Showing posts with label Drawing. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Drawing. Show all posts

Wednesday, April 6, 2011

Review: Rinus Van de Velde @ Monique Meloche

Immediately, the exhibition suggests a visual precedent: the work of Raymond Pettibon. The young artist (aged 27 years) is familiar with, but not overly fatigued by, the reference. And rather than rejecting the comparison outright, he strives in English to suggest a nuanced distinction between himself and the Black Flag conspirator. "Pettibon," says Rinus, "really is more of a painter."

Rinus Van de Velde @ Monique Meloche
Above: Rinus Van de Velde, candid.

Rinus Van de Velde draws. And where Pettibon is often found dripping in his wet work, Van de Velde's charcoal and papers are dry.  So, it seems at first easy to nod in agreement with Rinus' self-assessment. But, Pettibon is (usually) remarkable in his use of line, while in contrast Van de Velde produces value studies almost exclusively through skillful shading and blending. The former artist is actually the more "graphic" of the two.

Rinus Van de Velde @ Monique Meloche

Van de Velde, if not a painter, is deeply connected to the illusion of volume at which painters once aimed; especially noteworthy is the concomitant use of chiaroscuro. Yet again, though he begins with two-dimensional (digital) source material, Van de Velde is manifestly preoccupied with the rendition of a three-dimensional presence in a two-dimensional space. Towards that end, like a "real" painter, Van de Velde relies upon gradients and not linear work, e.g., cross-hatching or outlining, in order to suggest a given form. It's easy to believe that he began his training as a sculptor.

Rinus Van de Velde @ Monique Meloche

All of this omits the text. Rinus is given pause when asked about Barbara Kruger and Jenny Holzer. "I'll need to think about that," he responds. Kruger in particular seems good to mention as she furiously packs (virtually) all of the space between her images with text; like Van de Velde, both women (Kruger and Holzer) "write" directly upon architectural surfaces.

Rinus Van de Velde @ Monique Meloche

Returning to the beginning, it's the indication of the artist's own hand which not only draws Van de Velde close to Pettibon but which also distances him from Kruger's bold italic, and Holzer's electric, font. There's his hatching: in the writing. Different than any of them, Van de Velde's textual "ground" manifests as a fantastic sort of "stream of consciousness" monologue which, maybe akin to Joyce's "commodius vicus of recirculation," really goes nowhere.

Whether there is (ever) a progression towards meaning, this artist's "found" JPEG reinterpretations are buoyed along in a manner which is pleasing to behold...

Rinus Van de Velde in:
Dear David Johnson,
April 2 – May 14, 2011
moniquemeloche
2154 W. Division
Chicago IL 60622
http://moniquemeloche.com

- Paul Germanos

Monday, March 21, 2011

Pictorial: Ebony G. Patterson @ Monique Meloche

Ebony G. Patterson @ Monique Meloche

Ebony G. Patterson @ Monique Meloche

Ebony G. Patterson @ Monique Meloche

Ebony G. Patterson
February 12 - March 26, 2011
moniquemeloche gallery
2154 W. Division
Chicago, IL 60622
http://moniquemeloche.com

- Paul Germanos

Tuesday, August 24, 2010

Review: Harvey Moon & Xiao Tse @ Studio 1020

Harvey Moon's drawing machine hangs precariously.  From time-to-time its stylus drops briefly but precipitously: each jerking motion appearing to threaten the device's connection to the gallery wall.

Harvey Moon @ Studio 1020

The whole affair is an informal tangle of common-looking parts, strung out to resemble a grandfather clock, controlled by a telephone, for the purpose of operating a tattoo gun.  The 24x36 (?) paper attached to the gallery wall, upon which a drawing is--slowly--being formed by the jerking stylus, is almost beside the point.  Moon's chief artistry seems to lie in the creation of the thing (machine) which creates what was formerly known as art, viz. a drawing.

Harvey Moon @ Studio 1020

Meanwhile, on an opposing wall, Xiao Tse's photographic prints are sustained by the steady glow of lightbox backlight.  Tse's display shares a nominally "DIY aesthetic" with Moon's machine, as the re-purposed construction materials used by Tse are exposed to view, easily identifiable by the visitor.  Curiously, Tse's chosen imagery is normally considered to be background rather than subject; and he's caused it (imagery) to be segmented, with white space left between individual units in a series.

Xiao Tse @ Studio 1020

While it's possible to count the number of aperture blades visible in Tse's lens' bokeh, or study the quality of Moon's machine's drawings, the meaning to be found in the exhibition (in toto) seems to stem from the peculiar manifestation of technology in the gallery space.  In form and in spirit, Rob Ray's Deadtech is recalled from the not-too-distant past; and the Antena of Miguel Cortez is remembered from the present day.

Xiao Tse @ Studio 1020

The activity of Moon and Tse might be taken to indicate that it is possible to modestly harness science in the service of art; but, too, that indication might have more to do with the moderate nature of Moon and Tse than with the relationship they've (indirectly) proposed.  Moon's machine in particular is infinitely scalable; the effect of the singular, rickety prototype ought not to be taken as the end towards which the machine might be made to progress.  It's possible, for example, to imagine a large room filled with many similar mechanical artisans--each ticking away at the likeness of some predetermined form.  Is the thought unappealing?

It seems good, now especially, to consider wherein the artistic act might be lost or found.  Harvey Moon and Xiao Tse, taken together, do much to provoke such consideration.  Though they seem not to have planned to exhibit their works together, their works are resonant--and timely.

Harvey Moon & Xiao Tse
"Mad Love"
Closing: Thursday, August 19, 2010
The Studio at 1020
1020 N. Marshfield
Chicago, IL
studio1020(at)gmail.com

Harvey Moon,
http://www.unanything.com

Xiao Tse,
http://jpgmag.com/people/forhours

- Paul Germanos

Friday, August 20, 2010

Review: Lora Fosberg @ Linda Warren Gallery

In September 2009, at the opening of Chicago's current exhibition season, the presentation of Robyn O'Neil at Tony Wight Gallery and Davis/Langlois at Monique Meloche Gallery suggested a renewed interest in manual competence as evidenced in a traditional process, viz. drawing.  And, whether their subjects tended to be landscape (O'Neil) or portrait (Davis/Langlois) it's noteworthy that said artists offered their renderings as informed by some personally-constructed mythology: O'Neil's scenes were actually surreal; Davis/Langlois provided a fictional setting in which they cast real characters.

The (re)appearance of such craft might have been regarded as auspicious, or ominous, but it proved to be neither: indicating no trend in the near-term.  The careful hand of the artist--upon papers of like scale and number--did not return till 10 months had passed.

Carol Jackson at Swimming Pool Project Space, as well as Tony Fitzpatrick and Scott Nadeau at Studio 1020, among others, did present "well-drawn" two-dimensional objects of art.  But, compared to O'Neil and Davis/Langlois, they did so on a smaller scale, or with a smaller number of pieces, or outside of a conceptual framework of their own creation.

Maybe more closely related to the subject of this review was Jason Middlebrook's May 2010 solo show at Monique Meloche Gallery in which he (Middlebrook) reinforced a thematic concern for the management and allocation of natural resources by means of connecting large-scale, representational drawings to a site-specific installation.  But Middlebrook's drawing was only ancillary to his three-dimensional work.

That much (above) has been written NOT for the purpose of dismissing the aforementioned artists or spaces--but rather as a remembrance and acknowledgment of them.  Too, it seems good to provide context.  In this year, Lora Fosberg should be connected to: Robyn O'Neil, Robert Davis and Michael Langlois, Carol Jackson, Tony Fitzpatrick, and Jason Middlebrook at least.

+ + +

Within Lora Fosberg's graphic narratives the elements of text and image were expected to diverge: one having grown at the expense of the other.

Lora Fosberg @ Linda Warren

Whether beginning with Zoroaster, the simple dichotomy is a pattern too familiar in the history of the West.  So that even late in so-called Modernity (Friedrich Nietzsche to Camille Paglia at least) it's been possible for cultural observers to borrow from Greek antiquity the motifs of the Apollonian and Dionysian: identifying two contemporary tendencies in opposition to one another, usually as part of an analysis by contrast.

For a critic to want to "read" a visual artist as pointing, compass-like, in a particular direction, seems natural--as any theorist's claim to prowess stems from an ability to offer the insight or framework which allows experience to be structured in such a way that meaning is the result.

In Fosberg's case, acknowledging both the duality which does exist and also the temptation to draw out incongruities, what's actually happened across her oeuvre is something else altogether: she has, surprisingly, managed to sustain the (relatively) equal development of two distinct avenues of expression.

Whether united in a single composition, both (her text and image) have continued to recall one another as a result of a common palette and her hand drawn line.  There's no gloss.  There's little vivid color.  Everything looks as though it was produced by the same person, with care, over time--maybe even some time ago.

Having written that, the successful synthesis which culminates in Fosberg's exhibition, "You Can’t Fall Off The Floor," isn't explained by the warm tone or matte patina seeming to cover the art.

Fosberg does well because her practice has evolved to treat words and pictures as modular, graphic units--rather than as parts of a fixed composition.  As goes the pithy quote painted on paper, so goes the tree trunk print.  Here, it's important to pay attention to method.

Lora Fosberg @ Linda Warren

Two years ago the size of a finished piece was determined aforehand by the size of the paper upon which she began to work.  Then, while continuing to draw on the same (small) scale, her pieces grew in size as multiple papers (serving to ground individual drawings) were collaged upon panels.  Now, those panels are found set beside each other.  Or, those panels are discarded altogether--and paper is collaged directly upon wall surfaces.

Fosberg has become heavily engaged in the acts of building and layering, albeit working closely to the vertical surface of the wall.  She's flirting with low relief sculpture and (fiber art) textiles, and is no longer bound by the page.  Pieces run on as long as she pleases.  As a result, much of her work is now infinitely scalable.

That feminine aspect of the Dionysian which was manifest in the maenads--chaotic, sexual, immoderate, even violent beings--is visible upon close inspection of some of Fosberg's pieces.  And that's where she seems to be at her strongest: glancing, oblique, abstract, her subtext quietly revealing an enigmatic challenge contrary to Man's effort to understand, to control, Nature.

Lora Fosberg @ Linda Warren

Lora Fosberg
"You Can’t Fall Off The Floor"
June 25 - August 21, 2010
Tues–Sat, 11-5 PM
Linda Warren Gallery
1052 West Fulton Market
Chicago, IL 60607-1207
http://www.lindawarrengallery.com

Lora Fosberg,
http://lorafosberg.com

- Paul Germanos