Holidays

Happy Skanksgiving everybody! Unless you don't celebrate, and in that case, go to Canada turkey hugger.

MFA show: Untitled, Unorganized, Uninspired

Well here I am, in the media lab, writing about the MFA show. The displays ranged from the titillating, to the downright depressing. One of the interesting - if not the only interesting - details of this show that I examined was the difference between a BFA show, an MFA show, and a world renowned gallery in the heart of the art district that seemed to be missing. The work in this MFA show was no better or worse than any BFA show which calls into question the need for a separate degree in the first place. That isn't to say that the work was bad - although that will be said by the end of this post - it was just unsubstantial.

Kristin Melkin's "Untitled" (very clever, Kris) was one of the first pieces I viewed. It can be described just as the tag next to it listed the materials used: barn wood, pastel. That's pretty much it. Kristin has colored the various holes and knots of the barn wood with bright pastel, and then hung the wood up. How much is Kristin paying for this degree? If this show was to partly inspire me to continue my art education, I should have skipped Kristin.

Catherine Haggarty's "Sign" was an interesting piece in the same way having your face slapped by a homeless man is interesting - at the end, you just have to say "why?" 13 inches by 18 inches of ... nothing. Well, basically nothing. An abstract shape in dull orange is slickly produced on top of what could be graph paper almost entirely concealed by white. My problem is that it looks messy; you can see the graph paper underneath, you can see the lines Catherine drew out to plan her final shape, and I don't want to see that. Perhaps it was intentional, and I understand that, but that doesn't mean it belongs. She has other works of the same underwhelming quality, all of which are of equal dimension and complexity.

Gabbe Grodin's "Untitled" (sorry Gabbe, Kristin had dibs on that) was actually pretty good. It's small (only 8"x10") but it packs a punch. Gabbe uses short, dollops of paint to create scenes that not only take you to a destination but create the illusion of movement in them. His use of color is expertly applied and no part of his small paintings seem over or under worked.

Megan, I hate to do this to you, and I'm risking a grade by doing so, but I have to give you low marks for your "Three Gray Photographs" and "Six Piles of Dirt." Let it be known - and I've said this before - that I traditionally dislike photography. I look at photography as a piece of technology that was made to make our lives easier, and photographers in the art world have taken it upon themselves to make it more difficult because somewhere in their minds, whether or not they are aware of it, they realize that it is not inherently difficult nor does it take anything other than a grasping hand and some film to take a good picture. Photographers have the luxury of snapping as many shots as they like (in the case of landscapes and still life) until they come to a worthy composition. They can then turn these to black and white, boost contrast, all within the touch of a button. If they do NOT use the touch of a button approach and laboriously change their photographs with outdated methods then they deserve no extra praise - it is like me painting and stopping every stroke or so to completely clean off my brushes. Sure it took me longer, required more work, but it was a decision I made to add some sort of flavor to my work for no reason. WIth your photographs, Megan, I found no flavor. These shots were not timed perfectly; how could they be? They are of but mounds of dirt. They are devoid of color for a reason I'm sure is apparent to you but is lost on me and all I see is another fad. But I do give you credit for actually naming your work, which is too hard for some of your peers.

I'll make this last portion quick. Liv Aanrud took up an extraordinary amount of space for a few small squares of poorly applied paint. Summer Baldwins "Moose Head" challenges my notion that a messy structure cannot be a good one. Guerra's (too good for a full name?) "Spaghetti" was nothing more than a monument to how easy it must be to create formless sculptures and drizzle them with paint. I liked Anna Bushman's work, I did, and her stop motion video was fun and interesting if not completely pointless.

I was told by a classmate who shall rename nameless for her sake that I don't find joy in much (I think that was the wording). Truth is, she's right. But it is simply because I have not seen a lot to be happy about. I said in my thesis and I will reiterate now - the minute we begin to be complacent and accepting of all that the art scene churns out is the minute good art dies. Without me (and others of course) to be a giant, joyless d-bag then the term "critic" would start to be a synonym for sycophant.

Hurf Durf

Whoops, forgot we aren't doing the alternating go-to-class/don't-go-to-class thing anymore. That's my bad, y'all. I missed you guys too, don't worry.

Russian Art - More than just what Sarah Palin sees from her house

I don't like photography as an art. Like I said in my revised artist statement, I believe photography is a tool. I understand fully that a photographer "sets up" his shots (not even all the time, though) and does crazy stuff to, like, the focus and other mechanisms. HOWEVER, at the end of the day if all you're doing is pressing a button that captures light and burns it onto film (or worse, an SP card) then what you are doing is capturing the "art" in front of you and packaging it as your own. With that said (and I could go on) I decided to go take a peak at the Zimmerli's "Four Perspectives Through the Lens: Soviet Art Photography in the 1970s-80s."

I didn't find any photo's. Maybe I wasn't looking hard enough but the only photographs I saw only strengthened my opposition towards the craft. These photos were snapshots of Russia and its people, and while that is always a good thing I felt like I was looking at a history book instead of a gallery. My bias aside, they were nice pictures I guess?

Unsatisfied, I strolled through the rest of the exhibition. I found some questionable pieces, as always, but I was pleasantly surprised with the paintings. I'm a plebeian, I know, but I can't help it if I don't hate a painting that actually looks good. Miervaldis Polis' "Fingers" is the first thing that comes to mind when I think of the part of the show that really resonated with me. In this painting, Miervaldis has painstakingly rendered photo realistic fingers on an impressively sized canvas with oil paints. Not only was the painting itself so accurate and awe inspiring, but it reached beyond the application of the paint and really told a story of the old, weathered fingers. I guess that dude was old or something. You had to bury your nose in the painting to get your eyes close enough to be able to tell if the wrinkles were created by man or nature. Where are the Miervaldis' of Mason Gross? Is anyone even trying anymore? The graphic arts department is so overfilled they are making each student over 150 lbs go on a diet so that more room can be made for the incoming class, and why exactly? Those students know that field is a money maker. It's hard to have integrity when you're trying to pay the bills. How many Miervaldis' are we trading for another graphic artist that is going to take his or her abilities and apply them to skateboards, web layouts, and advertisements for erection pills? I think I can stand a little communism if we can break the mold if not for one semester. Better red than dead.

(new) Artist Statement

There is no art, only artists. Much like there is no God, only religion. Much like there is no good, or bad, right, or wrong. Those concepts are defined not by natural law but by region, culture, geography. What do artists make, if not art? Friends, enemies, pretty pictures. Painting is a hobby, photography is a tool, and graphic design is a job. I am an atheist. I can not destroy God. I am an artist. I can not make art.