Gallery Project, October 2007
Opening last night at the Gallery Project of Signs, Symbols, Gestures.
The show, as always, was nicely hung in the open space, giving each piece room.
IMHO, best pieces: two photo portraits by Titus Heagins of North Carolina and a piece by Claudette Jocelyn Stern, a fun compilation of found objects; “not my favorites”: well, without giving names, see below.
Favorites:
The portraits by Mr. Heagins (Machette Fillé, Sodo 80 and Madam, Sodo 80) were what portraits should be, with the depth of the intimacy captured being as much a function of what the photo allows the viewer to bring as of the look and circumstances of the subject.
Baker’s Dozen: found objects in each of the cups in a table-like found object which itself looked like some industrial muffin tin. Fun with not a jot of the pretense in most of the other work in the show.
Not my favorites:
- 3 pieces, each made of 12 squares of old wood, each with a hobo marking. Next to the pieces, a legend of each symbol and and its meaning. With nothing open to any interpretation and not being what one would call “art of execution” either, the only thing left was the pattern in the grain of wood.
- A mixed media piece which, try as it might, seemed almost a forgery of what might be some real outsider art.
In between my faves and my not faves were the rest: large digital prints with no soul and pieces deconstructing symbols and signs, occasionally juxtaposing them in ways that tried very hard to be “unexpected”, which, if I’m not mistaken, has been done before.
No one has, IMHO, done signs and symbols better than Luigi Serafini in the Codex Seraphinianus. See its unofficial web site.
November 5th, 2007 08:47
Dear Alan’s Blog,
I happened to have been in the Gallery Project when you were observing the art. And since quarters were close, I heard what you had to say about the art.
I remember something about “a bad forgery of a bad forgery”. “When you look at this work, you feel as though you’ve already seen it although you know that you haven’t”.
These comments and others were absolutely spot on and accessible to anyone who was there or for that matter might not have seen the work at all.
In your blog, however, you used words such as “fun”, “fave”, “not faves”. Since I don’t know what your idea of fun is, that doesn’t communicate much to me.
And giving so much print to your “not faves” elevates works to a status of importance that you might not have intended since they’re not your “faves”. In fact, I don’t much like the word “favorite” in a review (”fave” even worse”). It sounds like a flavor of ice cream is being chosen.
I picked on a couple of your words as I tried to get at what was missing in the blog review. But maybe it’s a self-consciousness that comes out knowing that your opinion is no longer just for you.
In short, your blog review fell miserably short of your on site review. I take the time to say this, because your live commentary was some of the best I’ve ever heard (or read should it have been written) in the 30 or so years that I have been reading reviews. I urge you to write your very balanced and informed opinion as though you were muttering to yourself.
Thank you for your fine blog. I find it very interesting and educational.
Best,
EK
November 5th, 2007 19:34
Thanks.
At the time I do remember saying, “A forgery of some outsider art,” not “a forgery of a forgery.” I don’t remember a comment about seeing something before, though at the time I felt much of what I was looking at had been done, which is what I was trying to get at with my admittedly snide, “if I’m not mistaken, has been done before.”