There were plenty of things I liked about Katie Lewis’ work. I liked the way she made patterns of thread resemble musculature. I liked her use of color to give her work an organic quality. And particularly, I liked the way she created gradation in her work simply by varying the concentration of pins and/or thread throughout the piece.
Nevertheless, her presentation left me feeling a little bereft. She made it clear that nearly every piece was linked to some perception she had within her own body, but she failed to tell us what that perception was. I understand that privacy is important when somebody is talking about their body, but if the artist was aiming for privacy, I can’t see why she would base all of her artwork on a private matter. Similarly I understand that comprehension of the sensation itself might not have been important to the understanding of the art, but if this is true, then why did she emphasize it so much. In the end, I just couldn’t help but feel like somebody had said, “I have a secret for you, but I’m not going to tell you what it is”.
Still, I want to make it clear that I appreciate the fact that Lewis’ artwork does bear some grounding in the real, rational world. Even if that grounding is something that I’m not able to fully understand for some reason, it still produces some pretty cool artwork.
Monday, October 20, 2008
Response to Christine Lee's Presentation
It struck me as uncanny that Christine Lee showed us her work with shims the very class period after I finished my own project with the 2x4 slices. I am by no means putting my work on the same level as hers, but I do want to emphasize how much I could relate to the things she said about repetition. Just as I had to individually cut, sand, shellac, and glue each piece, she had to fold and stack every page of the phone books she used, or carefully place each shim in the right place. In other words, the presentation she gave mirrored my own newfound knowledge: repetitive processes are, to most people, mind-numbing and difficult. But with the right state of mind, they can produce a relaxing and meditative effect, and the end results are often quite beautiful and intricate.
Although Christine Lee did mention this explicitly, it was also apparent in the work itself that she is open to the idea of experimenting as she works through the project. In many of her projects, I noticed some degree of evolution from the ground up, and this made the artwork even more interesting.
Finally, I admired the way that she accepted the impermanence of her work. Everything from the fallen exhibit here at Stanford to the exhibit that almost fell when somebody touched it suggest that she doesn’t care so much about the final product, but rather the process taken to get there. I would personally never have enough trust in the laws of physics or in the people viewing the sculptures to make work like hers. Because of this, I admire her as an artist.
Although Christine Lee did mention this explicitly, it was also apparent in the work itself that she is open to the idea of experimenting as she works through the project. In many of her projects, I noticed some degree of evolution from the ground up, and this made the artwork even more interesting.
Finally, I admired the way that she accepted the impermanence of her work. Everything from the fallen exhibit here at Stanford to the exhibit that almost fell when somebody touched it suggest that she doesn’t care so much about the final product, but rather the process taken to get there. I would personally never have enough trust in the laws of physics or in the people viewing the sculptures to make work like hers. Because of this, I admire her as an artist.
Tuesday, October 7, 2008
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)