That little do-hickey holding the legs together on the table is pretty gosh darn cool, don't you think?
Tuesday, January 31, 2006
The Vanity Table and accessories at Catherine the Great
Howdy!
That little do-hickey holding the legs together on the table is pretty gosh darn cool, don't you think?
That little do-hickey holding the legs together on the table is pretty gosh darn cool, don't you think?
The cool stuff at the Catherine the Great exhibit
Howdy!
As they point out in the press release, "the exhibition features more than 200 of the many treasures collected by the powerful and highly intelligent Empress Catherine II (1729-1796), arguably the eighteenth century's greatest art collector and patron." These are the objects that turned my crank.
Missed this the first time through, but it is sorta what I expected of the coach and other objects. Does anybody know what they mean by "polishing" being one of the materials?
This is a cool painting just because it is the one where the painter, Hackert, complained that he did not know what an explosion looked like. So Ms. the Great said to one of her admirals "blow up a ship for him, please." Actually, I can't imagine her using the word "please."
"What?! C'mon! gimme a break! Don't be chopping off my head! I get no respect around here... jeez!"
Sorta like being there, but not quite.
And then this one, is smaller than my hand.
As they point out in the press release, "the exhibition features more than 200 of the many treasures collected by the powerful and highly intelligent Empress Catherine II (1729-1796), arguably the eighteenth century's greatest art collector and patron." These are the objects that turned my crank.
Missed this the first time through, but it is sorta what I expected of the coach and other objects. Does anybody know what they mean by "polishing" being one of the materials?
This is a cool painting just because it is the one where the painter, Hackert, complained that he did not know what an explosion looked like. So Ms. the Great said to one of her admirals "blow up a ship for him, please." Actually, I can't imagine her using the word "please."
"What?! C'mon! gimme a break! Don't be chopping off my head! I get no respect around here... jeez!"
Sorta like being there, but not quite.
And then this one, is smaller than my hand.
Compare and Contrast at Catherine the Great
Howdy!
While listening to people speak at the press thing-y, it occurred to me, there truly is a difference between Montreal and Toronto, and it can be seen in the dress and style of its art guys - I tossed in Saint Petersburg as a control.
The Toronto Art Guy.
The Saint Petersburg Art Guy.
The Montreal Art Guy.
While listening to people speak at the press thing-y, it occurred to me, there truly is a difference between Montreal and Toronto, and it can be seen in the dress and style of its art guys - I tossed in Saint Petersburg as a control.
The Toronto Art Guy.
The Saint Petersburg Art Guy.
The Montreal Art Guy.
Catherine the Great Press thing-y
Howdy!
The whatever you wan to call it, was quite the do. Especially for 10AM. I'd been to the Edwin Holgate press thing-y which had been held in the sme space, and as a consequence wasn't expecting much. For the Holgate exhibit, they had gotten maybe 30 people to show.
The spread was quite nice, again considering the hour of the day. You can see in the first picture, up top, that they had shelled out for floral arrangements on each table. While a nice touch, they took up space that I could have used for my clipboard or camera, or whatever. But it is still nice to see that for an exhibition about extravagance that the museum can itself be extravagant.
Of the three press thing-ys at the museum that I've been to, this was the first one where I noticed a serious camera contingent. I would imagine that there had been at the others, but I wasn't paying attention at the time.
And as you can see, the museum's press team did a bang up job of getting fannies in the seats. By my count there were over 100 people in attendance,
and as there was some pretty heavy duty individuals on the dais, I am certain that they were assured and comforted by such a large turnout.
The whatever you wan to call it, was quite the do. Especially for 10AM. I'd been to the Edwin Holgate press thing-y which had been held in the sme space, and as a consequence wasn't expecting much. For the Holgate exhibit, they had gotten maybe 30 people to show.
The spread was quite nice, again considering the hour of the day. You can see in the first picture, up top, that they had shelled out for floral arrangements on each table. While a nice touch, they took up space that I could have used for my clipboard or camera, or whatever. But it is still nice to see that for an exhibition about extravagance that the museum can itself be extravagant.
Of the three press thing-ys at the museum that I've been to, this was the first one where I noticed a serious camera contingent. I would imagine that there had been at the others, but I wasn't paying attention at the time.
And as you can see, the museum's press team did a bang up job of getting fannies in the seats. By my count there were over 100 people in attendance,
and as there was some pretty heavy duty individuals on the dais, I am certain that they were assured and comforted by such a large turnout.
Catherine the Great ain't so bad...
Howdy!
I saw this picture, and then was told, that in real life, the coach made Faberge eggs look like something that should be boiled and eaten for breakfast, and I said; "sounds smashing! Let's go check it out." Because I'm not a big fan of historical painting shows, but this looked like it could be over the top.
Upon a closer look, I was sorely disappointed that the coach wasn't in fact encrusted with diamonds, rubies and pearls, heck given what I had heard I figured there would be horses, too!
But you gotta give 'em props, while gold paint is not exactly the same, it still is pretty darn impressive. Especially with the painting of tableau's (is there any no academic word for a tableau?) on the side, I'm certain that there is some wicked cool story that goes along with them. But nobody bothered to tell me, and I was not able to see a copy of the catalogue before having to skidaddle.
However, the coach is something, that no matter how you cut it, is impressive. If you haven't figured out by now, I was at the Press Preview for the Catherine the Great exhibit at the Musée des Beaux Arts de Montréal.
The first thing you see upon walking up the stairs is this hulking coach. The Russian Art Guy (more on him later) told a story of how Queen Beatrice upon seeing it was told how it was much prettier than hers, she promptly replied "yes, but mine still works."
I was happy to see that this function was labeled "Press Preview" instead of "Press Conference," however this time, everyone (and there were a whack of folk) was standing on protocol, and there was no applause.
Before seeing the show, I had heard that they had to basically tear down the museum in order to get the coach in.
I asked a guard how they pulled it off, and he brought me here. (The Canadian Art galleries) and said that right beside the elevator was how they got it in.
But then I realized that they then had to tear down these walls,
and these walls in order to get it to its place of prominence at the head of the stairs. Upon seeing that I got even more impressed with the whole shebang.
I saw this picture, and then was told, that in real life, the coach made Faberge eggs look like something that should be boiled and eaten for breakfast, and I said; "sounds smashing! Let's go check it out." Because I'm not a big fan of historical painting shows, but this looked like it could be over the top.
Upon a closer look, I was sorely disappointed that the coach wasn't in fact encrusted with diamonds, rubies and pearls, heck given what I had heard I figured there would be horses, too!
But you gotta give 'em props, while gold paint is not exactly the same, it still is pretty darn impressive. Especially with the painting of tableau's (is there any no academic word for a tableau?) on the side, I'm certain that there is some wicked cool story that goes along with them. But nobody bothered to tell me, and I was not able to see a copy of the catalogue before having to skidaddle.
However, the coach is something, that no matter how you cut it, is impressive. If you haven't figured out by now, I was at the Press Preview for the Catherine the Great exhibit at the Musée des Beaux Arts de Montréal.
The first thing you see upon walking up the stairs is this hulking coach. The Russian Art Guy (more on him later) told a story of how Queen Beatrice upon seeing it was told how it was much prettier than hers, she promptly replied "yes, but mine still works."
I was happy to see that this function was labeled "Press Preview" instead of "Press Conference," however this time, everyone (and there were a whack of folk) was standing on protocol, and there was no applause.
Before seeing the show, I had heard that they had to basically tear down the museum in order to get the coach in.
I asked a guard how they pulled it off, and he brought me here. (The Canadian Art galleries) and said that right beside the elevator was how they got it in.
But then I realized that they then had to tear down these walls,
and these walls in order to get it to its place of prominence at the head of the stairs. Upon seeing that I got even more impressed with the whole shebang.
Monday, January 30, 2006
Stuff Seen - Gerald and Maas
Howdy!
A
This was the cool find of the day. Beat everything else in Ottawa hands down. If you are in, or going to Ottawa, please stop by 206 Saint Patrick Street, Bart and Julie are gracious hosts. Basically, or at least as far as I could tell, He is a poet, and she is an artist, there us a printing press in the parlor and the whole thing is open to the public. They've jointly published five or six books (he does the words, she does the pictures) and they have quite a collection of other chapbooks for sale as well. I assume that they do printing for other folk as well, but don't know for certain.
When you go, please tell them I said "hi."
A
This was the cool find of the day. Beat everything else in Ottawa hands down. If you are in, or going to Ottawa, please stop by 206 Saint Patrick Street, Bart and Julie are gracious hosts. Basically, or at least as far as I could tell, He is a poet, and she is an artist, there us a printing press in the parlor and the whole thing is open to the public. They've jointly published five or six books (he does the words, she does the pictures) and they have quite a collection of other chapbooks for sale as well. I assume that they do printing for other folk as well, but don't know for certain.
When you go, please tell them I said "hi."
Stuff Seen - Andrew Fay
Howdy!
C+
While I quite liked the space, Mr. Fay's work didn't quite turn my crank. I don't know if it was because it was too simplistic, or that it struck me as coy porn, or that everything else in the space just overwhelmed it, but for whatever reason, it just left me blah.
C+
While I quite liked the space, Mr. Fay's work didn't quite turn my crank. I don't know if it was because it was too simplistic, or that it struck me as coy porn, or that everything else in the space just overwhelmed it, but for whatever reason, it just left me blah.
Sunday, January 29, 2006
Stuff Seen - Walter Seymour Allward
Howdy!
B+
The only thing preventing Mr. Allward from reaching the "A" level is the shoddy nature of the catalogue, the lack of any other paperwork (press release, invite, list of works, etc.) and the slacker behavior of the folk babysitting the gallery. It was an absolutely breathtaking display of drawings about and related to the memorial built at Vimy. The drawings rock like nobody's business, and it's a pity that they all weren't from one collection. But...
I also liked the fact that this was the first time in recent memory that someone has attempted to resuscitate the reputation of a dead artist and wasn't their daughter. Although I do want to know which came first, the idea for the exhibition, or the idea for the book (not the catalogue).
Also exhibiting at the same time at the Carlton U art gallery were some Carl Bream pieces (who also got his own room at the National Gallery) and the less I say about them, the better. They also had some Cape Dorset Graphic Artists up that were fun, and a selection from their permanent collection. All of those are gonna remain ungraded because none of them felt like "real" exhibitions to me.
B+
The only thing preventing Mr. Allward from reaching the "A" level is the shoddy nature of the catalogue, the lack of any other paperwork (press release, invite, list of works, etc.) and the slacker behavior of the folk babysitting the gallery. It was an absolutely breathtaking display of drawings about and related to the memorial built at Vimy. The drawings rock like nobody's business, and it's a pity that they all weren't from one collection. But...
I also liked the fact that this was the first time in recent memory that someone has attempted to resuscitate the reputation of a dead artist and wasn't their daughter. Although I do want to know which came first, the idea for the exhibition, or the idea for the book (not the catalogue).
Also exhibiting at the same time at the Carlton U art gallery were some Carl Bream pieces (who also got his own room at the National Gallery) and the less I say about them, the better. They also had some Cape Dorset Graphic Artists up that were fun, and a selection from their permanent collection. All of those are gonna remain ungraded because none of them felt like "real" exhibitions to me.
Saturday, January 28, 2006
Stuff Seen - Gallery four seven nine & Galerie St-Laurent + Hill
Howdy!
B
D
I'm grouping these two galleries together because I was told that they are somehow affiliated, upon looking at the paperwork I cam back with I am not so certain. They are at opposite ends of the spectrum. Neither one had an official exhibition, but can you guess which one had an employee shadow us through the space, not saying a word, but just making certain that we didn't shoplift anything? And on top of it, while they definitely wanted to be considered a high-end, expensive and exclusive gallery, they couldn't even figure out a way to get some drunks ut of their doorway. If I had rolled up in my limo, I'm not certain that some lowlife trying to make out with what appeared to be a prostitute would be who I would want to ask to step aside so that I could get in the door.
On the other hand the fine folk at 479 were gracious, warm and informative. Had a very nice discussion with them (unfortunately I did not get their names) about the differences between galleries in Montreal and Ottawa, how they deal with submissions, and by gosh! the weather as well. If I had the cash, I would've bought something just because they were so nice. (And they had a couple of quite nice paintings by Peter Hoffer as well.)
B
D
I'm grouping these two galleries together because I was told that they are somehow affiliated, upon looking at the paperwork I cam back with I am not so certain. They are at opposite ends of the spectrum. Neither one had an official exhibition, but can you guess which one had an employee shadow us through the space, not saying a word, but just making certain that we didn't shoplift anything? And on top of it, while they definitely wanted to be considered a high-end, expensive and exclusive gallery, they couldn't even figure out a way to get some drunks ut of their doorway. If I had rolled up in my limo, I'm not certain that some lowlife trying to make out with what appeared to be a prostitute would be who I would want to ask to step aside so that I could get in the door.
On the other hand the fine folk at 479 were gracious, warm and informative. Had a very nice discussion with them (unfortunately I did not get their names) about the differences between galleries in Montreal and Ottawa, how they deal with submissions, and by gosh! the weather as well. If I had the cash, I would've bought something just because they were so nice. (And they had a couple of quite nice paintings by Peter Hoffer as well.)
Stuff Seen - Varasmus
Howdy!
C+ (bonus points for weirdness, not included)
Gotta love this place, as they state on the card, High-End Canadian Art, High Quality European Style Kitchens, and High-End European style houses. Cool combo, eh! Unfortunately, I couldn't remember the name of a single artist a week later, and if I try really hard, I'm fairly certain I can visualize a bunch of inoffensive art.
C+ (bonus points for weirdness, not included)
Gotta love this place, as they state on the card, High-End Canadian Art, High Quality European Style Kitchens, and High-End European style houses. Cool combo, eh! Unfortunately, I couldn't remember the name of a single artist a week later, and if I try really hard, I'm fairly certain I can visualize a bunch of inoffensive art.
Stuff Seen - Victor Tolgesy
Howdy!
B-
From the pamphlet handed out, it seems that Mr. Tolgesy and I would have been on the same wavelength. To quote:
I liked the abstract stuff, stroked my chin while looking at the wood stuff, and rolled my eyes at the papier-mâché. It would also be fun to get Christina Tolgyesy together with Joyce Borenstein. Ms. Tolgyesy seems to be the driving force behind this retrospective in the same way that Ms. Borenstein is the driving force behind her father's retrospective. Perhaps I could suggest to Ms. Tolgyesy that she take up filmmaking.
B-
From the pamphlet handed out, it seems that Mr. Tolgesy and I would have been on the same wavelength. To quote:
During this time he becomes increasingly disillusioned with commercial art galleries and the "business" of art, while he argues against the criteria that government granting agencies use to judge the worth of established artists. He believes that at a certain level of artistic maturity, no one is better able to judge the work of an artist, than the artist himself. Furthermore he is disenchanted with what he sees as the academicism of art theory and analysis, which, he feels runs the risk of misrepresenting art to the public. He laments the ever-increasing gulf between art and the public, wishing instead for art to be more accessible on an emotional and human level.Pity that I didn't like his art more. He started (and the exhibit hides in the back, upstairs) doing "simple figurative woodcarving" moved to "highly abstract, design-oriented metal sculpture" and finished with "colourful painted papier-mâché."
I liked the abstract stuff, stroked my chin while looking at the wood stuff, and rolled my eyes at the papier-mâché. It would also be fun to get Christina Tolgyesy together with Joyce Borenstein. Ms. Tolgyesy seems to be the driving force behind this retrospective in the same way that Ms. Borenstein is the driving force behind her father's retrospective. Perhaps I could suggest to Ms. Tolgyesy that she take up filmmaking.
Comparison Shopping
Howdy!
Sergeant Preston of the Yukon: Relief Train - 99¢
Sergeant Preston of the Yukon: Relief Train - $1.99
Is getting it from Google really worth $1?
Sergeant Preston of the Yukon: Relief Train - 99¢
Sergeant Preston of the Yukon: Relief Train - $1.99
Is getting it from Google really worth $1?
Stuff Seen - Andre Martel
Howdy!
B+
Last week I was in Ottawa, besides visting the National Gallery and getting to see 40 Part Motet, I also got to see a bunch of other stuff too.
One of the reasons I like waiting a week before writing about what I saw is that one real easy way to figure out if it was good art, or bad art is to see if I can remember it. I found it quite interesting that today when I went through the papers that I collected from Ottawa, there were about half a dozen business cards, invites, or other promo fluff that had me scratching my head and going, "hmmm? What did I see there?"
But one show that I did remember was Andre Martel's, at the Ottawa School of Art. While I'm not quite certain I agree with him on the choice of title, the stuff he exhibits is wicked cool. As it says in the press release, "sculptural works that are made from aluminum, plexiglass, slate, cast lead, concrete, steel and in some cases steel cables and electric motors." Not all of them move, and some of them look downright dangerous, they have what looks like bits of car engines, those pointy things that surveyors use to make sure that their string is straight, and a bunch of springs, too. In a nutshell pretty darn intimidating.
What I found interesting after the fact was in reading the press folderol, M. Martel writes "The Work is the Great Teacher..." and cites as influences Zen Buddhism, Synergetics, Paganism, Albert Low, Dr. Julien Jaynes and Erich Neumann. It sounds like he should aim to have a show at the Gesu if he ever gets out of Ottawa.
B+
Last week I was in Ottawa, besides visting the National Gallery and getting to see 40 Part Motet, I also got to see a bunch of other stuff too.
One of the reasons I like waiting a week before writing about what I saw is that one real easy way to figure out if it was good art, or bad art is to see if I can remember it. I found it quite interesting that today when I went through the papers that I collected from Ottawa, there were about half a dozen business cards, invites, or other promo fluff that had me scratching my head and going, "hmmm? What did I see there?"
But one show that I did remember was Andre Martel's, at the Ottawa School of Art. While I'm not quite certain I agree with him on the choice of title, the stuff he exhibits is wicked cool. As it says in the press release, "sculptural works that are made from aluminum, plexiglass, slate, cast lead, concrete, steel and in some cases steel cables and electric motors." Not all of them move, and some of them look downright dangerous, they have what looks like bits of car engines, those pointy things that surveyors use to make sure that their string is straight, and a bunch of springs, too. In a nutshell pretty darn intimidating.
What I found interesting after the fact was in reading the press folderol, M. Martel writes "The Work is the Great Teacher..." and cites as influences Zen Buddhism, Synergetics, Paganism, Albert Low, Dr. Julien Jaynes and Erich Neumann. It sounds like he should aim to have a show at the Gesu if he ever gets out of Ottawa.
Peter Goddard is slipping
Howdy!
In today's Toronto Star there is an article about the Whitney Biennial. Mr. Goddard attempts to list all the Canadian artists taking part, going so far as to claim as Canadian Peter Doig, who was born in Edinburgh in 1959, then moved to Canada and then left Canada at the age of nineteen. He gets the easy names, Michael Snow, Rodney Graham and Christina Battle, but completely and thoroughly misses and overlooks Louise Bourque.
Note to Peter: You are a member of the press, when writing about stuff at the Whitney (and similar places) it always helps to talk to the Press Office. They are set up to handle stuff like this. I know for a fact, that they are extremely helpful.
Note to the National Gallery (it just ain't your week, is it?) Contrary to what it says on your "Meet the Artist page," Peter Doig did not move to Canada in 1960. His family moved to Trinidad & Tobago in 1960, and then moved to Canada in 1966. He moved to London in 1979, and then back to Trinidad & Tobago in 2002. If you want the scoop, check out his bio, here (pdf alert).
Note to everyone: Living in Canada for 13 years does not make a person Canadian.
In today's Toronto Star there is an article about the Whitney Biennial. Mr. Goddard attempts to list all the Canadian artists taking part, going so far as to claim as Canadian Peter Doig, who was born in Edinburgh in 1959, then moved to Canada and then left Canada at the age of nineteen. He gets the easy names, Michael Snow, Rodney Graham and Christina Battle, but completely and thoroughly misses and overlooks Louise Bourque.
Note to Peter: You are a member of the press, when writing about stuff at the Whitney (and similar places) it always helps to talk to the Press Office. They are set up to handle stuff like this. I know for a fact, that they are extremely helpful.
Note to the National Gallery (it just ain't your week, is it?) Contrary to what it says on your "Meet the Artist page," Peter Doig did not move to Canada in 1960. His family moved to Trinidad & Tobago in 1960, and then moved to Canada in 1966. He moved to London in 1979, and then back to Trinidad & Tobago in 2002. If you want the scoop, check out his bio, here (pdf alert).
Note to everyone: Living in Canada for 13 years does not make a person Canadian.
Friday, January 27, 2006
Christopher Willard reading at Zeke's Gallery last night
Howdy!
Click here to hear, stream, Ogg Vorbis [22:21 minutes, 21.5 MB]
Mr. Willard thinking on his feet.
Christopher Willard's book, Garbage Head, not only is a wonderful book, it makes for a very entertaining yarn as well. Reciting a bunch of excerpts he kept us in stiches for the rest of the evening. If after hearing his reading you'd like to purchase the book, click on this.
Click here to hear, stream, Ogg Vorbis [22:21 minutes, 21.5 MB]
Mr. Willard thinking on his feet.
Christopher Willard's book, Garbage Head, not only is a wonderful book, it makes for a very entertaining yarn as well. Reciting a bunch of excerpts he kept us in stiches for the rest of the evening. If after hearing his reading you'd like to purchase the book, click on this.
Andrew Steinmetz introducing Christopher Willard
Howdy!
Click here to hear, stream, Ogg Vorbis [1:55 minutes, 1.8 MB]
Mr. Steinmetz keeping a straight face while talking about the telephone book.
The fine and glorious editor of Esplanade Books jumped at the opportunity to praise Christopher Willard.
Click here to hear, stream, Ogg Vorbis [1:55 minutes, 1.8 MB]
Mr. Steinmetz keeping a straight face while talking about the telephone book.
The fine and glorious editor of Esplanade Books jumped at the opportunity to praise Christopher Willard.
Maya Merrick reading at Zeke's Gallery last night
Howdy!
Click here to hear, stream, Ogg Vorbis [8:17 minutes, 8.0 MB]
Ms. Merrick in her glory
The main attractions then took to the stage, Ms. Merrick being the first of two. If you'd like to purchase a copy of her book, click here. If you'd like to hear her do a different reading (more on that later) click on this.
Click here to hear, stream, Ogg Vorbis [8:17 minutes, 8.0 MB]
Ms. Merrick in her glory
The main attractions then took to the stage, Ms. Merrick being the first of two. If you'd like to purchase a copy of her book, click here. If you'd like to hear her do a different reading (more on that later) click on this.
Andy Brown of Conundrum Press introducing Maya Merrick
Howdy!
Click here to hear, stream, Ogg Vorbis [1:42 minutes, 1.6 MB]
Andy Brown doing an impersonation...
Last night there was a combining of the forces with Conundrum Press and Vehicule Press teaming up together to do a reading. First up were the younger set.
Click here to hear, stream, Ogg Vorbis [1:42 minutes, 1.6 MB]
Andy Brown doing an impersonation...
Last night there was a combining of the forces with Conundrum Press and Vehicule Press teaming up together to do a reading. First up were the younger set.
Thursday, January 26, 2006
Having Fun and getting paid!
Howdy!
I would imagine that this screen shot shows someone working at the National Gallery reading this here blog for at least 3 hours 8 minutes and 50 seconds, I certainly hope that they got paid for it.
I would imagine that this screen shot shows someone working at the National Gallery reading this here blog for at least 3 hours 8 minutes and 50 seconds, I certainly hope that they got paid for it.
Wednesday, January 25, 2006
I get comments - Ross Birdwise responds
Howdy!
Back in December, I wrote about seeing a piece by Ross Birdwise. I wasn't too fond of it, he wrote a comment that explained the piece. And I then wrote back to him
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chris from Zeke's Gallery
> Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2005 11:10 PM
> To: Ross Birdwise
> Subject: Thanks tons!
>
> Howdy!
>
> For the comment, apologies if you took what I wrote personally,
> that is not my intention. Feel free to elaborate if you would
> like. Or I would be more than happy to discuss your work further
> (publically or privately) if you would like. The blog is my
> attempt at starting discussion on and about contemporary art here
> in Montreal, and to a certain extent, I feel like there is some
> change afoot.
>
> If you would like to see previous discussions public I've had try these:
> Murry Whyte
> Jerome Delgado
>
> I hope that everything else is well.
>
> Chris
> Zeke's Gallery
> http://zekesgallery.blogspot.com
He then responded
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ross Birdwise
> Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2006 5:03 PM
> To: Chris from Zeke's Gallery
> Subject: Videoportraits
>
>
> Hi,
>
> Sorry for my late reply, I get quite the onslaught of
> new mail everyday.
>
> I guess I took what you wrote about my work
> personally. I also found your description of the work
> innaccurate and reductive. You did not mention it had
> sound, or that the work was not simply loops. You
> characterized it as "Three very large video screens
> rotating looped two second headshots of people that
> then switch positions on the walls." You also said
> "Yawn". This simply is not true. If you looked at
> the work for a minute or less, or just very casually
> without much focus of attention, I can see how the
> work might come across in this way. However, if you
> listen to the sounds, and watch the images with some
> minimal concentration for awhile, you will see that
> the loops 'unloop' periodically and move onto new
> sections of the recorded footage. You are still free
> not to like the work, but to dismiss it so casually,
> without even properly describing it, is what gets to
> me.
>
> Ross Birdwise
And we were off!
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chris from Zeke's Gallery
> Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2006 5:46 PM
> To: Ross Birdwise
> Subject: RE: Videoportraits
>
> Howdy!
>
> No problem-O! Either for the delay, or your response.
>
> Guilty as charged, I did look at your work for about a minute and
> a half. Going up against the touch screen thing-y, and then
> talking to Pierre-Francois, Mike and John, and then back to the
> touch screen thing-y, all while seeing 17 other artists, I'm not
> likely to get some discreet thing that you're trying to say with
> your work. Sorta similar to you whispering at a Merzbow concert
> and then complaining when I say I can't hear you...
>
> At the time that I saw your piece(s) and more so the week
> afterwards, what I wrote was all I could remember. While what I
> remember and what you created are most definitely two separate
> things, both are equally valid and true. And if your intention
> with your art is to get people to slow down and pay attention to
> small details then obviously from my perspective some work still
> needs to be done.
>
> My writing is an attempt to discuss visual art in the same manner
> as most people discuss films, music or books. What gets me is how
> way too many people think that all visual art demands as much
> attention as a PhD thesis and as a consequence don't go see art.
>
> Are we doing this conversation for publication? Or would you
> prefer to keep it private?
>
> Chris
> Zeke's Gallery
> http://zekesgallery.blogspot.com
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ross Birdwise
> Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2006 6:25 PM
> To: Chris from Zeke's Gallery
> Subject: RE: Videoportraits
>
> Hi Chris,
>
> You can publish this if you want to. Its too bad you
> cannot view the piece under less strained conditions.
> I think the small details would come out much more,
> and the piece would deepen in its signifigance,
> causing you to reflect. In short, it might change your
> mind about it.
>
> I find 'serious' music is in need of light criticism
> as well.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Ross
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chris from Zeke's Gallery
> Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2006 6:39 PM
> To: Ross Birdwise
> Subject: RE: Videoportraits
>
> Howdy!
>
> Cool and thanks. Unfortunately I do not run a 'serious' music joint :-)
>
> As for seeing them in less strained conditions, unless it is a
> unique piece, or PF sells (sold? :-) it to some out of town
> museum, it is quite likely I will have another chance.
>
> Off the top of my head, one way to unstrain the conditions
> without changing the piece too much might be to consider a door
> that is not transparent next time, so that once you're in, you're in.
>
> Chris
> Zeke's Gallery
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ross birdwise
> Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2006 6:53 PM
> To: Chris from Zeke's Gallery
> Subject: RE: Videoportraits
>
>
> Hi Chris,
>
> The piece isn't unique so you may see it again.
>
> I'll consider your advice. Some people still got into
> the piece nonetheless (I actually won a couple of
> awards for it, and have seen people staring at it in a
> mesmerized way) but I may be able to make it easier,
> by making it more closed-off and immersive.
>
> I plan on doing newer versions of the piece as well,
> with slightly different set-ups.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Ross
And for the record, I do look forward to seeing it again. Let's just hope that it ain't at the National Gallery! I'd also like to thank him for allowing me to publish our email conversation.
Back in December, I wrote about seeing a piece by Ross Birdwise. I wasn't too fond of it, he wrote a comment that explained the piece. And I then wrote back to him
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chris from Zeke's Gallery
> Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2005 11:10 PM
> To: Ross Birdwise
> Subject: Thanks tons!
>
> Howdy!
>
> For the comment, apologies if you took what I wrote personally,
> that is not my intention. Feel free to elaborate if you would
> like. Or I would be more than happy to discuss your work further
> (publically or privately) if you would like. The blog is my
> attempt at starting discussion on and about contemporary art here
> in Montreal, and to a certain extent, I feel like there is some
> change afoot.
>
> If you would like to see previous discussions public I've had try these:
> Murry Whyte
> Jerome Delgado
>
> I hope that everything else is well.
>
> Chris
> Zeke's Gallery
> http://zekesgallery.blogspot.com
He then responded
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ross Birdwise
> Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2006 5:03 PM
> To: Chris from Zeke's Gallery
> Subject: Videoportraits
>
>
> Hi,
>
> Sorry for my late reply, I get quite the onslaught of
> new mail everyday.
>
> I guess I took what you wrote about my work
> personally. I also found your description of the work
> innaccurate and reductive. You did not mention it had
> sound, or that the work was not simply loops. You
> characterized it as "Three very large video screens
> rotating looped two second headshots of people that
> then switch positions on the walls." You also said
> "Yawn". This simply is not true. If you looked at
> the work for a minute or less, or just very casually
> without much focus of attention, I can see how the
> work might come across in this way. However, if you
> listen to the sounds, and watch the images with some
> minimal concentration for awhile, you will see that
> the loops 'unloop' periodically and move onto new
> sections of the recorded footage. You are still free
> not to like the work, but to dismiss it so casually,
> without even properly describing it, is what gets to
> me.
>
> Ross Birdwise
And we were off!
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chris from Zeke's Gallery
> Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2006 5:46 PM
> To: Ross Birdwise
> Subject: RE: Videoportraits
>
> Howdy!
>
> No problem-O! Either for the delay, or your response.
>
> Guilty as charged, I did look at your work for about a minute and
> a half. Going up against the touch screen thing-y, and then
> talking to Pierre-Francois, Mike and John, and then back to the
> touch screen thing-y, all while seeing 17 other artists, I'm not
> likely to get some discreet thing that you're trying to say with
> your work. Sorta similar to you whispering at a Merzbow concert
> and then complaining when I say I can't hear you...
>
> At the time that I saw your piece(s) and more so the week
> afterwards, what I wrote was all I could remember. While what I
> remember and what you created are most definitely two separate
> things, both are equally valid and true. And if your intention
> with your art is to get people to slow down and pay attention to
> small details then obviously from my perspective some work still
> needs to be done.
>
> My writing is an attempt to discuss visual art in the same manner
> as most people discuss films, music or books. What gets me is how
> way too many people think that all visual art demands as much
> attention as a PhD thesis and as a consequence don't go see art.
>
> Are we doing this conversation for publication? Or would you
> prefer to keep it private?
>
> Chris
> Zeke's Gallery
> http://zekesgallery.blogspot.com
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ross Birdwise
> Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2006 6:25 PM
> To: Chris from Zeke's Gallery
> Subject: RE: Videoportraits
>
> Hi Chris,
>
> You can publish this if you want to. Its too bad you
> cannot view the piece under less strained conditions.
> I think the small details would come out much more,
> and the piece would deepen in its signifigance,
> causing you to reflect. In short, it might change your
> mind about it.
>
> I find 'serious' music is in need of light criticism
> as well.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Ross
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chris from Zeke's Gallery
> Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2006 6:39 PM
> To: Ross Birdwise
> Subject: RE: Videoportraits
>
> Howdy!
>
> Cool and thanks. Unfortunately I do not run a 'serious' music joint :-)
>
> As for seeing them in less strained conditions, unless it is a
> unique piece, or PF sells (sold? :-) it to some out of town
> museum, it is quite likely I will have another chance.
>
> Off the top of my head, one way to unstrain the conditions
> without changing the piece too much might be to consider a door
> that is not transparent next time, so that once you're in, you're in.
>
> Chris
> Zeke's Gallery
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ross birdwise
> Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2006 6:53 PM
> To: Chris from Zeke's Gallery
> Subject: RE: Videoportraits
>
>
> Hi Chris,
>
> The piece isn't unique so you may see it again.
>
> I'll consider your advice. Some people still got into
> the piece nonetheless (I actually won a couple of
> awards for it, and have seen people staring at it in a
> mesmerized way) but I may be able to make it easier,
> by making it more closed-off and immersive.
>
> I plan on doing newer versions of the piece as well,
> with slightly different set-ups.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Ross
And for the record, I do look forward to seeing it again. Let's just hope that it ain't at the National Gallery! I'd also like to thank him for allowing me to publish our email conversation.
Tuesday, January 24, 2006
Stuff Seen - Janet Cardiff's 40 Part Motet
Howdy!
G [worse than an F-]
If you've been reading this here blog for a while, you know that I'm not a real big fan of Ms. Cardiff's work. If you're new then you might want to read any one of the four major posts I wrote complaining about her work (one, two, three, four).
If you read this here blog yesterday, you know that I was in Ottawa on Sunday and spent some time at the National Gallery. It just so happens that 40 Part Motet is installed and running (for the most part) in the Rideau Street Convent Chapel, which is part of the National Gallery.
It was my first time hearing it, seeing it, experiencing it. And I can say quite confidently, it is nice. Nice as in my grandmother. Nice as in chocolate chip cookies and milk. Nice as in a four week old kitten. Groundbreaking it ain't, cutting edge it ain't, thought provoking it ain't. And I think, actually I know, that while there are lots and lots of people who like art that is safe and nice (or else why would Thomas Kinkade or Jack Vettriano be so gosh darn filthy rich?) I most definitely prefer my art to be served with a pneumatic drill, a razor or a furrowed brow.
From the top, the thing that first annoyed me about the piece is how you can hear it for freakin' miles! I was in gallery A107, the one that deals with the Canadian Art Club (and some silverware and some aboriginal art that blocks the view of Tom Thompson's Jack Pine) now I wasn't taking measurements, but A107 is behind the Water Court which is at the far end of the Rideau Street Convent Chapel which obviously doesn't have thick enough walls or enough acoustic insulation, because I could hear Spem in Alium. They have the volume cranked up high enough that not only will it wake the dead - but if you click on this link you will be able to graphically see exactly where you are able to hear Spem in Alium.
Second off: Spem in Alium is a piece of music that was written for 40 voices. The piece of art that Ms. Cardiff created is called "40 Part Motet," so then why are 63 people credited with singing? Had the chat tag already gone to the engravers and it was too late to correct? Could it be that there is some electronic hanky-panky going on? Why seven choirs of eight voices and one choir of seven voices? Or were the sopranos told to whisper and that's why they had to be tripled up?
Third off: Why the spaghetti of wires? Bowers & Wilkens as far as I can tell has coughed up at least £20,000 worth of speakers, nobody could figure out how to make them wireless?
Fourth off: While I was there listening - for the record, twice, although neither time for the full 14 minutes and seven seconds - a technician stomped through the room, went behind a velvet rope and into some secret door. According to the guard on duty, it breaks down regularly. Does anybody know if it came with a warrantee?
Fifth off: An awful lot of a professional curator's time is spent verifying who was the actual artist of a specific piece (amateur curators tend to be a trusting lot). In the Baroque Room (aka gallery C204) they even go so far as to write on the chat tag "Studio of Peter Paul Rubens" and don't even get me started on Rembrandt. So then why if some company called "SoundMoves" recorded the sucker, it was sung by 63 other people, conducted by two others, written by Thomas Tallis, produced by Theresa Bergne, and the speakers were made by Bowers & Wilkens, then what exactly did Ms. Cardiff do in order to get top billing? Or is this a case of make work for some art historian 346 years from now?
Sixth off (and last): Les Levine. Who? No I had never heard of him either. But there is a kick ass piece of his called Wire Tap hidden in a cramped hallway leading to gallery B101 that uses "12 speakers, 6 cassette players, 12 speaker cords, 9 master tapes, and 9 playback tapes." Basically he recorded all his phone calls for a year, and then selected 120 hours to play back simultaneously on the 12 speakers. According to Ms. Cardiff with 40 Part Motet she wanted to be able to . . . "climb inside" the music, connecting with the separate voices." Sorry Janet, Les did it better, 30 years earlier and with no outside help.
Which then leads me to my addendum - It struck me that the fine folk at the National Gallery are somehow, either intentionally or unintentionally I don't know, undermine Canadian art, pieces by internationally known artists that are extremely similar to stuff that is being exhibited by Canucks, however, shall we say the foreigners' work is just a tad better. Beyond Janet Cardiff vs. Les Levine, there is Stan Douglas vs. Steve McQueen and Kevin Schmidt vs. Dan Graham.
And if anybody from the National Gallery (I imagine that there are a couple of people who have/are reading this) Ms. Cardiff, Mr. Bure, heck Mr. Tallis or anybody else wants equal time to respond, please don't hesitate. I would dearly and greatly adore to be shown that I am completely and thoroughly wrong.
G [worse than an F-]
If you've been reading this here blog for a while, you know that I'm not a real big fan of Ms. Cardiff's work. If you're new then you might want to read any one of the four major posts I wrote complaining about her work (one, two, three, four).
If you read this here blog yesterday, you know that I was in Ottawa on Sunday and spent some time at the National Gallery. It just so happens that 40 Part Motet is installed and running (for the most part) in the Rideau Street Convent Chapel, which is part of the National Gallery.
It was my first time hearing it, seeing it, experiencing it. And I can say quite confidently, it is nice. Nice as in my grandmother. Nice as in chocolate chip cookies and milk. Nice as in a four week old kitten. Groundbreaking it ain't, cutting edge it ain't, thought provoking it ain't. And I think, actually I know, that while there are lots and lots of people who like art that is safe and nice (or else why would Thomas Kinkade or Jack Vettriano be so gosh darn filthy rich?) I most definitely prefer my art to be served with a pneumatic drill, a razor or a furrowed brow.
From the top, the thing that first annoyed me about the piece is how you can hear it for freakin' miles! I was in gallery A107, the one that deals with the Canadian Art Club (and some silverware and some aboriginal art that blocks the view of Tom Thompson's Jack Pine) now I wasn't taking measurements, but A107 is behind the Water Court which is at the far end of the Rideau Street Convent Chapel which obviously doesn't have thick enough walls or enough acoustic insulation, because I could hear Spem in Alium. They have the volume cranked up high enough that not only will it wake the dead - but if you click on this link you will be able to graphically see exactly where you are able to hear Spem in Alium.
Second off: Spem in Alium is a piece of music that was written for 40 voices. The piece of art that Ms. Cardiff created is called "40 Part Motet," so then why are 63 people credited with singing? Had the chat tag already gone to the engravers and it was too late to correct? Could it be that there is some electronic hanky-panky going on? Why seven choirs of eight voices and one choir of seven voices? Or were the sopranos told to whisper and that's why they had to be tripled up?
Third off: Why the spaghetti of wires? Bowers & Wilkens as far as I can tell has coughed up at least £20,000 worth of speakers, nobody could figure out how to make them wireless?
Fourth off: While I was there listening - for the record, twice, although neither time for the full 14 minutes and seven seconds - a technician stomped through the room, went behind a velvet rope and into some secret door. According to the guard on duty, it breaks down regularly. Does anybody know if it came with a warrantee?
Fifth off: An awful lot of a professional curator's time is spent verifying who was the actual artist of a specific piece (amateur curators tend to be a trusting lot). In the Baroque Room (aka gallery C204) they even go so far as to write on the chat tag "Studio of Peter Paul Rubens" and don't even get me started on Rembrandt. So then why if some company called "SoundMoves" recorded the sucker, it was sung by 63 other people, conducted by two others, written by Thomas Tallis, produced by Theresa Bergne, and the speakers were made by Bowers & Wilkens, then what exactly did Ms. Cardiff do in order to get top billing? Or is this a case of make work for some art historian 346 years from now?
Sixth off (and last): Les Levine. Who? No I had never heard of him either. But there is a kick ass piece of his called Wire Tap hidden in a cramped hallway leading to gallery B101 that uses "12 speakers, 6 cassette players, 12 speaker cords, 9 master tapes, and 9 playback tapes." Basically he recorded all his phone calls for a year, and then selected 120 hours to play back simultaneously on the 12 speakers. According to Ms. Cardiff with 40 Part Motet she wanted to be able to . . . "climb inside" the music, connecting with the separate voices." Sorry Janet, Les did it better, 30 years earlier and with no outside help.
Which then leads me to my addendum - It struck me that the fine folk at the National Gallery are somehow, either intentionally or unintentionally I don't know, undermine Canadian art, pieces by internationally known artists that are extremely similar to stuff that is being exhibited by Canucks, however, shall we say the foreigners' work is just a tad better. Beyond Janet Cardiff vs. Les Levine, there is Stan Douglas vs. Steve McQueen and Kevin Schmidt vs. Dan Graham.
And if anybody from the National Gallery (I imagine that there are a couple of people who have/are reading this) Ms. Cardiff, Mr. Bure, heck Mr. Tallis or anybody else wants equal time to respond, please don't hesitate. I would dearly and greatly adore to be shown that I am completely and thoroughly wrong.
Monday, January 23, 2006
Stuff Seen - The National Gallery of Canada
Howdy!
D
I'd be embarrassed if I ran the National Gallery of Canada. I was there yesterday, it was my first time visiting, and was sorta pumped. The website ain't that bad, and from the press releases it looked like someone might be home. After the visit, I've changed my mind. Ain't no one home, and it appears that they ran away a while ago.
To back up a little, I got there at about noon, bought my ticket, there was no temporary exhibit, so why exactly do I have to pay to see the permanent collection? What are my tax dollars spent on? Washing windows? I asked the woman who sold me my ticket, "how many people are here?" She told me it was a busy day, there were something like 200 people in the museum because of family fun day. And now upon a closer examination of my ticket - I realize in fact that I was customer number 164 (look for the number in the lower right part of the ticket).
OK, so at the beginning of the day (ie when they should be most popular) they were doing 100 people per hour. Even if they kept up that pace for the entire day (or in other words got 700 people) there is only one way to describe it, horrible. Calculated out over 260 days - how many days they are open during the year - it becomes 182,000. Or in a different way about 30,000 less than went to see the Turner, Whistler, Monet exhibition at the Art Gallery of Ontario in three months.
I then went through the galleries three times. The first time, backwards, so I could see the contemporary stuff first. The second time forwards, so I could attempt to make some sense of what they were showing, and a third time so I could take notes. I ended up taking five pages of notes on things that I thought were horribly bad. I'm going to try and distill them down to something easily readable.
First off, I think the decision to group the silverware, the aboriginal artifacts, the paintings, the sculptures and everything else together and then progress chronologically, while it does in theory seem to work as a concept, but when the collections of silverware, aboriginal artifacts, the paintings, the sculptures and everything else vary wildly it ends up becoming something akin to deciding to replace Elmer Lach with Steve Bégin on the Punch Line because somebody decided that the Punch Line should be more in tune with the times.
The Jack Pine by Tom Thompson is blocked from view on its axis.
While I was pleased to see that they had updated the chat tag for Jacques de Tonnancour to show that he had died last year, somehow they hadn't gotten around to doing the same things for Jori Smith or Ghitta Caiserman Roth. In a place that is trying to be politically correct, it is sad to see that women are still not getting equal rights.
In gallery C202, which is supposed to exhibit Gothic and Renaissance Art there is a really nice Gerhard Richter painting.
Kevin Schmidt has a 10 minute video that is projected as large as possible onto a wall, in its own room. Dan Graham has a 60 minute video that is viewable on a 20" TV with really cheap headphones. I did not ask a guard, but I would pretty much guarantee that no one has watched all of Mr. Graham's video in its current installation. What's the point in exhibiting something if nobody's going to see it?
In gallery C215, they were storing, or moving some items, I was very happy to see that they used the same methods as I do here - they leaned things up against each other, basically trusting gravity. While I imagine that it is all right if I'm dealing with art that's $300, I wouldn't want to see what happens if a painting from say 1862 fell.
In B103 if Brice Marden was born in Bronxville, New York, do you think he is really going to spell the word "gray" with an "e?"
All over the place there were a ton of lights that had blown: C218 had 7 lights that were blown, in C201 there were 8 lights that weren't working, A113b had one light blown and as did A106b. Note to future curators and art technicians, it ain't such a hot idea to try to exhibit things without working lights.
I really really got a kick out of C204, and while I don't know if Abraham and the Three Angels is the best painting ever painted by Bartolomé Esteban Murillo but it better be, it has the most prominent spot in the entire room while a Nicolas Poussin and an Anthony Van Dyck are shunted to the side. Or maybe someone realized that in fact it wasn't one of Murillo's better works and that's why they decided to block the view of the bottom half of it with a Plexiglas box when you sit on the couch in the gallery.
Since I went directly to view the contemporary art first, I walked down a long hallway to the rotunda. On my way I passed by a bulletin board that was painted gray (I too, am American) it was about 15 feet long. 8 feet high, four inches thick and was bare as they had not gotten enough children's art to hang on it. In the second room I entered I suddenly saw Leslie Reid's Calumet Island. Ain't nothing like spelling it out to your visitors (for those who don't quite understand, Calumet Island is about 15 feet long, 8 feet high, four inches thick and painted a solid shade of gray).
While it ain't an egregious error I would strongly recommend that they move the chat tag for Gary Neill Kennedy's piece to level 2.
If Eric Goldberg's self-portrait was painted in between 1911 and 1914 what is it doing in a room that is labeled "Canadian Art 1930 - 1950?"
I'm certain that there are some good things about the National Gallery, and I am certain that it is a good thing that we have a National Gallery, but I sure as shootin' wish that the fine folk running it were slightly better than they are.
D
I'd be embarrassed if I ran the National Gallery of Canada. I was there yesterday, it was my first time visiting, and was sorta pumped. The website ain't that bad, and from the press releases it looked like someone might be home. After the visit, I've changed my mind. Ain't no one home, and it appears that they ran away a while ago.
To back up a little, I got there at about noon, bought my ticket, there was no temporary exhibit, so why exactly do I have to pay to see the permanent collection? What are my tax dollars spent on? Washing windows? I asked the woman who sold me my ticket, "how many people are here?" She told me it was a busy day, there were something like 200 people in the museum because of family fun day. And now upon a closer examination of my ticket - I realize in fact that I was customer number 164 (look for the number in the lower right part of the ticket).
OK, so at the beginning of the day (ie when they should be most popular) they were doing 100 people per hour. Even if they kept up that pace for the entire day (or in other words got 700 people) there is only one way to describe it, horrible. Calculated out over 260 days - how many days they are open during the year - it becomes 182,000. Or in a different way about 30,000 less than went to see the Turner, Whistler, Monet exhibition at the Art Gallery of Ontario in three months.
I then went through the galleries three times. The first time, backwards, so I could see the contemporary stuff first. The second time forwards, so I could attempt to make some sense of what they were showing, and a third time so I could take notes. I ended up taking five pages of notes on things that I thought were horribly bad. I'm going to try and distill them down to something easily readable.
First off, I think the decision to group the silverware, the aboriginal artifacts, the paintings, the sculptures and everything else together and then progress chronologically, while it does in theory seem to work as a concept, but when the collections of silverware, aboriginal artifacts, the paintings, the sculptures and everything else vary wildly it ends up becoming something akin to deciding to replace Elmer Lach with Steve Bégin on the Punch Line because somebody decided that the Punch Line should be more in tune with the times.
The Jack Pine by Tom Thompson is blocked from view on its axis.
While I was pleased to see that they had updated the chat tag for Jacques de Tonnancour to show that he had died last year, somehow they hadn't gotten around to doing the same things for Jori Smith or Ghitta Caiserman Roth. In a place that is trying to be politically correct, it is sad to see that women are still not getting equal rights.
In gallery C202, which is supposed to exhibit Gothic and Renaissance Art there is a really nice Gerhard Richter painting.
Kevin Schmidt has a 10 minute video that is projected as large as possible onto a wall, in its own room. Dan Graham has a 60 minute video that is viewable on a 20" TV with really cheap headphones. I did not ask a guard, but I would pretty much guarantee that no one has watched all of Mr. Graham's video in its current installation. What's the point in exhibiting something if nobody's going to see it?
In gallery C215, they were storing, or moving some items, I was very happy to see that they used the same methods as I do here - they leaned things up against each other, basically trusting gravity. While I imagine that it is all right if I'm dealing with art that's $300, I wouldn't want to see what happens if a painting from say 1862 fell.
In B103 if Brice Marden was born in Bronxville, New York, do you think he is really going to spell the word "gray" with an "e?"
All over the place there were a ton of lights that had blown: C218 had 7 lights that were blown, in C201 there were 8 lights that weren't working, A113b had one light blown and as did A106b. Note to future curators and art technicians, it ain't such a hot idea to try to exhibit things without working lights.
I really really got a kick out of C204, and while I don't know if Abraham and the Three Angels is the best painting ever painted by Bartolomé Esteban Murillo but it better be, it has the most prominent spot in the entire room while a Nicolas Poussin and an Anthony Van Dyck are shunted to the side. Or maybe someone realized that in fact it wasn't one of Murillo's better works and that's why they decided to block the view of the bottom half of it with a Plexiglas box when you sit on the couch in the gallery.
Since I went directly to view the contemporary art first, I walked down a long hallway to the rotunda. On my way I passed by a bulletin board that was painted gray (I too, am American) it was about 15 feet long. 8 feet high, four inches thick and was bare as they had not gotten enough children's art to hang on it. In the second room I entered I suddenly saw Leslie Reid's Calumet Island. Ain't nothing like spelling it out to your visitors (for those who don't quite understand, Calumet Island is about 15 feet long, 8 feet high, four inches thick and painted a solid shade of gray).
While it ain't an egregious error I would strongly recommend that they move the chat tag for Gary Neill Kennedy's piece to level 2.
If Eric Goldberg's self-portrait was painted in between 1911 and 1914 what is it doing in a room that is labeled "Canadian Art 1930 - 1950?"
I'm certain that there are some good things about the National Gallery, and I am certain that it is a good thing that we have a National Gallery, but I sure as shootin' wish that the fine folk running it were slightly better than they are.
Francisco Garcia exhibit
Howdy!
I don't think I have a choice in the matter. I'm a-going. But I get a kick that Google Maps is capable of tracking a distance of 29 metres. It is up until the 9th of February.
I don't think I have a choice in the matter. I'm a-going. But I get a kick that Google Maps is capable of tracking a distance of 29 metres. It is up until the 9th of February.
Nice writing by Joe Fiorito
Howdy!
If you want to see a great writer in action (and have the ability to see what makes for great writing at the same time) read this article on John Musgrave by Mr. Fiorito and then read this article on John Musgrave by some unnamed writer. Both are nice, but the 20+ years of experience makes Mr. Fiorito's nicer.
Also, if you want to read, see and hear something similar but without the sadness of a potentially fatal disease, you should check out A painting a Day by Duane Keiser.
If you want to see a great writer in action (and have the ability to see what makes for great writing at the same time) read this article on John Musgrave by Mr. Fiorito and then read this article on John Musgrave by some unnamed writer. Both are nice, but the 20+ years of experience makes Mr. Fiorito's nicer.
Also, if you want to read, see and hear something similar but without the sadness of a potentially fatal disease, you should check out A painting a Day by Duane Keiser.
Stuff Seen - BGL
Howdy!
Photo shamelessly lifted from the Art Mur website, thanks.
A+
On Friday (it was a very busy weekend) got to Art Mur and saw BGL. Man-oh-man! Do they rock out like nobody's business. If the Moose (aka Venise) doesn't get you, then the walkers will. The accidented ATM and motorcycle added joyously and effortlessly to the smile that was on my face from the instant I walked in the door. Anybody who can figure out how to work a secret passageway using a revolving wall into an art exhibition is mighty fine in my books. And best of all it is up until the 18th if February. So you still got time to go see it again and again and again.
Taking nothing away from the grade, I would have preferred it if the Marche avec moi had not been a series of seven objects that had to be sold together, but individual pieces that could be sold separately, especially since images that they use don't show all seven, but just a few. $1,500 is something I can at least contemplate spending on a piece of art - having $10,000 in excess cash to spend on art is something I don't ever imagine I'll be able to do.
If they were a movie, this is the quote that would get pulled for the poster: I'd be hard pressed to name a better Quebecois artist (or artists) working today.
Photo shamelessly lifted from the Art Mur website, thanks.
A+
On Friday (it was a very busy weekend) got to Art Mur and saw BGL. Man-oh-man! Do they rock out like nobody's business. If the Moose (aka Venise) doesn't get you, then the walkers will. The accidented ATM and motorcycle added joyously and effortlessly to the smile that was on my face from the instant I walked in the door. Anybody who can figure out how to work a secret passageway using a revolving wall into an art exhibition is mighty fine in my books. And best of all it is up until the 18th if February. So you still got time to go see it again and again and again.
Taking nothing away from the grade, I would have preferred it if the Marche avec moi had not been a series of seven objects that had to be sold together, but individual pieces that could be sold separately, especially since images that they use don't show all seven, but just a few. $1,500 is something I can at least contemplate spending on a piece of art - having $10,000 in excess cash to spend on art is something I don't ever imagine I'll be able to do.
If they were a movie, this is the quote that would get pulled for the poster: I'd be hard pressed to name a better Quebecois artist (or artists) working today.
Friday, January 20, 2006
And the encore!! Josh & Matt reading together
Howdy!
MP3, Ogg Vorbis, Streaming.
Sorta like a party trick, fun the first time around. But if you're going to listen to this a second time, please let me know.
MP3, Ogg Vorbis, Streaming.
Sorta like a party trick, fun the first time around. But if you're going to listen to this a second time, please let me know.
Matthew Zapruder at Zeke's Gallery last night
Howdy!
MP3, Streaming, Ogg Vorbis (why choose? download them all!)
Ummm, I feel that I should add some editorial comments here, but jeez! I got loads of other things to post up as well. I just hope that I got the two Matthews straight.
MP3, Streaming, Ogg Vorbis (why choose? download them all!)
Ummm, I feel that I should add some editorial comments here, but jeez! I got loads of other things to post up as well. I just hope that I got the two Matthews straight.
Kate Hall reading at Zeke's Gallery last night
Howdy!
So as I don't embarrass her, MP3 version, Streaming version, and Ogg Vorbis version.
That's it, that's all.
So as I don't embarrass her, MP3 version, Streaming version, and Ogg Vorbis version.
That's it, that's all.
Matt Rohrer reading at Zeke's Gallery last night
Howdy!
MP3 version, Streaming, Ogg Vorbis Click on your preferred flavor.
I think he read from something that wasn't this, or this but I'm not certain, you are going to have to listen and then figure it out for yourself.
MP3 version, Streaming, Ogg Vorbis Click on your preferred flavor.
I think he read from something that wasn't this, or this but I'm not certain, you are going to have to listen and then figure it out for yourself.
Katia Grubisic introducing everyone and their mother
Howdy!
Click here if you'd like to hear it, click here if you'd like to stream it, and as some folk have expressed interest in the Ogg Vorbis version, click here for that. [4:45 minutes, 1.4 MB (in the MP3 version) ]
Last night Delirium Press and Verse Press and Wave Books and Vallum magazine and something called Fence that I'm not entirely certain about got together and had a whack of folk read some poetry here. Katia Grubisic started everything off, introduced the whole shebang, and in general set the tone - I just hope that I spelled her name right.
Click here if you'd like to hear it, click here if you'd like to stream it, and as some folk have expressed interest in the Ogg Vorbis version, click here for that. [4:45 minutes, 1.4 MB (in the MP3 version) ]
Last night Delirium Press and Verse Press and Wave Books and Vallum magazine and something called Fence that I'm not entirely certain about got together and had a whack of folk read some poetry here. Katia Grubisic started everything off, introduced the whole shebang, and in general set the tone - I just hope that I spelled her name right.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)