Took a trip to Dia:Beacon to see what all the fuss was about. The surprise I had going there was enormous. I had no idea that such a massive vault of minimalism was two stops away from me on the Hudson line. They have huge rooms full of Carl Andre, John Chamberlain, Robert Ryman, Donald Judd, Blinky Palermo, and Richard Serra, to name a few. I found most of these rooms extremely impressive. I encountered some personality differences I didn't know I had with Dan Flavin and Bruce Nauman, and I had trouble adjusting to the Sol Lewitt rooms. But everything there was appropriately curated, I thought. I had a fantastic journey through an extremely important period in art.
There was so much stuff to see that I think I'll stick with my favorites.
Carl Andre
Rooms full of primordial geometry stacked or arranged in ways that reminded me why I found lincoln logs, building blocks and legos so fascinating when I was a kid (not that I don't find them fascinating still). Everything there I found to be real, with the wonderful attitude that accompanies so much minimalist art that seems to say "you're here, this object is here, now look at the simple things in life a little bit closer." You can't fake it with minimalism. Carl Andre's palette is simply materials and geometry. Copper plates, brick, steel, blocks of wood, and stone. Working with what one finds in the world. It's nature, arranged in ways that can't deny the substance or the artist. And the amazing thing is, in these apparently simple pieces, the artist is so remarkably present that at times you can clearly see the way he thinks. It's almost an instinctual paring down of what is necessary into an eloquent phrase. I looked at a stack of cubes and thought "why can't I think of that?". Carl Andre is someone who loves the materials for their weight, their sensation, and their texture that can together evoke an experience in one's plastic consciousness. To me, his work made me want to get back to basics, to love whatever is pure about a square, to contemplate the existence of things in space. It reminded me of why I thought people made things like Stonehenge, and why that is important to do. Why art is important for people to make. His poetry is also fantastic and on display in little cases.
Robert Ryman
It's so easy for people to look at the color white and then look away. White has connotations generally as to the state of a canvas before anything is done to it. Robert Ryman's work is mostly white but if the viewer gives it a chance it is incredibly rewarding. I was never that familiar with Ryman's work but the applause in this case goes (in my humble opinion) to firstly, the way in which the white is articulated. Ryman proves that once you move into pure abstraction the language isn't just the color, it can be the way in which that color is painted. And once you realize that white is a color, his paintings make perfect sense. And then can be looked at and enjoyed tremendously. I also picked up that attitude that framed the minimalist attitude in Dia:Beacon for me: a call to looking and experiencing works of art in a different way, a more ontologically realistic way, where all that's there is the object and you and what you make of all this. But such wonderful things can be made of it. I was struck by a row of white square paintings all hung flat on the wall, which I almost walked past when I entered the room. But as I looked closer, I did the subtlest double-take ever and realized that all the squares were off a shade or two, either warmer or cooler, of white. Also the way each one was hung on the wall was different, and the little black hinges and screws were actually part of the piece. The hangings were having a visual conversation with their paintings, which were relating quietly in hue with each other and the wall behind. How clever.
Richard Serra
I like Richard Serra a lot. Not only because he's possibly the biggest, baddest, most aggressive monster in the room, but because he's right about absolutely everything he does. He knows he doesn't fake it, you know it, and all you can do is let him take over your space and environment and just be confronted by the monolithic reality of his work. There were several gigantic barrow-like, maze-like pieces made up of concentric rings of steel plates about twenty feet high and which could be entered by slits in the sides. They were similar to the one that was on view at the Gagosian gallery earlier this year, but fun size (comparably). These overpowering environments were like a tilting cave of rust-brown steel that wove back and forth, threatening and calming my experience with their strong presence and somehow simultaneously aggressive and meditative beauty. When I tried to question it, it seemed to just be, stoic and there. And Serra seemed to be behind it, saying "Hi, little viewer. I'm Richard Serra. Yes, I am that impressive." All I could hypothetically respond with would be "Yeah...wow." It's like being in the world of someone who controls everything and you don't mind at all. In fact, you'd rather be there than in a lot of other places. What really made sense to me as a Richard Serra piece was this one particular wedge-shaped piece of steel, which just looked like a shallow ramp going about 6 inches high into the wall. But upon closer inspection, I realized that it wasn't the type of wedge I first thought. The entire floor of the room was sloping down those 6 inches, and the wedge of steel was in fact maintaining the level of the floor. Serra's piece had established the reality of "level" in this existence, and I had to agree. The room now bent to Serra's rules and nothing else could be said. I left the room more than a bit amazed.
The rest:
There are many more things I could write about, but maybe later. Hats off to John Chamberlain and his wonderful sculptures made from wrecked cars, and I spent nearly an hour trying to wrap my head around the Blinky Palermo paintings (with much-loved success). I enjoyed the Louise Bourgeois for a few different reasons, and didn't like them for a few others. Fred Sandback, who was another artist with whom I was not previously familiar, was quite incredible, creating incredible planes and intervals with pieces of yarn. He was like the ghost of John McKracken. Donald Judd was good as ever, and there was another guy whose name I can't remember who did a painting every day for a number of years of the text of the date on which it was made (e.g. there are hundreds of paintings of the actual text of the date, such as "Feb.16, 1976", made on that day, so on and so forth). What a pursuit. Overall, it was a day well spent and I have to head back in the near future. Also, I'm looking forward to the Matisse cutouts exhibition at MoMa. I think it opens in November.
Carl Andre
This blog shows certain steps on my journey as an artist. Comments are welcome. All work is for sale (contact: cdanselmi@gmail.com). Have a look!
Saturday, May 31, 2014
Dia:Beacon and Minimalism-Andre, Ryman, Serra
Labels:
Art,
Beacon,
Carl Andre,
Dia,
John Chamberlain,
magnificence,
minimalism,
Richard Serra,
Robert Ryman,
trip,
wonderful
Location:
Beacon, NY 12508, USA
Friday, May 16, 2014
Material Culture. Go to the MoMA now and see Polke and Clark.
Summer 2014 starting off on a productive note! Now that I've got the table saw working, here's a furious onslaught of mostly 8"x10" gypsum gesso panels and four little baby ones. I made them with thin plywood and a special gesso recipe which includes rabbit skin glue. It creates a beautiful, smooth, slightly absorbent yet fully sealed surface, allowing it to be worked with either acrylics or oils. I've got some larger scale panels made too but I think I'll work small for a while.
One of the reasons I am so excited about materials this summer is because of a couple of shows at the MoMA. I went (twice each) to see the impressive Sigmar Polke show, "Alibis," and the brilliant, unforgettable, absolutely mind-blowing show of Lygia Clark's work called "The Abandonment of Art."
These two shows were significant for me.
On Polke:
I don't often walk into someone's life's work and become so interested in everything they've done. Polke is hard to define or place into an "art movement" retroactively, simply because of the sheer amount of stuff that he made. This guy touched so many angles of the history of art in so many different ways it was astounding. Abstract photography, rubber bands nailed to a board, mobiles, paintings on bedsheets, video, 3-D grids with growing potatoes, paintings on layered glass, paintings on bubble wrap, projected photography, manipulated images, and other combinations of abstractions, representations, and constructions all created with a prodigious love for the materials involved. At first, I was sort of overwhelmed at the eclectic and unfamiliar nature of everything all at once, but then I took a deep breath and realized that I wanted to look at almost everything in the exhibition. I guess if it captured my attention, it was good. The words of Donald Judd bounced around in my brain: "art need only be interesting," and I moved on and I began to love it. Polke has an affinity not simply for materials, but for color, structure, and formal intuition. Grids recur in his work, and structural dots (akin to Lichtenstein's ben-day dots; I called them "Polke-dots" to myself and then became embarrassed) develop extremely well, making their way into even the materials, the subject matter (in his more representational work) and the very fabric of his work. Polke touches on irony in his work but it isn't depressive irony. It's more of a toungue-in-cheek, Dada-esque, "we know the world is good but we're going to point out the absurdity" kind of irony. I was reminded of the Mike Kelley show at PS1 earlier this year and Polke seemed like even more of a genius. Kelley's irony by comparison seems forced and juvenile. Polke seems pithy, substantial, excited, and by far the better artist. Anyhow, words can't do the show "Alibis" any justice, so the only reasonable thing to do is to go see it for yourself!
On Clark:
I think I fell in love with Lygia Clark. I walked into the show "The Abandonment of Art" at first completely ignorant of her existence, but the experience I had in that series of rooms was something so far from what I was expecting that I was left bewildered that I had seen a show so good, and sad that she had passed away because I wanted nothing better at that moment than to meet her and get down on one knee.
Clark's love for the psychology of materials seems to be the most prominent thing in her work, at least from what I could pick up. The first room was filled with tactile things. Various fuzzy suits and masks for changing one's experience of the world through the senses. There was a soft rug to walk on and curly, pendulous abstractions hanging from the walls. The materials all looked very touchable, real, and interactive. At this point in the show I wasn't familiar with her or convinced of her yet. Maybe it was because it was in the same place, but I instantly thought "oh, more Isa Genzken, cool." But almost instantly when I walked into the next room, my assumptions and ridiculous associations (maybe not so ridiculous) changed dramatically. I felt that this deep, beautiful, crazy affinity for the materials that had shown up playfully in the first room took on a seriousness that buckled into shapes, shards, angles, circles, spaces, and abstractions that were all about the geometry and the materials and the psychology all at once. It seems that in the next rooms, Lygia Clark took her love for art and everything and focused it into a powerhouse of work. The sculpture was unreal. It doesn't happen very often when I'm forced to reconsider who I am as an artist. The feeling I had was this: I looked at this group of sculptures and paintings at first with surprise that nobody could make things this awesome. I looked away again, and thought to myself, "no, obviously I didn't see that, it couldn't have been that good." But then I looked back and it was still there. I couldn't argue with that. So I resigned myself to the fact that this woman was brilliant and ate up the rest of the show. I liked every single piece there. There was a series of "critters," which were made from disks, triangles, squares, and other geometric pieces of aluminum and other materials that were folded up and hinged in different ways. The paintings had a similar geometric sense that reminded me of the game of tangrams, izzi, and shadow puppets, all created with the most incredible sense of materials. There were even replicas that visitors were allowed to play with. I almost never had such a strong sense of the way someone thought behind their work. Clark had a subtle color sense, subtly holding back where she needed to, and being bold and divisive at other times. She had some of the strongest structural instincts I've seen. And the amount of things and people I saw in her work was immense. Futurism, Mondrian, Minimalism, Picasso, McKraken, Guston...I don't even know...I was so blown away. I can't even describe how good it was but perhaps that makes sense. I think they say that the better art is, the less that words can attempt to do it justice.
There was also an endearingly disturbing birthing piece on the floor downstairs by Clark that changed me a little bit but I'll leave that to you to discover. Go to MoMA.
Here's a thing: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/16/arts/design/lygia-clarks-many-twists-and-turns-at-moma.html?_r=0
Anyways, I just photographed around 200 drawings and am compiling some stuff and I'll probably update erratically again as I get more into the swing of things this summer. Cheers.
One of the reasons I am so excited about materials this summer is because of a couple of shows at the MoMA. I went (twice each) to see the impressive Sigmar Polke show, "Alibis," and the brilliant, unforgettable, absolutely mind-blowing show of Lygia Clark's work called "The Abandonment of Art."
These two shows were significant for me.
On Polke:
I don't often walk into someone's life's work and become so interested in everything they've done. Polke is hard to define or place into an "art movement" retroactively, simply because of the sheer amount of stuff that he made. This guy touched so many angles of the history of art in so many different ways it was astounding. Abstract photography, rubber bands nailed to a board, mobiles, paintings on bedsheets, video, 3-D grids with growing potatoes, paintings on layered glass, paintings on bubble wrap, projected photography, manipulated images, and other combinations of abstractions, representations, and constructions all created with a prodigious love for the materials involved. At first, I was sort of overwhelmed at the eclectic and unfamiliar nature of everything all at once, but then I took a deep breath and realized that I wanted to look at almost everything in the exhibition. I guess if it captured my attention, it was good. The words of Donald Judd bounced around in my brain: "art need only be interesting," and I moved on and I began to love it. Polke has an affinity not simply for materials, but for color, structure, and formal intuition. Grids recur in his work, and structural dots (akin to Lichtenstein's ben-day dots; I called them "Polke-dots" to myself and then became embarrassed) develop extremely well, making their way into even the materials, the subject matter (in his more representational work) and the very fabric of his work. Polke touches on irony in his work but it isn't depressive irony. It's more of a toungue-in-cheek, Dada-esque, "we know the world is good but we're going to point out the absurdity" kind of irony. I was reminded of the Mike Kelley show at PS1 earlier this year and Polke seemed like even more of a genius. Kelley's irony by comparison seems forced and juvenile. Polke seems pithy, substantial, excited, and by far the better artist. Anyhow, words can't do the show "Alibis" any justice, so the only reasonable thing to do is to go see it for yourself!
On Clark:
I think I fell in love with Lygia Clark. I walked into the show "The Abandonment of Art" at first completely ignorant of her existence, but the experience I had in that series of rooms was something so far from what I was expecting that I was left bewildered that I had seen a show so good, and sad that she had passed away because I wanted nothing better at that moment than to meet her and get down on one knee.
Clark's love for the psychology of materials seems to be the most prominent thing in her work, at least from what I could pick up. The first room was filled with tactile things. Various fuzzy suits and masks for changing one's experience of the world through the senses. There was a soft rug to walk on and curly, pendulous abstractions hanging from the walls. The materials all looked very touchable, real, and interactive. At this point in the show I wasn't familiar with her or convinced of her yet. Maybe it was because it was in the same place, but I instantly thought "oh, more Isa Genzken, cool." But almost instantly when I walked into the next room, my assumptions and ridiculous associations (maybe not so ridiculous) changed dramatically. I felt that this deep, beautiful, crazy affinity for the materials that had shown up playfully in the first room took on a seriousness that buckled into shapes, shards, angles, circles, spaces, and abstractions that were all about the geometry and the materials and the psychology all at once. It seems that in the next rooms, Lygia Clark took her love for art and everything and focused it into a powerhouse of work. The sculpture was unreal. It doesn't happen very often when I'm forced to reconsider who I am as an artist. The feeling I had was this: I looked at this group of sculptures and paintings at first with surprise that nobody could make things this awesome. I looked away again, and thought to myself, "no, obviously I didn't see that, it couldn't have been that good." But then I looked back and it was still there. I couldn't argue with that. So I resigned myself to the fact that this woman was brilliant and ate up the rest of the show. I liked every single piece there. There was a series of "critters," which were made from disks, triangles, squares, and other geometric pieces of aluminum and other materials that were folded up and hinged in different ways. The paintings had a similar geometric sense that reminded me of the game of tangrams, izzi, and shadow puppets, all created with the most incredible sense of materials. There were even replicas that visitors were allowed to play with. I almost never had such a strong sense of the way someone thought behind their work. Clark had a subtle color sense, subtly holding back where she needed to, and being bold and divisive at other times. She had some of the strongest structural instincts I've seen. And the amount of things and people I saw in her work was immense. Futurism, Mondrian, Minimalism, Picasso, McKraken, Guston...I don't even know...I was so blown away. I can't even describe how good it was but perhaps that makes sense. I think they say that the better art is, the less that words can attempt to do it justice.
There was also an endearingly disturbing birthing piece on the floor downstairs by Clark that changed me a little bit but I'll leave that to you to discover. Go to MoMA.
Here's a thing: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/16/arts/design/lygia-clarks-many-twists-and-turns-at-moma.html?_r=0
Anyways, I just photographed around 200 drawings and am compiling some stuff and I'll probably update erratically again as I get more into the swing of things this summer. Cheers.
Thursday, May 15, 2014
Diptych
One (or two) of the later pieces from Judy's class this semester. I took a few older drawings that were part of a triptych from last semester and used acrylic on top of them, as a response to the charcoal marks underneath and a different model setup. There was a fair amount of resonance between the double-pose and the previous drawings. I tried to be as aware of this as I could. I left them at a point where I thought I didn't need to do any more, and I think structurally they make a lot of sense as a diptych. I suppose I saw this as an echo through the semester, tying a certain way of thinking that has been developing all semester together. They are each 20"x40", acrylic and charcoal on paper.
Sunday, May 4, 2014
Final Critique: End of the First Year
Apologies for slacking on the blog! I've been so busy that I only got around to photographing more stuff last week.
It was one of those times where I felt a little too stunned to be nervous, at least for long. The semester has flown by and developed in shocking ways I could not have predicted. Every time I felt that I got a grip on an idea, it's been pulled away from me by forces sort of outside my control. As a result, the conscious threads of where exactly I am moving towards have steadily frayed and unraveled further and further apart. Should I work from life as much? Should I begin to invent? How appropriate is it to use memory? Can I use a bit of both? How much does the subconscious carry through instinctive marks? What does all this mean for my work?
All these questions still bumped around in my head as I hung my work on the wall for final critique. I don't think I quite answered them for myself, but perhaps all that matters is that I asked them seriously at some point in time. Anyhow, the critique ended up with the largest controversy being over my big 8' x 6' acrylic painting, which struck dissonant chords among the panel and caused a panelist to express feelings of extreme dislike toward my painting. I admit I didn't know what to think about my painting either, so any reaction was fine by me. Whether people like my paintings or not is not my biggest concern.
Anyhow, here's the lineup for my final critique. I had to abbreviate a lot of things and I tried to show a smattering of different things I've been working on this semester, which has been mainly oil painting, acrylics, collage, and drawings.
To tell the truth, I see threads of coherence starting to emerge from the distracted nature of this past semester, but perhaps that is just because my hand created all of this, and perhaps that is all which really holds it together...the fact that I made it. There are a few different languages, and a bunch of different things to say that hopefully appear through the photos. I had no way to tell how consistent the colors were with the originals because all these works are in my space in NYC and I am now upstate. The last three are a triptych. Enjoy.
"Bath Painting", 24"x30", oil on canvas
"Bath Collage 1", 4"x6" collage and acrylic on paper
"Bath Collage 2", 4"x6" collage and acrylic on paper.
"Bath Collage 3", 4"x6" collage and acrylic on paper.
"Synthesis" 8'x6.5', acrylic and charcoal on canvas
"Figure " 8"x10" Oil on Canvas

"Figure 2" 8"x10" Oil on canvas
"Invented Women", 3'x4' Oil on canvas
"Titanic," c.40"x35", oil on canvas
"Pedestrian," 4'x4.5', oil on canvas
"Tub 1.0" 11"x14" Collage and acrylic on glassine paper
"Tub 2.0" 11"x14" Collage and acrylic on glassine paper

"Standing Model," 3'x4' oil on canvas
"Left Triptych (Burning of Troy)" 18"x24" Oil on Canvas

"Center Triptych (Hermits and Seers)" 24"x30"
"Right Triptych (Charon the Ferryman)" 18"x24"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)

