Sunday, September 14, 2003

Hi





So once again, a while has passed, I am happy to report I did get to see census ‘03. I’m sure you were all wondering....are you also wondering what I have to say about Steinhilber’s Directions show at the Hirshhorn? (and by the way, please don’t think Im obsessed with this guy, but come on, he is a little like D.C.’s Matthew Barney. Art professionals and dilettantes watch every little move he makes, while almost nothing registers with the CEO/lawyer/monied crowd. Personally, while I think there is a lot of good work being shown in galleries in DC, I admit to finding his work just about the most fascinating and interesting going on in DC, I think it's cool.)



It would be ego maniacal to think I was the only person with the Steinhilber - Friedman bugaboo, the appearance of census 03 brought that to a head for me, oh mi. So what did I think about that show? Well I though it was very graceful and installed quite well and the individuals included representative of 2003. Shocking. A show about what it it supposed to be about, I did not think they were still in existence, I had grown numb to being disappointed, so census ‘03 was quite a refresher.



Oh well, here it goes. I thought it was great. Steinhilber’s sculpture made of while paper coffee cups and grayish paper carryout drink trays was well executed. But for all it’s scale I am never as touched by these works that have more to do with actual volume than drawing with volume. For all of its vertical 20 or so feet and sheer mass of all those cups, it inspired not even a thimbleful of the awe that a ‘drawing’ done on the floor by standing an unwrapped paper towel roll on it’s razor thin edges at Numark Gallery in Summer ‘03 did. This is so sappy, but to express that much fragility, truly humbled me. It’s not easy to make other people be truly humbled by art, especially other artists.

I can only imagine that what few people have actually stumbled on this blog that don’t know me, but do know the issue and individuals of which I speak want to hear me talk about is the juxtaposition of Steinhilber and Team Response’s ‘portraits’. What about Team Response? The ‘portraits’ they had in the show were of the other six or seven artists in census ‘03. Physically the works looked in turn like architectural models, hobbyist miniature environments or a kids hand made make-believe set. Conceptually, the portraits rather than being based on “sittings” or observation, instead were based on rumor and reputation. I thought this was definitely the strongest Team Response work I have seen it’s strength coming from it’s being conceived for a show in a museum. Ideas about art, an artists life and personality, the external existence of their reputation besides, the role of a museum in sanctioning these individual artists, the publics role in looking at art, being a contemporary artist, all these ideas were rolled up like a nautilus shell, reflected as in a house of mirrors or expanded like a buddhist crystal palace. Of course I think it was more successful because it was art about art. Really, Team Response did a very similar thing with Chinese-Pizza-Chicken-Kitchen at G-Fine Art, but instead of being about art, it was skewed more towards culture. They recreated a fast food restaurant in the gallery, slightly simplifying the interior design, not offering any food and taping everything on closed circuit cameras.



I am quite anxious to see the Directions show, but I have not found the time yet. I am intrigued that Glenn Dixon in his Washington Citypaper review in the Oct. 16th issue bothers to allude to Friedman’s toothpaste drawing at all. I don’t think that saying Friedman’s wall drawing with toothpaste is nothing like Steinhilber’s drawing with toothpaste makes it so. IT'S DRAWING WITH TOOTHPASTE, for crissakes. Lord, I sound like a puritan, but a spade is a spade. The drawing that I saw at Signal 66 did not deviate enough from the Friedman catalog for me to think otherwise. Perhaps six long months have tempered my criticism, a bit, but it was still a poor choice to show this work, a criticism directed as much a the gallery that displayed it (Signal 66) as at the artist.



I’m glad Dixon mentions Tara Donovan (Blake Gopnik mentions Tony Feher - the use of soda bottles being his big linking point. Perhaps he will work the word soda into his pieces now instead of cheesecake). Mentioning these other very solid artists dilutes the toothpaste, issue which is good. Let's see when I get to actually see the show now.

No comments: