the 21st century due to its ability to examine the possibilities and tenants of the digital age in a that distinctly modern forms of expression, such as photography, cannot.