Art-Patrol.com

Comments

2 Comments so far

1. michael deane on December 16, 2007 9:09 am

   In a way I do agree with the discription “juvenile” –but it is a particular word choice, a commitment, i would say, to your notions of artistic maturity. You could have written of my formal presentation as, “child-like, or “playful”, or “punk-rock” even, these would have been more flattering, since i am, after all, gracious on the phone,”though” not email. juvenile (this word appears as judgement) situating your self and your ideas on a higher plane of knowledge than myself or my motivations, my commitment to an anti-aesthetic, the working class, a non image obsessed image. In certain formal regards i function as an anti-artist, I am clearly not interested in a high gloss modes of production, or a commodity driven art practice, true, to my determent with some, but my chosen “slapdash” style participates within respected avenues of contempory art history none the less. And if it was slapdash even for slapdash standards, well then thank you for building me a cage in your mind, for others to read even, a dead letter. meaning, judgement, imposed from the outside. Thank you –this is a point of the work, limitations of subjective contextualizations, both in their absolute meaning to one, and absolute non-meaning to another.

   “might have been stronger if he could have incorporated a version of the actual, computer-generated iconography.” First off, arn’t the drawings, “a version” of the actual, or they themselves an “actual”.
   But second, the original printouts were included with the same statement where you found my phone number (a statement which i kinda thought felt like another drawing with the fold out transparent casing, fragmented text and such) I thought it might be more effective to bury the ‘orginal’ in the artwork, to be found, discovered, as opposed to putting it directly on the wall. You are missing the actual “premise” of the work, you are getting there with my near miss of a “cheap gimmick”.

   Although it may not sound like it, overall i feel that You write a fair review, and i am really very happy about it, “though” when you fail to notice such apparent details as the “e” at the end of my last name, and that i used, not just butcher paper, but aquabee paper for three drawings and arches for two of them, or that i included a wine vessel in the shape of the pope, insulin bottles, and you make no mention of the video either, which i kinda considered an important element of the work, nor did any of the four of you inform me on the phone that you may be writing about the piece, although that might not have changed my comments. maybe the work was not engaging enough for the four of you to notice a television? But how do you write about intentional a-signifing signifiers? Hmmm, problematic. i do much enjoy your use of the word,”confronted”.

   my point is that your review “might have been stronger” if you observed a simple thing such as the “e” in my last name, in which case, i should not expect you to reach certain depths of the piece, or to therefore write a very observant rewiew.
   In a way the review has realized “a dead letter” for me, superfical fragmented interpration, ending at the beginning, often limiting meaning, or maybe while also opening an opening space in which to mean, to find a living meaning, embody a language ya know, “even when it is clear to the rational intelligence that there is no meaning to be found.” It is sometimes too bad about rational intelligence and its clarity. To be able to call the aesthetic explorations of another, “juvenile”,.
   Regardless thank you for writting about the work, “though” patronizing as the writting maybe.

   michael deane
   (perhaps it was spelled wrong on the flyer, it even sounds like something i might do intentionally, if so, i am sorry, but it doesn’t help my google search, and admittedly my critque is unfair, for i too am I great misspeller)

2. Sarge on December 17, 2007 1:11 pm

   Fair enough, Mr. Deane, fair enough. We do apologize for misspelling your name (it has been corrected). Perhaps the missing “e” was our own, unconscious “dead” letter?

   To clarify, our statement was that the work had a juvenile feel, which is not the same as saying the artist or the work is juvenile. While in this context it was clearly a criticism, it should not be construed as pejorative as much as descriptive. Our intention is not to dismiss the work or vilify the artist, but to document our impressions. We do not claim to be experts, but merely enthusiasts.

   Overall, your “dead letter” seems to have functioned more or less as you intended. The recipients (viewers) made a genuine effort to decipher the message, and met with limited success. The wine vessel, video and vials of insulin puzzled us enough that we could not even offer a suitable interpretation. Was this your intention, our failing, or both?

   It is these kinds of questions that make artwork such as yours a pleasure and a challenge to experience. We do recognize the non-commercial spirit in which it was offered, and we applaud it.

   It is a challenging work installed in a challenging space, followed by a challenging comment.

   We are always up for a challenge.