Review: William J. O'Brien @ The Renaissance Society

Seven months ago, Rebecca Warren was pilloried in the local press after her exhibition at the University of Chicago's Renaissance Society.[1] Foresight, at least, was lacking in that criticism.

Given the benefit of hindsight, it's now possible to argue that Warren's whole spatial exercise was evidence of her superiority to the clay sculptor, namely William J. O'Brien, who succeeded her in the aforementioned space. More ironically, given her personal investment in the primal modelling of a plastic material, Warren can now be seen as having psychologically prepared the Chicago audience for O'Brien.


Above: William J. O'Brien @ The Renaissance Society

And it's a great mystery why no one has thought to reappraise Warren, even as O'Brien is now praised.[2]

Warren, like a sculptor, concerned herself with the formal qualities of shape, line, scale, texture, and mass; her choice and handling of material varied from piece-to-piece. Notably, Warren's objects were not in any case so heavily pigmented that an essential substance was obscured; nor did she ever employ a vivid hue. Color, simply, was not a strong visual element in Warren's compositions; color was weak, though not conspicuous in its weakness.

Too, conceptually, it's good to remember that Rebecca Warren's action against historical sculptural modes and forms necessitated at least some understanding thereof.[3]


Above: William J. O'Brien @ The Renaissance Society

William J. O'Brien's work at the Renaissance Society is altogether different: color is often strong; gloss is often thick; and not much else is exciting--in a formal sense. Whatever the pieces might mean in relation to the history of painting or ceramics, when one considers O'Brien's production as "sculpture," it's difficult to be satisfied. What is it--other than surface treatment and firing--which accounts for the variance between the receptions of Warren and O'Brien? Is O'Brien's work (at the Renaissance Society) something other than statuary, i.e., free-standing, three-dimensional, art which a viewer encounters in the round?

Was Warren an "easy target" for local critics by virtue of her foreign residence? Had she attended SAIC rather than Goldsmiths would Warren have received the same treatment? It does seem good to acknowledge that while his (O'Brien's) work looks like Art Brut, in Chicago O'Brien is anything but an outsider.[4] In fact, that which the local "art community" is able to give--it has given to O'Brien very quickly.[5] One is made to wonder: Why?


Above: William J. O'Brien @ The Renaissance Society

It seems to be the case that (roughly) eighteen months ago, at Marianne Boesky Gallery in New York, William J. O'Brien presented modestly-scaled, polychromatic, ceramic pieces upon an elegant, rectangular tabletop.[6] And the current display at the Renaissance Society differs chiefly (only) in that it involves the gathering of an even larger number of clay lumps, all of which have been shifted to a custom-fabricated, heavy-plywood, T-form, multi-tiered plinth.[7]


Above: William J. O'Brien @ The Renaissance Society

A spectator in Chicago (or New York) might be hard-pressed to identify any one work sitting on that plywood as a "virtuoso piece." O'Brien's output is strikingly regular, and crude; it evidences no "higher" academic or technical training. Is it precisely that "democratic" manifestation, that "community of objects," which is found to be praiseworthy? Would a people hostile to the idea of distinction, even in appearance, want, or need, art like O'Brien's art?


Above: William J. O'Brien @ The Renaissance Society

There does seem at this moment to be a "rising tide" of young Chicago artists engaged in the business of cobbling found objects, and molding common materials, in a manner which belies the "advanced" degrees (usually) held by the makers. The phenomenon seems not disconnected from Arte Povera in form or (invoked) theory; Art Brut has already been mentioned. In the looming shadow of fine art PhD programs, one is made to wonder quite seriously about the content of existing MFA programs: how are they necessary, or even helpful, for this sort of movement?


Above: William J. O'Brien @ The Renaissance Society

Whether it's found within the artwork, or in some speech or text which exists apart from the artwork, ought not an expression *from the artist* to have the effect of suggesting a refinement, i.e., a subtlety and complexity of thought or insight, which has been cultivated within his or her person? When such evidence is thin, or lacking altogether, one is made to wonder not only about particular exhibitions, or personalities, but about the systems which produce and support them.

The Neo-Povera and Faux Brut get the laurels here and now; it's a time of New Brutes.

+ + +

William J. O'Brien
May 15 – June 26, 2011
Tuesday - Friday: 10:00 am - 5:00 pm
Saturday, Sunday: 12:00 am - 5:00 pm
Closed Mondays
The Renaissance Society
Bergman Gallery, Cobb Hall 418
5811 S. Ellis Avenue
Chicago, Illinois
Exhibitions at The Renaissance Society are free of charge.
http://www.renaissancesociety.org

+ + +

[1] http://art.newcity.com/2010/10/11/review-rebecca-warrenthe-renaissance-society/
Above: "Review: Rebecca Warren/The Renaissance Society," by Jason Foumberg, October 11, 2010

See also: http://blog.art21.org/2010/12/31/center-field-art-in-the-middle-with-bad-at-sports-top-10-chicago-art-events-in-2010/
Above: Claudine Ise and Meg Onli name Foumberg's review above as "Best of 2010" on Decmber 31, 2010:
"Best critical review of an internationally acclaimed artist: Jason Foumberg’s review of Rebecca Warren’s exhibition at The Renaissance Society..."

[2] http://art.newcity.com/2011/05/30/review-william-j-o%E2%80%99brienrenaissance-society/
Above: "Review: William J. O’Brien/Renaissance Society," by Jason Foumberg, May 30, 2011

[3] http://paulgermanos.blogspot.com/2010/11/review-rebecca-warren-renaissance.html

[4] O'Brien's position within Chicago's "art world," as defined by his on-line bio, is characterized by multiple, overlapping points of contact with prominent figures and institutions.

For example:

O'brien's bio lists a solo exhibition in 2010 at Shane Campbell Gallery, Oak Park, IL.[a] Shane Campbell Gallery, Oak Park, IL, provides the same address (125 N. Harvey Avenue Oak Park, Illinois 60302) as Artforum critic Michelle Grabner's "domestic" gallery space (The Suburban) and home.[b] O'brien's bio lists a 2008 review written by Michelle Grabner.[c] O'brien and Michelle Grabner are two of the twenty artists currently listed on the Shane Campbell Gallery roster.[d] Both William J. O'Brien and Michelle Grabner are School of the Art Institute employees.[e]

Again:

O'brien's bio lists his participation in the group exhibition "New Icon," at Loyola University Museum of Art, Chicago, IL, in 2010.[f] The group show "New Icon," at Loyola University Museum of Art, was curated by Britton Bertran.[g] Britton Bertran served as Individual Artists Awards Coordinator for The Richard H. Driehaus Foundation.[h] The Richard H. Driehaus Foundation is a partner organization of Artadia.[i] O'brien's bio lists the 2007 receipt (Artadia lists 2006) of an Artadia grant.[j] The Richard H. Driehaus Foundation lists its 2008 funding of both Artadia and Britton Bertran.[k] Both William J. O'Brien and Britton Bertran are School of the Art Institute employees.[l]

[a] http://www.shanecampbellgallery.com/artists/obrien/bio/

[b] http://www.thesuburban.org/

[c] http://www.shanecampbellgallery.com/artists/obrien/bio/

[d] http://www.shanecampbellgallery.com/artists/

[e] http://www.saic.edu/people/O%27Brien_William_John.html?color=ORANGE

[e] http://www.saic.edu/people/Grabner_Michele.html?color=ORANGE?color=ORANGE

[f] http://www.shanecampbellgallery.com/artists/obrien/bio/

[g] http://www.luc.edu/luma/news/051710_new_icon.html

[h] http://www.linkedin.com/pub/britton-bertran/4/751/31

[i] http://www.artadia.org/newspages/newsletter/2007NLWinter.html

[i] http://www.artadia.org/newspages/newsletter/2010NLWinter.html

[j] http://artistregistry.artadia.org/registry/view_artist.php?aid=146

[k] http://www.driehausfoundation.org/node?page=3

[l] http://www.saic.edu/people/Bertran_Britton.html?color=ORANGE

[5] http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2010-08-01/entertainment/ct-ae-0801-mca-michael-darling-20100801_1_curator-museum-director-seattle-art-museum/3
Above: Chicago Tribune reporter Lauren Viera's interview of MCA Chief Curator Michael Darling, August 01, 2010:

Darling: "...maybe people are looking for a museum to give the stamp of approval on them before they're launched onto the next level. That kind of advocacy for artists is something that I'm really excited about."

Viera: "Do you have anyone in particular in mind?"

Darling: "William J. O'Brien, for instance, is an artist that's kind of come up through Chicago, came through the 12x12 program, is starting to really get some international attention."

[6] http://artnews.org/gallery.php?i=162&exi=17886&Marianne_Boesky&William_J_O_Brien
Above: Image of tabletop installation in New York.

[7] Per Hamza Walker: Walker himself sketched the T-type installation which was then elaborated upon and executed according to the vision of architect John Vinci. O'Brien did not design or build the pedestal.

- Paul Germanos

Review: Juan Angel Chávez @ Linda Warren

More often than not, Juan Angel Chávez works with plywood.

Along with an understanding of solid wood's hygroscopic character and corresponding dimensional instability, the (traditional) woodworker's foremost concern--fiber orientation--has disappeared from the art offered by Chávez.

The pieces on display at Linda Warren Gallery are not born of any refined craft; they're as raw as they are fragile.  And by virtue of the means and material of their fabrication they're almost wholly disconnected from the history of woodwork prior to WWII.  Whether in the final analysis determined to be helpful or harmful to the artwork, such things ought to be considered as noteworthy in every preliminary estimation.



Plywood is an engineered material; it's designed to "overcome" the natural behavior of its chief component.  Plywood consists of veneer (ply) stacked upon veneer; each layer's fibers are set perpendicular to the fibers of the layer immediately preceding; the whole affair is held together (laminated) with synthetic resin.  Only recent developments in "glue" technology have made plywood an affordable, stable and popular choice across a broad spectrum of applications.

Looking closely, Chávez tends to produce wood-colored and wood-textured objects which are not made of "real" wood; rather, they are simulacra thereof. Chávez creates sometimes fanciful and sometimes ominous structures which are surreal and abstract. In many cases, without question, the incorporation of found objects predetermines the scale and proportion of the finished piece.



Chávez  is a builder, not a carver.  "Wood," i.e., lumber, is produced by cutting trees; it's formed through a subtractive process. "Plywood" is built from lumber; it's the end result of an additive process. Tree trunks are irregular, three-dimensional (roughly conical) shapes; plywood is uniform, and nearly two-dimensional. As a practical matter, the use of plywood and not wood might be thought to make the task of fabrication easier and faster for Chávez .

Essentially, in his most recognizable idiom, Chávez "draws" geometric and quasi-organic figures with the aid of "contour lines" cut from plywood.  Fabric stretched across said plywood framing conveys a potential volume; the mechanical fasteners used therein hold not canvas or linen but rather (often) Lycra panels. Like plywood, Lycra is a relatively modern innovation--in this case an innovation producing cloth with a flexibility greater than natural fibers would otherwise impart.



Chávez isn't (manifestly) interested in Nature, or in natural limitations. Rather, his work--sculpture, collage, installation, whatever form it takes--tends to incorporate and resemble things made by the imagination of Man. In a formal sense, the strongest of the pieces (shown by Chávez over time in Chicago) draw near to Richard Deacon. Chávez is distinctive in his ability to work along a vertical axis. At his best, Chávez is playful and his artworks rise lightly: like a child's bubbling laughter.

Whether the recreation of American urban decay, a tendency also found across the body of work attributable to Chávez, should in time prove more prescient is unpleasant to consider.


Above: Juan Angel Chávez @ Linda Warren, December 11, 2009 - January 16, 2010


Above: Juan Angel Chávez @ Hyde Park Art Center, November 8, 2009 - January 24, 2010

Juan Angel Chávez
April 15 – May 14, 2011
Linda Warren Gallery: Project Space
1052 W Fulton Market
Chicago, IL 60607
http://www.lindawarrengallery.com

- Paul Germanos

Pictorial: Conrad Freiburg @ Hyde Park Art Center

Twelve images and text (produced at two separate expositions) which in combination help to document Conrad Freiburg's October, 2010 - June, 2011 residency in Studio 6 on the second floor at the Hyde Park Art Center, Chicago, Illinois, USA.


Freiburg atop his "harmonograph" at center of opening.


Freiburg monitoring harmonograph output.





Above:
Conrad Freiburg in,
It Is What It Isn't
March 20 - June 26, 2011
Hyde Park Art Center, Gallery 1
5020 S. Cornell Avenue
Chicago, IL 60615
http://www.hydeparkart.org

Below:
Conrad Freiburg with,
Self Contained Unit of Entropy
May 13, 2011
Hyde Park Art Center, Gallery 1
5020 S. Cornell Avenue
Chicago, IL 60615
http://www.hydeparkart.org


Conrad Freiburg.


Self Contained Unit of Entropy, SCUE, in operation.


Chuck Thurow displays piece which survived SCUE.


Typical SCUE output.


Typical harmonograph output.







Conrad Freiburg is represented in Chicago by Linda Warren:
http://www.lindawarrengallery.com

See also: Bert Stabler's review in Newcity Art,
http://art.newcity.com/2011/04/25/review-conrad-freiburghyde-park-art-center/

See also: Conrad Freiburg in his own words, offering the last entry at the Studio Chicago blog,
http://studiochicago.blogspot.com/2010/10/great-american-loserdom.html

- Paul Germanos

Review: Anne Wilson & Judy Ledgerwood @ Rhona Hoffman

Opening night, January 14, 2011: Entering through the storefront's glass curtain facade, Judy Ledgerwood's direct treatment of the surrounding solid walls has the effect of preparing a "color field" ground.  Building upon that foundation she's brushed, freehand, a "lyrical" metallic paint figure, which in this context would be pleasing to consider as a lace motif.  Continuing, her palette shifts from right to left, and top to bottom, while remaining tripartite in both the foreground and also the background.


Above: Rhona Hoffman's clear, glass curtain wall, and Peoria St. entrance.

Within the piece, between the two distinct planes of action, there is high contrast: in hue, in value, in reflectivity, in painterliness, and in complexity of pattern.  The result is a strong "op" effect.  The large, nearly floor-to-ceiling, scale of the work is helpful in achieving its powerful, visual presence.[1]  Not being bound by a frame, nor even by a single architectural surface: Where it occupies the whole of one's visual field the experience of the painting  is like unto an immersion.


Above: Judy Ledgerwood, "Chromatic Patterns for Chicago," 2011, detail.

In sum, Ledgerwood's work upon the vertical, two-dimensional area of Hoffman's street-level gallery is immediately accessible, exposed to the variations of natural light, evident of the artist's own involvement, and, while connected to the history of painting and executed on a heroic scale, able to offer itself as playful, colorful and abstract.

That said, the defining experience of the exhibition is not to be found in that one space only, but rather in the dramatic movement from that starting point, upward, in an ascent into twilight.


Above and below: Anne Wilson, "Rewinds," 2010.

Elevated, at the other end of the building, in a windowless, blackened room, Anne Wilson's somber, three-dimensional installation awaits investigation.  Therein, many small, achromatic or desaturated, glass elements lie carefully placed across horizontal surfaces: within vitrines or upon delicate plinths.  Each was carefully wrought by a team of artisans; all are selectively lit by overhead spotlights.  Control of light is as important, here, as was the handling of the (translucent) solid from which the objects were crafted.



During Wilson's first solo exhibition at Hoffman, in 2008, interest in the object category of "tool" was evident from the presence of a frame loom at the center of her noteworthy performance-sculpture "Wind-Up: Walking the Warp," even as an interest in the spatial distribution of phenomena was evident in the layout of her "Portable City" group from the same show.


Above: Anne Wilson, "Wind-Up: Walking the Warp," 2008, post-performance.

Then as now, Wilson co-ordinates the labor of others: seeming to be attentive to the worker's gender.  While tools tend to be, and are here, interesting forms in their own right, it might also be good to remember that such implements appear at the nodal points of (at least some of) Wilson's historical interests: (1) labor; (2) gender; (3) parallel material and social organization.  Those same three, longstanding, concerns remain manifest--only now in a different medium, with new connotations of value being derived from physical qualities of delicacy and semi-preciousness.  Symbolically, tools bespeak laborers engaged in a particular craft.  Though, yet again, Wilson's own role most closely resembles that of the architect.





With regard to that interpretation, "Blonde" is idiosyncratic and maybe confounding.  More characteristic of what's understood to be the work of Wilson's own hand, "Blonde" is a vertical, hanging tapestry which incorporates her own hair of the same color.  Maybe, whether intentional, it's a point of connection with the also flaxen-headed Ledgerwood, even as Ledgerwood's mural seems to nod at Wilson with a design imitative of a sagging, wall-mounted, horizontally-orientated textile.


Above: Anne Wilson, "Blonde," 2011.

Ledgerwood too, for her part, makes difficult a simple reading as a result of her linear hanging of three-dimensional, non-objective, polyurethane "Blob Paintings" in red, yellow, green and blue.  The (partial?) representation of the visual spectrum seems indicative of the careful nature of the pieces' irrationality; the material has been previously employed by Ledgerwood's partner Tony Tasset.


Above: Judy Ledgerwood, "Blob Painting," in blue. 

Considering the whole, it's the successful synthesis of an environment, and not only a discrete object, which in this place connects Judy Ledgerwood to Anne Wilson.  The two seem otherwise somewhere near antipodes: as much in formal terms as in their artworks' respective locations across the site.  The range of visually interesting material available is probably the (two-part) show's greatest strength, and certainly not its weakness.  It's very much worth seeing.

[1] Describing Ledgerwood's "Chromatic Patterns for Chicago," writers have moved beyond the realm of the visual: Lori Waxman, January 21, 2011, Chicago Tribune, wrote of the "icy cool rush" and "agitated jangle" produced by the "loud, metallic, fluorescent," paint which "rustles and twinkles" in the light, even as Janina Ciezadlo, January 17, 2011, Newcity, commented upon the "heat and light" produced by the artwork.

Anne Wilson
"Rewinds"
Judy Ledgerwood
"Chromatic Patterns for Chicago & Blob Paintings"
January 14—February 18, 2011
Tuesday-Friday, 10am-5:30pm
Saturday, 11am-5:30pm
Rhona Hoffman Gallery
118 North Peoria Street
Chicago, Illinois 60607
http://www.rhoffmangallery.com

- Paul Germanos

Review: Rebecca Warren @ The Renaissance Society

It might be helpful to begin by remembering "L.H.O.O.Q." from 1919, wherein Marcel Duchamp seized a contemporary postcard print of Leonardo da Vinci's 1505 "Mona Lisa," defaced it with a moustache and tiny beard, and situated the titular acronym below the subject's thus modified countenance.

Especially noteworthy in the context of this review is that Duchamp (often) found it expedient to employ a "readymade" artwork, i.e., an object pre-existing for some distinct purpose, subsequently appropriated by the artist, and reintroduced as a beast of burden for his own ideology.  Acknowledging his 1917 "Fountain" as the more common point of reference in such discussions, "L.H.O.O.Q." seems like the best precedent in this case, inasmuch as it involves a gender-conscious mockery of the viewer's attachment to the likeness of one traditional expression of the idea of the beautiful.

Said to have been born out of the perceived failure of European values evident after the tragedy of World War One, the echo of the strategic concern which informed Duchamp's activity (Dada largely) has persisted now for nearly a century.  And, tactical distinctions notwithstanding, nothing other than direct observation of the phenomena surrounding the Rebecca Warren exhibition, which opened at the University of Chicago's Renaissance Society on the third day of October, 2010, is needed to confirm that assertion.



Whether Warren's intent is actually self-evident, the Society's own Hamza Walker published the following teaching within his companion essay: "Her work is marked," Walker offers on her behalf, "by the appropriation (a polite way of saying chewing up and spitting out) of a squarely object-based tradition."[1] The text bounded by parentheses belongs to Walker; the quote is verbatim.  Where that "object-based tradition" is abstract, Walker supposes that it has served "as a means of silencing culturally specific voices, including those of women."[2]  And, looking at the historical representation of the human figure Walker perceives "a tradition in wholesale need of a woman’s deconstructive touch."[3]  What ought one to make of Walker's handling of art history and Warren's relationship to it?

Looking around, Warren's past treatment by Tate does seem to corroborate Walker's exegesis, stating that she: "intentionally misappropriates existing images by the accepted masters of figurative sculpture,"[4] and, "explores the degradation of established form."[5]

Too, in a description of Warren's concurrent display upon their own Bluhm Family Terrace, the Art Institute of Chicago provides that: "She knowingly references the work of canonical male artists,"[6] while laboring to "disrupt entrenched notions of the classical ideal."[7]   In fact, the very presence of Warren's sculptures upon said Terrace is given a gendered reading as they (Warren's sculptures) are called: "forceful counterpoints to Chicago’s renowned modernist skyline--itself dominated by works of the city’s greatest, mostly male architectural masters."[8]



If one accepts--provisionally--what has been said to be the stance of the artist, it's good to continue the critical inquiry with a turn towards the formal qualities of the work.  Frustratingly, some of the pieces are nearly formless.  And it's difficult by means of any artwork to identify precisely which "canonical male artist" are her targets.  Curious as well, given its repeated invocation by her interpreters, is that Warren's own gender isn't evident through an examination of the sculpture which is on display.  In fact, the specific intent attributed to Warren (above) seems to be largely external to the visual experience of the exhibition within the gallery space.  That being the case, one is made to wonder from what source/s the unanimous declaration of Warren's purpose has been derived.[9]

It's rather difficult to find (on-line) a clear statement of Rebecca Warren's philosophy of art--made by Rebecca Warren.  Those statements which are available, and attributed to her, deal much more directly with the physical properties of the objects which she produces than with political conflicts between genders, or races, or classes.  And where cleavages such as gender are invoked, she would (if reported correctly) seem to imply that said constructs are mutable (permeable, even) rather than fixed: "The various materials start off contrasting along gender lines––in their qualities of durability, brittleness, rectilinearity, and crumbliness.  But these qualities are never stable for long, and they start to invade one another in ways that I find interesting."[10]

Not everyone shares Warren's interest.  One local Arts Editor, Jason Foumberg of Newcity, quickly made clear that he had grave reservations about the aesthetic nature of Warren's output.  In his review Foumberg posited that: "The unquestioning acceptance of any old piece of shit--here, Warren’s--by The Renaissance Society, which now only produces four exhibitions per year, is a waste of the institution’s good name and resources."[11]  The boldness of Foumberg's insight is laudable.  Though, suggesting that Warren's exhibition is "a waste of the institution’s good name and resources," he seems to presuppose that Walker and the other members of the Society's staff failed to produce the outcome which they desired.  Were it true, that would be odd.  Everyone involved (at the Society) must have known aforehand that Warren's art was not per se beautiful or novel; yet, they went forward with the program.  Why?



By happy coincidence, the contemporary episode of the Chicago-based, arts-focused podcast Bad at Sports features an audio file containing an interview of School of the Art Institute Professor James Elkins by co-host Duncan MacKenzie.  Therein, early in the exchange, Elkins makes reference to "the deepest division" within the arts academy being between those parties whose "ultimate aim is to produce an object," and those parties wishing to practice what "ultimately you might call politics."[12]  With regard to the present undertaking, Elkins' pronouncement is timely and helpful.  Though (as Elkins seems to acknowledge) the application of a strict dichotomy would prove false, his (Elkins') description of the factions (beautiful object producers v. anti-aesthetic political actors) locked in an unresolved conflict probably hints at the truth of the situation.

Tension has been building, notably since the 1960's, as artists, and ever more often curators, have employed the tactic of introducing garbage (sometimes literally) into gallery and museum spaces for the purpose of: (a) contesting the commodity value of art within the economic system of Capitalism; (b) blurring the distinction between the high and the low, the beautiful and the ugly, and so forth; (c) incrementally breaking traditional attachments (to property, family, religion, nation, etc.) in anticipation of the opportunity to introduce new orders.



For example, Italian Arte Povera might be described as a coming together of Dada's nonsensical, anti-establishment antics and a left-wing agenda for social change; in 1967 Germano Celant did refer to Marcel Duchamp by name in what's come to be called the Arte Povera manifesto.[13]  Closer to home, one might also consider the tone of the activity even now ongoing within many of Chicago's apartment and not-for-profit galleries.  While treating Lynne Warren and Mary Jane Jacobs' 1984 text "Alternative Spaces in Chicago," another Newcity Arts contributor, Dan Gunn, traced the evolution of those venues with roots in the 1970's which, he wrote: "grew out of a desire to show anti-commercial, ephemeral, or Feminist work."[14]

Ultimately, those three themes "anti-commercial, ephemeral, [...] Feminist" are more clearly evident in the curatorial choices and critical texts which involve Rebecca Warren than they are within the works involved in her exhibition.  It seems ridiculous to accept that Warren has set herself against the Western tradition of making art objects--by making art objects in the West.  The four distinct types of sculpture on display within the Ren's undivided chamber: (1) female figure; (2) abstract steel; (3) bronze cube; and (4) amorphous clay, function as parody only to the degree that the audience recognizes in their form the target of the parody, i.e., sculpture.  In truth, she's engaged in a very conventional--one might even say conservative--enterprise.  She produces sometimes delicate, sometimes costly, things which are shipped around the world for display in prestigious institutions.  Her work is in important collections; she's won awards and critical acclaim.  As ugly and imperfect as it might at times be, the "art world" is "working" for her.  In the end, it's not in her self-interest to truly injure the system; it's only useful to tickle it.

[1] http://www.renaissancesociety.org/site/Exhibitions/Essay.Rebecca-Warren.616.html
[2] Ibid.
[3] Ibid.

[4] http://www.tate.org.uk/britain/turnerprize/2006/rebeccawarren.htm
[5] Ibid.

[6] http://www.artic.edu/aic/exhibitions/exhibition/Warren
[7] Ibid.
[8] Ibid.

[9] http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/2009/mar/22/rebecca-warren-serpentine-gallery-review
Above: Laura Cumming for a more formal and less gendered reading of Warren's work.

[10] http://artforum.com/words/id=26507
Above: "As told to Lauren O’Neill-Butler" in Artforum.

[11] http://art.newcity.com/2010/10/11/review-rebecca-warrenthe-renaissance-society/

[12] http://badatsports.com/2010/episode-267-james-elkins-and-the-stone-summer-theory-institute/
Above: Hear 04:17 - 06:01 within the audio for Episode 267.

[13] http://www.flashartonline.com/interno.php?pagina=articolo_det&id_art=352&det=ok&title=ARTE-POVERA
Above: Archive of Flash Art n.5 - 1967.

[14] http://www.dangunn.com/entries/articles/arc_pr.html
See also: http://proximitymagazine.com/2009/07/artist-run-spaces-a-brief-history-since-1984/

Rebecca Warren
October 3 - December 12, 2010
Tuesday - Friday: 10:00 am - 5:00 pm
Saturday, Sunday: 12:00 am - 5:00 pm
Closed Mondays
The Renaissance Society
Bergman Gallery, Cobb Hall 418
5811 S. Ellis Avenue
Chicago, Illinois
Exhibitions at The Renaissance Society are free of charge.
http://www.renaissancesociety.org

"Rebecca Warren is organized by The Art Institute of Chicago and The Renaissance Society at The University of Chicago. The Renaissance Society presentation is generously funded by the Stanley Thomas Johnson Foundation, The Henry Moore Foundation, and The British Council. The presentation at the Art Institute of Chicago is generously funded by the Bluhm Family Endowment Fund, which supports exhibitions of modern and contemporary sculpture on the Art Institute's Bluhm Family Terrace.

Ongoing support for programs at The Renaissance Society is provided by Alphawood Foundation; the CityArts Program of The Chicago Department of Cultural Affairs, a municipal agency; Christie’s; The Danielson Foundation; The John R. Halligan Charitable Fund, the Illinois Arts Council, a state agency; The MacArthur Fund for Arts and Culture at Prince; Chauncey and Marion D. McCormick Family Foundation; Nuveen Investments, the Provost’s Discretionary Fund at The University of Chicago; Pritzker Foundation; The Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts;The Siragusa Foundation; and our membership."

Related Posts:

http://paulgermanos.blogspot.com/2011/06/review-william-j-obrien-renaissance.html
"Review: William J. O'Brien @ The Renaissance Society," June 11, 2011

- Paul Germanos

Review: Carla Arocha & Stephane Schraenen @ Monique Meloche

Anish Kapoor's "Cloud Gate" is well-loved in Chicago.  Its polished, stainless steel skin reflects not only the City skyline but also those spectators near to the curvilinear work, thus providing equal opportunity for civic pride and public vanity--assuming that they are distinguishable.[1]


Above: Anish Kapoor's "Cloud Gate"

In a similar manner, for the purpose of examining their own reflections, patrons (including the author) drew close to the mirror-like surfaces contained within four pieces of statuary on display at the opening of Carla Arocha and Stephane Schraenen's show "As if" at Monique Meloche Gallery.


Above: Carla Arocha and Stephane Schraenen's "Untitled (gold)" which, on a different scale, would fit quite nicely into Chicago's skyline.  See MvdR's 1971 IBM Building,[2] which Ira J. Bach called, "superbly proportioned."[3]

It was a human response, likely engendered by the scale and proportion (59 x 20 x 12 inches in every case) of the art.[4]  The bright, acrylic sheets filling each sculpture were said to have been laser-cut; the monolithic cabinets holding that acrylic were said to have been fastidiously constructed from synthetic board painted with automobile enamel.  But, contrary to the orchestrated precision which characterized the process of the artworks' fabrication, it was that random, casual, and natural reaction of the audience which provided the color--according to the (reflected) dress of the attendee.  What seemed at first proper to judge as a minimal and nearly monochromatic presentation of regular, geometric forms was enlivened by the entry of the crowd.


Above: Carla Arocha and Stephane Schraenen's "Untitled (lines)"

Visual art is "alive" when it's seen, in real time and space, by an engaged party.  And, generally, it's fatal to understanding to imagine that artworks (any cultural products) exist only in the vacuum of "white cube" gallery and museum spaces.  Hopefully, internet viewership and academic practice--being abstracted from reality--will not wholly displace the pursuit of direct experience and the practice of personal contemplation.  How much color is in Arocha and Schraenen's show? as much or as little color as is in the environment in which it's displayed.  Light, clothing, paint on the walls: The pieces are affected by whatever surrounds them.


Above: Carla Arocha and Stephane Schraenen's"Untitled (bubbles)"

On perception: The gallery's front window and front wall (facing Division) have been treated with precisely-cut vinyl tape, so that two concentric ring patterns are held on planes parallel to one another, separated by a distance of roughly two meters.  As viewed from the sidewalk and/or street, a "moire" effect appears in a striking manner.  The high contrast of the black and white, figure and ground, is boldly graphic.  But the piece is truly three-dimensional (sculpture) as its appreciation depends upon spatial relationships.  It's from this installation that the show takes its title; and it's probably the most effective use of the storefront to date.


Above: Carla Arocha and Stephane Schraenen's "As if"

The whole show--installation, statuary, and four photographic prints--seems very much more expansive than it is, thanks to good placement and light.

[1] Anish Kapoor's "Cloud Gate" is curvilinear in shape--but contains within its surface the reflections of many rectilinear shapes as a result of the context in which it has been placed.

[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/330_North_Wabash
Above: Mies van der Rohe's 1971 IBM Building at 330 N. Wabash

[3] "Chicago's Famous Buildings" Third Edition, ed. Ira J. Bach (1965, 1969; Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1980) 95-96.

[4] If the scale and the proportion (but not the shape) of Arocha & Schraenen's statuary relates to the human body, in the context of Chicago the shape and proportion (if not the scale) of that statuary relates to the City's Modern architecture.

Carla Arocha & Stephane Schraenen
"As if"
September 16 – November 6, 2010
Tuesday – Saturday, 11:00 am - 6:00 pm
Closed Sunday and Monday
Monique Meloche Gallery
2154 W. Division (@ Leavitt)
Chicago, IL 60622
http://moniquemeloche.com

See also: Lauren Weinberg's Time Out Chicago review of Carla Arocha & Stephane Schraenen,
http://chicago.timeout.com/articles/art-design/90016/carla-arocha-and-stephane-schraenen-at-monique-meloche-art-story

- Paul Germanos

Review: Richard Rezac @ Devening Projects

His artworks are well-crafted, appealing, and maddeningly polite.  Chicago-based Richard Rezac carefully organizes solid shapes within very compact dimensions, and through that activity has come to be defined as a sculptor.  But, looking carefully, he's distinguished by the selective application of color, so that it seems equally good to consider him in the company of painters.  Maybe it's that modest balance (ambiguity?) with regard to the fundamental criteria of visual art which quintessentially describes Rezac's work.



Having written that, the experience which Rezac offers is wholly, and unapologetically, visual.  The rhythm of shapes repeated--the cascade--within any given piece is the result of the artist's own resolution of formal concerns.  External references, which might be drawn in by an observer after the fact, seem to count for little when compared to Rezac's own control of his work's execution.  He's possessed of a peculiar teleology of which his painted sculptures are evidence: they're his products in the sense that an oak produces acorns.



Historically, it's possible to locate Rezac after Minimalism and to describe him, partly, as a corrective to it.  Minimalist sculptor Richard Serra, for example, might be most (in)famous for the physical encounters which he has forced through the public placement of heavy steel plates.  Such massive objects, industrially fabricated and superficially neglected, seem as antithetical to Rezac's vision as the notion that art has a right to demand interaction through the exercise of its own brute strength.  May 19, 1995, Chicago Tribune critic Alan Artner quoted Rezac as having said: "I am interested in making sculpture that you would approach and understand as you would the things that wash up on shore..."



Beyond his consideration of the spectator's choice to become involved, Rezac seems to have remembered the choice of direct involvement--in process--made by the AbEx predecessors to Minimalism, such as David Smith.  Given Smith's current status within certain critical circles the comparison might initially seem odd, as it's very hard to apply the oft used (pejorative sense regarding Smith) term "macho" to the man (Rezac) or his art.  But not all studio-based practices lead inevitably towards the same end; nor do all studio-based practices proceed towards their different ends in a like manner.  His (Rezac's) oeuvre is, as written above (and remembering too the reference to teleology) virtuous in an Aristotelian sense: being a mean between one thing and another.  And that state of being characteristic of the work seems not unrelated to the man himself.  Social change, here, isn't proposed through literal activism and engagement, but rather by means of the (manifold sense) modeling--careful, patient, creative--resulting in the art.



Recalling Alan Artner again: On May 23, 2003, he (Artner) named Rezac, "one of the most [...] brilliant sculptors ever to have worked in Chicago."  Currently on display at Devening Projects is a selection of Rezac's work which spans the decade just past.  It might be a chance to meet Rezac for the first time and evaluate Artner's claim; or it might be a chance to remake his acquaintance in the company of painter Gary Stephan.  The exhibition of Richard Rezac and Gary Stephan, which opened on August 29, 2010, is the first in a year-long series devoted to the bringing together of partners in visual dialogue.



On September 25, 2010, a second installation, featuring new work by the same two artists--including a gallery talk which is free, and open to the public--will begin.

Richard Rezac & Gary Stephan
August 29 – October 16, 2010
Saturdays 12pm – 6pm
(and by appointment)
Devening Projects and Editions
3039 W. Carroll
Chicago, IL 60612
http://deveningprojects.com

Richard Rezac,
http://richardrezac.com

Gary Stephan,
http://garystephanstudio.com

- Paul Germanos

Review: Roger Hiorns @ Art Institute of Chicago

May 6, 2010: On the roof of the Art Institute's Modern Wing, two jet engines lie naked under the sky.



Thirty-one years earlier, May 25, 1979, one jet engine separated from the wing of American Airlines Flight 191 on take-off from O'Hare International Airport.  271 people (258 passengers and 13 crew) were killed as that McDonnell Douglas DC-10 exploded into the ground.  After the crash, in 1981, Chicago punk band Effigies released the Flight 191-inspired track "Bodybag" via Ruthless Records, committing what remains the deadliest single plane event in the United States to local music lore.

Boeing acquired McDonnell Douglas in 1997.  Though blame for the 1979 disaster was attributed to maintenance and not engineering, McDonnell Douglas never fully recovered from the negative publicity which followed the event.

On May 10, 2001, having been offered multimillion-dollar incentives by Illinois politicians including former Governor and now federal inmate George Ryan, Boeing announced its intention to relocate from Seattle to Chicago, as opposed to Denver or Dallas.  Several months later in the 2001 calendar year, on September 11, four Boeing aircraft (United Airlines' Flights 93 and 175 in addition to American Airlines' Flights 11 and 77) figured prominently in the most memorable act of terrorism on domestic soil.

The history, above, is truncated but necessary.  Creative works which are said to depend--principally--upon choice and placement must be considered in relation to the time and place of their exhibition.

+ + +

Here and now, for the piece "Untitled (Alliance)" British artist Roger Hiorns (born 1975) has chosen two Pratt and Whitney TF33 P9 turbofans and, in company with the Art Institute of Chicago's Frances and Thomas Dittmer Chair and Curator of Contemporary Art, James Rondeau, had them placed atop the third floor (rooftop) Bluhm Family Terrace.  Major funding for the exhibition was provided by Boeing.



Note: The variable components (engines) of Hiorns' installation never crossed the threshold and entered the "white cube" space of the museum's galleries.  That's important; that's problematic.  The downtown architecture of Chicago forms a mighty backdrop against which all (unveiled) exhibitions on the Terrace are forced to act.  Visually, Hiorns' composition amounts to little more than a juxtaposition of airplane parts and high-rise buildings.  And for anyone with an understanding of current affairs and/or regional history that sight is likely to be upsetting.  Did Hiorns (Rondeau) intend to cause such an upset, thereby provoking a reaction from the audience?  Did Boeing, in its capacity as a corporate sponsor, knowingly fund and (at least potentially) strengthen the association between itself and such tragedy?  Or, was Hiorns' piece imagined (and pitched) to include only the engines?



In a formal sense, in its present location, the experience of Hiorns' 2010 Chicago piece is framed by elements of functional design and not "artworks" per se.  Nothing here was crafted by the artist; nothing here was crafted but for a "real" need.  The two jet engines present as being identical: in shape they're frustums of attenuated ovoids, circular in cross-section, systemic complexity nearly organic in appearance.  In contradistinction, the city's skyline takes the form of a greater sculptural work consisting of high-rise, largely rectilinear and Modern, buildings, whose carefully ordered facades of glass, stone and steel are intact.

Hiorns' attention to surface treatments has been notable, e.g., "Seizure" from 2008, wherein a London residence was filled with a chemical solution which precipitated a layer of blue crystal throughout the interior--later drained and made available for view.  Here, in what seems to be a contrary maneuver, the two jet engines of "Untitled (Alliance)" have had their aluminum skins mostly flayed.  Too, a wall-mounted plaque, and a press release, want the audience to know that, "Effexor, Citalopram, and Mannitol, three pharmaceuticals used to treat trauma and depression," have been put into the engines, and left in place.  Yet within their opaque, metallic containers the medicines remain inaccessible to either hand or eye; one has to trust the plaque.

Forcing the (attentive) viewer to consider the relationship between the state of trust and the act of verification might well have been one of the artist's aims.  Hiorns claims to have chosen engines from a plane which contributed to the U.S. military effort via intelligence gathering missions.  But, again, that knowledge is not available to the general public (or press) but for consultation with the plaque or the release.

Why then not say that the real "artwork" is the text which accompanies the objects and not the objects themselves?  "Untitled (Alliance)" is, after all, a conceptual piece.  And it's not only through the collection of information that regimes sustain their power--but it's also by means of the careful dissemination of information that regimes sustain their power.  Has Hiorns (Rondeau) wittingly or unwittingly played the role of the propagandist?  How ought we (audience) to act in order to verify the story which has been told to us?

Roger Hiorns
May 1–September 19, 2010
Art Institute of Chicago
Modern Wing, Monroe Street entrance
Bluhm Family Terrace, Third Floor
http://www.artic.edu

Roger Hiorns,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Hiorns

Roger Hiorns and James Rondeau in conversation,
http://blog.artic.edu/blog/2010/06/16/roger-hiorns-in-conversation

First draft, May 10, 2010, in Newcity:
http://art.newcity.com/2010/05/10/review-roger-hiornsart-institute-of-chicago

Second draft, August 31, 2010, at this location.

- Paul Germanos