Exhibition Review

The exhibition, "Object, No Object; Sculpture of Ideas", had great potential, the thought inspiring title getting the visitors’ ideas going, even before stepping into the space. The show featured several locally well known artists, including Sarah Vaeth, who recently was included in the show “Drawing in the Expanded Field”, juried by Deanna Petherbridge at the CSU Hatton Gallery, and Keith Jentzsch, a CSU Art department faculty member, among others.

The room, basic to say the least, was large and open allowing for easy traffic flow throughout the exhibits. The large space, a bit sparse, seemed somewhat empty, and the vaporous quality and delicate nature of some of the pieces, like Sarah’s “Snow Cave”, required an extended contemplation by the viewer to appreciate the full beauty of the work. The conceptual based pieces by Rachel Browning and Elizabeth Morisette, featuring art creation by the audience, were unusual with their participatory nature, but the visitors playfully jumped right in, becoming artists. The broad scope of included works, with their disparate styles, could be a bit disconcerting, however the variety instigated an expanding definition of what could be considered sculpture, and ultimately is what the exhibit was about. Keith Jentzsch’s piece "2 x 4", which featured a collection of building materials, really expounded on this idea. He presents the materials as they are, along with the uninitiated artistic creation of a final piece. He raises the question of where, in fact, the artwork is found; it is not just in a finalized object, but also in the process and contemplation by the artist.

The ideas, theories and viewpoints presented, offered something for every taste, with contemplative pieces being balanced by playful works. Amy Reckley’s piece, "Gleen/Sweep", at first appearance seems to be merely a 2-dimensional work, similar to a collage, however the meaning is expanded when the visitor learns that the form was a replication or map of the room’s dimensions, and the debris attached to the surface, the effluence from the floor, in effect replicating the space in a secondary way, giving an awareness of one’s presence and perceptions of the time and space in which the work exists. Martin Mayer’s, "Make a Buck", was a fun interactive work that allowed the visitor an alternative way to think about our currency and the perceived value one assigns to random objects. Frank Stanley’s fish, "Steve", was a comic play on human relations with an object, and offered a first hand view through the ongoing monologue of how an object may perceive our dealings with it.

Over all, the successful exhibit was quite enlivening, with art making going on by visitors at two places, and the variety and scope of included styles and mediums expanding the definition of what can be called sculpture today.

Two Blogs, One Aim

Today FRCC Museum & Gallery Studies participants met with local artists to formulate plans for our on-site invitational exhibit December 3, 2010 at the Fort Collins Museum of Contemporary Art. During the round-table discussion with curators, artists and logistical taskmasters all in attendance it was made clear that additional virtual space was needed in order to accommodate the discourse surrounding the conceptual ideas and  pedagogical stance of each artists as it pertains to the aim of the exhibit Object, No Object: Sculpture of Ideas.Therefore a second blog.

ARTiculation intends over the next month to introduce you to the artists invited to the exhibit allowing the audience to approach the work with new insight into a variety of  individual artistic processes. Comments and questions are highly encouraged in hopes of engaging our audience in discourse related to the evolution of sculpture.

Another Perspective

We talked in class about audience. Curation requires a vision, but it also requires an understanding of the audience.  When creating an exhibition, which is considered first?  What brings the audience?  Knowledge of a concept, and resulting appreciation of its expression, or the presentation of a concept, and stirring the audience to look further into the concept?  One presupposes that the audience already understands the concept, the other seeks to educate, inform them.  The reasons people view art are as diverse as the reasons for its creation.  

How do we create an exhibition that speaks volumes to our audience about this concept?  If they are not aware of the crossroads elaborated on by this article, what needs to be the topic of the exhibit?  Where do we start? In and through class I am learning about current artists and the concepts they are presenting in a way I would never encounter otherwise.  It is fascinating, and definitely beyond the scope of everyday conversation at FRCC, or my dinner table (this is changing though!). 

Recently in our area, at the Loveland Museum, an artwork by California artist Enrique Chagoya entitled “The Misadventures of Romantic Cannibals” was all but destroyed by a member of the audience from Montana, on the auspices that it was profane.  I wonder if the perpetrator had any understanding of the work prior to her act.  Had she researched the artist, learned about the piece, made an informed decision, or was this a reaction to media?  Upon reflection of the article, was her act “art”?  It certainly was matter transformed by energy..AND political..What does this mean to our exhibition?

So, fellow participants, what do you see as the starting point?  How art savvy do we perceive our audience to be?  Do we want to inform or confirm?  Our personal experiences with the art world definitely color our personal point of view so I am asking for yours.  Who is our audience?  How far down the rabbit hole do we go?  How obvious do we need to make the message?  How subtle can we be and still get it across?  Or do we let each artist do this work, and we set up the exhibition and stand back?  How far does curation go?

~ Alnasl