B
- Timothy (guest) 1-25-2004 12:03 am

for me, it was the acting that was boring: acting, especially of the 'actors acting out acting' kind, bores me. perhaps it bores Sarah Milroy as well. unfortunately, the dull momentousness of the acting was what prevented me from really getting any thrill out of the piece. all a matter of taste no doubt.

this one, (posted elsewhere by anonymous), seems to be a vote for B as well. Sarah's winning 2-0 so far!
- sally mckay 1-25-2004 12:19 am

A vote here. A vote for A.

I really liked it. The shirt, the ironing of the shirt, the oddly domestic preparation combined with the rehearsal for the delivery. It would have been great to just watch the shirt, the hangar, the ironing board, the slight changes in the way it was handled, even if the whole thing were silent.

And the actor (eulogist, shirt ironer) certainly seemed like a dweeb. It got better, He got more into it, more excited about it, more responsive to the directorial input. And a person had to wonder, at what level is his dweebness supposed to be registering? The guy, the guy as actor, the actor catching on, the character (ironing), who presumably felt bad about the end of his friend? Did his grief increase as his acting improved? By the time it was over I didn't think he was a dweeb on any of the levels.744444444444

The first time through they didn't have a real shirt. The next day (next rehearsal) they brought one. And yep, the words, the text, were certainly abstruse. What the...? Why does he want to be saying this? Does he feel bad or not? How real is his grief? (But the thing is, this is not a "real" eulogy; it's a piece of writing, a piece of acting, a piece of art. No sense measuring it up against what somebody would actually say. This ain't actual.)

The three viewing options (Big at the front, two smaller ones round the back) worked really well together, for me. The sound levels were designed to let in echoes and overtones from the other venues. The recurrent ring: don't give up on me. (I'm trying to get my f**ing shirt ironed, this has to be good, these words, the inflections of these vague and overblown sentences, have to get digested, smoothed down, there's a deadline, where it all has to come together, the shirt, the words, the sadness, Don't give up on me.)

And the guy does help him. The "director" toys with him, cajoles, encourages, the whole thing is an Anatomy of loss. Of how time passes us through the declensions of grief. Keep trying. Keep ironing the shirt.
- anonymous (guest) 1-27-2004 4:30 am

Nothing cabalastic going on with that 74444444. i've just got a cat helping me.
- anonymous (guest) 1-27-2004 4:32 am

vote for A
- anonymous (guest) 1-27-2004 8:21 pm

this just in (to my email address) from someone named Greed:
I vote "A"

A votes=3
B votes=2

it's neck and neck.
- sally mckay 1-28-2004 7:32 am

I have to say B for Boredom....and I didn't even have to think about it. not nearly as much as I had to think about what was interesting at all about the Radul pieces. and I'm not going to go on about it like that other posting, because frankly that was incredibly boring too. B for post number 3 too.
- anonymous (guest) 1-28-2004 10:14 pm

B. Did not like the work at all. Way too much like Stan Douglas, though not nearly as interesting.
- anonymous (guest) 1-28-2004 10:47 pm

I agree with one of the voters that the most striking failure in Judy Radul's videos is the bad acting. Generally, the treatment of the material is not only boring but notably contrived. Perhaps, it's best to read her theories than watching her videos.

vote for B
- posted by anonymous (guest) 1-29-2004 1:59 am

Clint says: "numb with boredom" [ie: B -sm]
(sent in to me via email)
- sally mckay 1-29-2004 4:11 pm

Claire says: "I vote A"
(sent in to me via email)

- sally mckay 1-29-2004 4:14 pm

Andrew says: I haven't looked at the blog yet , but I'm somewhat neutral about this installation. It is too obviously influenced by Stan Douglas' Win,Lose, or Draw. However, I don't understand why Sarah Milroy had to write so at length about the work. Is Judy Radul an emerging art-star who must be headed off at the past or something? There are ways to indicate boredom and/or indifference without wasting so much space - ignoring a work can speak volumes in particular contexts. I'll check out your blog and maybe you can convince me that this work is more layered than I think it is, but I will refrain from voting.

...and...

I suspect Sarah M's problem also is related to many other people's problem of time-involving work in galleries. I have noticed that people gallery-hopping don't have or won't take the time to take in such work in detail. This was a problem at YYZ, and the Power Plant is programming lots of time-demanding work. But art shouldn't have to be either film ( time-based ) or art (freezing or compressing time ) . I guess a lot has to do with visual hooks and initial seduction. Also, radul's source material is theatre, more than television. Theatre is another world to many visual arts and video people - it's a performing art rather than a performative art.

(sent in to me via email)

- sally mckay 1-29-2004 4:19 pm

A votes=4
B votes=7
abstentions=1
- sally mckay 1-29-2004 4:20 pm

I think the reason Sarah Milroy wrote at such length, (to respond to Andrew) is precisely because of the profile that comes with a solo exhibition at the Power Plant. It is programmed , after all simultaneously with A.A. Bronson's magical healin' mystery bus retrospective. Bronson is undisputeably contemporary art royalty. Under such a spotlight, the merit of the Radul's work is entirely up for grabs, in fact begging critical analysis. That Milroy went to such length to prove her thesis and contextualize Radul's work reflects the scale of the profile of the exhibition, and also the breadth of the Power Plant's audience.
I also agree with Sarah Milroy and am voting with a big fat B.
P.S. I believe the phrase is "headed off at the pass"




- Robert C. (guest) 2-04-2004 7:24 pm

"Head 'em off at the pass" or "Cut 'em off at the pass" are cowboy movie cliches meaning "arrive at the vulnerable point (such as a mountain pass) before our rivals do." "Cut 'Em Off at the Past" is Episode #666 of the radio series "Nick Danger, Third Eye," from the Firesign Theatre record How Can You Be In Two Places At Once When You're Not Anywhere at All (1969). On their later record I Think We're All Bozos on This Bus (1971), the line is spoken by the Lonesome Beet, one of a trio of singing holographic cowboy garden vegetables, to a visitor to the virtual-reality Future Fair. Sincerely, the Triviameister

- tom moody 2-04-2004 9:41 pm

I am amused by the thought of art critics everywhere dressed up as lonesome beets.
- Robert C. (guest) 2-05-2004 8:41 pm

I am amused by lonesome beets on the bus. but then, as this poll may indicate, I am possibly too easily amused.
- sally mckay 2-05-2004 9:19 pm

Gallery hopping. I think that phrase, to the artist, must be the equivalent to "I keep your book in the bathroom," to the writer.
- Jean (guest) 2-06-2004 4:38 am

Art poll#1 is CLOSED

FINAL SCORE:
B: SARAH MILROY=8
A: SALLY MCKAY=4

(damn, I can't even win my own poll! Well you haven't heard the last of me....I'll be baaaaaack.)


- sally mckay 2-06-2004 5:24 am