There is an interesting, critical, conversation-style review of Quantal Strife in the Toronto Star today. I kind of wish "the kid" critic was named (I can only assume the "boomer" is Peter Goddard), but being a blogger I'm getting used to anonymous critiques.
I am so fucking alergic to cute.
Goddard is both the boomer and the kid. He's having a conversation with himself.
In order to say he liked the Milne better than your show he invented a kid who supposedly has no conservative baggage.
He also had to invent the excuse of driving across town to see the two unrelated shows.
Am I being too blunt here?
"Tomb of the Unknown Grateful Dead Fan."??!! ROFL....there goes all my punk rock credentials
Yo Sal. That guy's biting your style. But don't sweat it sista, cause he's a real toy.
Am I the only one who didn't realise he invented 'the kid'? DUhhhh. I think that conversation gimmick is actually kind of clever. I'm feeling a bit protective of the artists, but personally I don't mind the critique. And I appreciate the attention he paid to the show, there's lots of positive stuff in there too, and the fact that he made the effort to address his concerns is great! Not everyone is going to love Quantal Strife as much as I do. And a little critical discusssion is a good thing. Bring it on! That said, S.C. is right - the Dead Head call is way off.
I'm brain dead today, but I will formulate a more considered response to this review over the weekend.
if they're thowing you in the ring with Milne, they must think you worthy!
And you'll notice there's not a scrap of information about the milne show in the review.
Also, while Scott's stuff is about as far from the GD as it's possible to get, the Tomb of The Unknown GD Fan is actually a damn fine idea. Someone should do that. For real.
This much we know:
David Milne ha[d] a complete idea of what he [was] doing.
Milne drew what he wanted to draw.
And he got it right.
A David Milne painting is a thing, not an idea or a theory stuck up on a wall.
(Also, Milne painted watercolors, and he was repressed.)
Jennifer McMackon also takes on Quantal Strife in depth over at Simpleposie. In my response to her, I cover a lot of the same territory that I would cover in response to Goddard, so I'm only going to say a little bit here. Goddard's "Kid" character describes Ngui's piece as theory up on a wall, and suggests that "to understand Ngui's Drawings from 1000 Plateaus we're told you've also got to know all the (bleep) French philosophical theory behind it." I must patently disagree with this last statement. The catalogue essay goes to great lengths to suggest exactly the opposite. And Ngui's drawings are plenty engaging without the book. If we were to compare Ngui's diagrams to, say, Marc Lombardi, these ones enjoy a full and dynamic existence in the absence of their source material. Lombardi's schematics have a presence, but without mapping the connections a fundamental portion of the meaning is lost. Like Lombardi, however, the source material is made available, and if the viewer cares to, they may enter into Ngui's process and map the connections between drawings and text,.
Goddard's decision to compare Quantal Strife with David Milne is kind of hilarious and arbitrary, but why not? Let's posit the work of a very famous Canadian painter from the early 1900s next to installations by three young artists of the present day. Here's my premise: Milne was explicitly rendering landscape, thereby demonstrating a human mind (and eye) at work. Ngui, Mowry and Carruthers are more directly attempting to render the shape of mind and its perceptive functions, to expose the networks between image and meaning. If this premise has any credence, then to wrap up these pieces in nice little completed packages would be to leave the viewer out of the picture. Explicit in this exhibition is the idea that thought belongs to all of us, and that's what makes the exercise fun and interesting. For Goddard it feels unsatisfying and unfinished. For McMackon as well. But for me the unfinished aspect is an open door.
Goddard's "Boomer" character also seems unsatisfied with my catalogue essay, saying that I am "wrapping one tenuous theory around three artists' practices that have their own identity," and suggesting, "Forget that and the show's engaging." While the dismissal stings a tad, I appreciate that, unlike McMackon, Goddard refrains from positioning the essay as if it were intended as a justification for the exhibition. The art comes first, the writing exists somewhere else, in a new space, hopefully adding to the options (for some readers anyway) for speculation and thought.
|
There is an interesting, critical, conversation-style review of Quantal Strife in the Toronto Star today. I kind of wish "the kid" critic was named (I can only assume the "boomer" is Peter Goddard), but being a blogger I'm getting used to anonymous critiques.
- sally mckay 3-02-2006 6:11 pm
I am so fucking alergic to cute.
- L.M. 3-02-2006 7:12 pm
Goddard is both the boomer and the kid. He's having a conversation with himself.
In order to say he liked the Milne better than your show he invented a kid who supposedly has no conservative baggage.
He also had to invent the excuse of driving across town to see the two unrelated shows.
Am I being too blunt here?
- tom moody 3-02-2006 7:32 pm
"Tomb of the Unknown Grateful Dead Fan."??!! ROFL....there goes all my punk rock credentials
- S.C. (guest) 3-03-2006 1:16 am
Yo Sal. That guy's biting your style. But don't sweat it sista, cause he's a real toy.
- mnobody (guest) 3-03-2006 1:36 am
Am I the only one who didn't realise he invented 'the kid'? DUhhhh. I think that conversation gimmick is actually kind of clever. I'm feeling a bit protective of the artists, but personally I don't mind the critique. And I appreciate the attention he paid to the show, there's lots of positive stuff in there too, and the fact that he made the effort to address his concerns is great! Not everyone is going to love Quantal Strife as much as I do. And a little critical discusssion is a good thing. Bring it on! That said, S.C. is right - the Dead Head call is way off.
I'm brain dead today, but I will formulate a more considered response to this review over the weekend.
- sally mckay 3-03-2006 1:50 am
if they're thowing you in the ring with Milne, they must think you worthy!
- mr. g. (guest) 3-03-2006 6:53 am
And you'll notice there's not a scrap of information about the milne show in the review.
Also, while Scott's stuff is about as far from the GD as it's possible to get, the Tomb of The Unknown GD Fan is actually a damn fine idea. Someone should do that. For real.
- rob (guest) 3-03-2006 4:49 pm
This much we know:
David Milne ha[d] a complete idea of what he [was] doing.
Milne drew what he wanted to draw.
And he got it right.
A David Milne painting is a thing, not an idea or a theory stuck up on a wall.
(Also, Milne painted watercolors, and he was repressed.)
- tom moody 3-03-2006 6:43 pm
Jennifer McMackon also takes on Quantal Strife in depth over at Simpleposie. In my response to her, I cover a lot of the same territory that I would cover in response to Goddard, so I'm only going to say a little bit here. Goddard's "Kid" character describes Ngui's piece as theory up on a wall, and suggests that "to understand Ngui's Drawings from 1000 Plateaus we're told you've also got to know all the (bleep) French philosophical theory behind it." I must patently disagree with this last statement. The catalogue essay goes to great lengths to suggest exactly the opposite. And Ngui's drawings are plenty engaging without the book. If we were to compare Ngui's diagrams to, say, Marc Lombardi, these ones enjoy a full and dynamic existence in the absence of their source material. Lombardi's schematics have a presence, but without mapping the connections a fundamental portion of the meaning is lost. Like Lombardi, however, the source material is made available, and if the viewer cares to, they may enter into Ngui's process and map the connections between drawings and text,.
Goddard's decision to compare Quantal Strife with David Milne is kind of hilarious and arbitrary, but why not? Let's posit the work of a very famous Canadian painter from the early 1900s next to installations by three young artists of the present day. Here's my premise: Milne was explicitly rendering landscape, thereby demonstrating a human mind (and eye) at work. Ngui, Mowry and Carruthers are more directly attempting to render the shape of mind and its perceptive functions, to expose the networks between image and meaning. If this premise has any credence, then to wrap up these pieces in nice little completed packages would be to leave the viewer out of the picture. Explicit in this exhibition is the idea that thought belongs to all of us, and that's what makes the exercise fun and interesting. For Goddard it feels unsatisfying and unfinished. For McMackon as well. But for me the unfinished aspect is an open door.
Goddard's "Boomer" character also seems unsatisfied with my catalogue essay, saying that I am "wrapping one tenuous theory around three artists' practices that have their own identity," and suggesting, "Forget that and the show's engaging." While the dismissal stings a tad, I appreciate that, unlike McMackon, Goddard refrains from positioning the essay as if it were intended as a justification for the exhibition. The art comes first, the writing exists somewhere else, in a new space, hopefully adding to the options (for some readers anyway) for speculation and thought.
- sally mckay 3-17-2006 6:50 am