On my way home from school I walk down 3rd Ave and I pass the same gallery every day: Décor Gallery & Framing. After passing it now for an entire semester I finally decided to walk in. I immediately realized that this gallery is absolutely nothing like any gallery we visited this year. When we entered David Zwirner’s galleries Prof. Eversley needed to remind us that we were in a market place. I remember being so careful not to touch the walls in the Rox gallery when we saw Tom Smith’s work.
I did not need anyone to remind me that this small gallery was a market place. While the work was unique, eye catching and current just like the other galleries we visited, everything seemed to be priced significantly lower. Some paintings were hanging and some were on the floor. This gallery was for shoppers. And although I was not looking to buy, I still enjoyed walking around and trying to find my favorite pieces.
Walking into this type of gallery reminded me of our trip to the Metropolitan Museum of Art and the Guggenheim. The Met is elevated. You need to climb so many intimidating steps before you get to go inside. It felt exclusive. Contrastingly, the Guggenheim was welcoming—in fact there are no steps, its centered on a ramp. My favorite part of the Guggenheim was the way the floor matched a sidewalk. It was for every day people to come and enjoy art, just like the gallery on 3rd Ave.
Situated in Soho is the Leica Gallery, a gallery “Dedicated to the fascination of photography.” Thanks to Professor Eversley, Our IDC class has been privileged to go on so many trips year, allowing us to learn so much about all different types of art. We have experienced sculptures, paintings, drawings and multimedia. However, one form art we did not explore was photography.
Photography is a unique form of art. It takes a special skill to be able to capture a moment in time and generate life, emotion and energy onto a piece of paper. Personally, I find photography very fascinating.
Currently, the Leica gallery is hosting an exhibit called LIFE Across America, which features photos from a number of times, places and memories of 20th century America. I found myself walking around the gallery with mixed emotions. Some pictures were sad, some were funny, and many were just so easy to connect to—this artwork will speak to everyone
.
Since September 18th, Madison Square park has been home Tony Cragg’s beautiful Walks of Life sculptors.
Cragg explains in an interview: “I think that sculpture is a kind of sensitizing activity and that it has a role in being a catalyst that may lead to more sensitive thinking.”
When I was looking at his sculptures, I found that I definitely had a “thoughtful” experience! His sculptors are (obviously) still, yet, they feel like they are in motion! As you walk around the sculpture, it changes and moves with you—it’s quite beautiful! It made me think about the way I define “still” and “moving,” an obvious contradicting that this art exemplifies.
The experience actually brought me back to our last art exploration in Madison Square Park. When we visited as a class, we looked at Rachel Feinstein’s sculptures, which were also sort of a contradiction. A sculpture is supposed to be something you can walk around (a characteristic Walks of Life is a prime example of)—but Rachel Feinstein’s were mainly of flat! They looked more like drawings than sculptures!
Either way, Madison Square Park seems to always have something beautiful to look at; I can’t wait to see what is next!
Today, during my rainy walk home from school, I got stuck under a store awning waiting for the light to change. I started to watch the raindrops and I couldn’t help but notice the amazing way water can manipulate whatever it is reflecting—even though its clear.
It reminded me of some of the art I produced when I was in high school. For my portfolio, I decided to concentrate on a line that focused on glass. I love the illusions created in glass images—it is an art in and of itself! Just like with water, what I found especially fascinating was the magic glass created despite the fact that it is completely transparent.
I had so much fun trying to mimic all of new shapes and colors that appeared with glass, here are some of the pieces I created:
Last night, we were privileged to enjoy a ballet at the Joyce Theatre.
When I first heard that we were seeing a ballet, I imagined it would be a similar experience to the ballet I saw as a child, The Nut Cracker. I don’t remember many the details from that performance however, entering a fancy theatre, seeing elaborate costumes and carefully choreographed dances do still stand out in mind.
Like I said, I don’t really remember much about The Nut Cracker but I do know for sure that “Complexions” was absolutely nothing like it. Of course, I had fair warning; Prof. Eversley told us in class that this modern dance would be the opposite of a classical ballet experience and the article “Modern Dance Primer” by Jessica Moor did explain this as well. But still, it’s hard to believe it until you see it.
Moor writes, “All classical elements of ballet—defying gravity, seamless grace, adherence to form—are challenged in modern dance.” I saw this myself when I was watching the dancers stomping, falling and dancing on the floor and abandoning form for much looser motions. In addition, Moor explains, “While the ballet dancer faces the audience, the modern dancer uses all orientations.” I would say this served as a major advantage for our class, since our seats were positioned on the side.
Prof. Eversley also taught us that these dancers would not be wearing elaborate costumes, rather they would be dressed in a way that focused on the body. This is because classical ballet tried to make you forget the body by having you focus and movements and form, while modern dance wants you to remember you are watching people. The individuality of the dancers was definitely present, which I did find quite beautiful. I noticed that two of the dancers had tattoos, which I think added to the “modern dance” because I assume in a more classical setting, makeup artists would insist on covering the tattoos.
Overall, I can definitely say this Ballet was a new and experience and I am still left in winder from the talent I witnessed last night.
Walking into the ROX gallery I was immediately taken by Tom Smith’s colorful, eye catching, one-of-kind works. As I went from painting to painting I could not help but go up close to each one and admire all of the details in each and every piece. One thing I found so special about Smith’s work was that they all seemed so precise and neat while still feeling very loose and organic. I went from painting to painting marveling at his talents and trying to figure out how he accomplished that balance.
I was also busy trying to figure out what each painting was and what their connections were to each other. I thought maybe they were inspired by maps, or by the galaxy or possibly even by monsters. (Tom Smith did later explain the inspiration behind his work. It turns out my guesses were not quite right but, hey, that’s part of the fun right?) Each painting was so magical, I felt like I was being transported to different realms just by looking at them (which in hindsight I find pretty cool because, in truth, each work was inspired by Smith’s travels).
After having time to admire the paintings, we were fortunate to hear from Tom Smith himself. He shared many incredible insights and thoughts about his work, and art in general. However, one idea that stood out to me was his discussion of “resolving a painting.” I found it incredibly fascinating when he explained that the first method employed on his paintings (creating two works and then cutting them into thin strips and then gluing them together) left him out of control of the final product. Thus, when he started his second group of paintings he needed to figure out on his own when each painting was done. I find this so admirable, but at the same time very relatable, because I can’t imagine working so hard on anything yet not really having a final say on its outcome, while, at the same time, I really appreciate the struggle of not knowing when you are done, when you have done your best, and when its time to move on.
Before walking into the David Zwirner’s gallery today to see Jason Rhoades’s PeaRoeFoam, I attempted to mentally prepare myself to see art that would inevitably make me question: this is art? Yet even after hyping myself up, looking at the seemingly messy array of foam, glue, disks, yellow boots, chairs, peas and frankly things that just looked like garbage, I still could not help but think, “this is art?”
I have always thought the most important thing about art is the statement that the artist is trying to make. So, after Professor Eversaly explained an amazing point of view of the art, everything really came together for me.
This art was dada; it was meant to make me feel dumb. These sculptures are a thoughtful disarray of garbage, and they are being sold. If I think its crazy that one would spend money on the art being displayed, then actually, I am really getting the whole point. We purchase meaningless products all the time! Moreover, we are happy to spend a ridiculous amount of money on those products too! Jewelry is a prime example. What is a diamond? It’s a rare rock. Though its obvious to everyone that we are clearly not really paying for the rock, rather we are paying for the status and the meaning of a diamond, maybe regardless that purchase is still a little ridiculous! The dada was telling us we should feel dumb for wasting our money on meaningless things- on garbage.
I think Rhoades makes a valuable, and usually glossed over point. People do not generally consider this because nobody wants to admit that the shopping and purchases they love, are also a bit ridiculous.
In addition, I love the way the artist chose to make this statement. After understanding the backdrop, the “stuff” really does come together as art. It shouts in your face, “you think its absurd that someone would pay for garbage? Well you do it all the time.”
However, when watching the film of the art being created, something began to bother me. I watched the artists work with the tremendous amounts of supplies and having already been put in a “money” mindset, I could not help see all their supplies as a (for lack of a better expression) “waste of money!” I thought to myself, “wow, that much glue is probably expensive, look at them just pouring it everywhere!”
Thus, though I appreciate the message the artist was sending I am left a bit perplexed. If it is such a bad thing to throw away money then I wonder, was buying all that supplies the absolute most meaningful way for that money to be spent? Was there truly nothing more worthwhile to give this money to?
I was left with a new question: Wouldn’t it be ironic if the art making the statement “you waste your money” was a waste of money in and of itself?
“Stylish aesthetics and fashionable conceptualism trump documentary realism in “Provenance,” an extremely suave film by Amie Siegel.” I could not agree more with Ken Johnson from The New York Times, Art and design (click here for the full article!).
When we started watching Provenance I was actually a little bit confused. I could not figure out what we were looking at, where everything was taking place, and why we were so obsessed with all this furniture! It took me some time to figure out what was going on: we were actually starting at the end of the film, as Prof. Eversley noted, we watched the film in a non-linear way! The irony was that the film is already non-linear to begin with, because it was made in reverse chronological order.
After reading up on the film, I can truly appreciate how interesting and provoking this art is. The NYTimes continues to describe Siegel’s piece as “an art genre that tries to expose and subvert the workings of the capitalist art market.” I completely agree! When watching the film, traveling on a journey with all of the rustic, original and unique furniture, I actually felt uncomfortable watching it become these commercial items, fixed and positioned by people transforming the chairs to a synthetic prize. Prof. Eversley pointed out that we all jumped up when the chairs went up for auction. The truth was (especially because we were watching the film kind of backwards) that until the auction, I did not realize these chairs were so special! I actually turned to the person next to me and said, “What?!?” After traveling with the chairs from India in workplaces, boats, classrooms I was so confused by the transition of this chair from being stored up in a seemingly dirty area to becoming a fancy coach settled in a beautiful home.
Throughout the film, the warm colors of the chairs and all of the furniture really caught my eye, which is why I manipulated the pictures I took, to highlight those colors.
Overall, with a greater understanding, I think provenance offers some very insightful and important messages about capitalism and art in our world.
Recent Comments