DC Roundup, cont.

Continuing on the mini-reviews posted last week...

5) Stout and Mills @ Hemphill Fine Arts

First, a decision: Hemphill is easily the most elegant gallery in DC. This is undeniable. With each visit to their new space I am more certain than ever that Hemphill understands lighting and presentation on par with any major museum. Such a belief is clearly evident in Hemphill's current shows of Renee Stout and Joseph Mills artwork (an example of Mills work - not in the show - is above). Renee Stout makes serious, sophisticated work. However, I didn't care too much for it. I saw it as a more mature approach to the hodge-podge thrown together installation art trend. I know Stout is above most installation artists currently being hyped today. But the objects she uses and displays would be interesting without her (speaking specifically about her use of found objects). On the other hand, you have Joseph Mills. Mills transforms his materials into something completely new, beautiful and elegant. He takes discarded materials, manipulates them as collages, shines 'em up and throws them on the wall. Hung on a dark wall with lush spotlights, Mills constructions of materials that on their own are practically worthless, appear to be priceless. That's the difference I saw in the two artists' work: one's work looked the same, the other looked brand new and full of importance. As a whole, it's a beautiful show that's worth a serious look.

6) Kendall Buster @ Fusebox

Buster's installation at Fusebox is a knockout. When you walk through the front door you are presented with a gallery-transforming blue installation. At first glance it appears to be a fluid, organic tarp that reconfigures gallery's "ceiling." It starts off high and twists and curles it's way down to the back of the gallery. To get to the back you must bend and duck the tarp. While doing so, you'll notice the incredible craftsmanship used to install the piece. This alone is impressive. But, the best is to come next. When you finally reach the back, straighten your back and turn 180 degrees, you are finally let in on the joke. What appeared to be a solid tarp is actually a "ceiling" made up of dozens of small blue tents that are sewn together. What you first saw was just the flat undersides of the tents. From the back you are able to see an undulating countryside of one or two-person tents. Each tent looks like a bubble. The tents follow the same undulation that you had just experienced from beneath. However, it's a totally different experience. What was flat, sleek and sterile, now comes to life. It's a complete transformation. When you walk back underneath the blueness above you, you can't help but think that is above, what you can't see.

The piece made me think of all the things in the world that are easily seen. Yet, we don't always know what lies beyond. Sometimes there are rewards to be found, other times there's nothing. But taking the time and making the effort to see what is obscured is always the right idea. In this case, Buster rewarded me with a fantastic experience.

7) Jason Zimmerman @ Transformer

Zimmerman's work at Transformer is weak. I can't put it any simpler than that. The video of never ending police chases is cute. After 15 seconds I got the point. Yet it kept going and going. So what? It's cute, like I said, but the Wiley Coyote cartoons of yesteryear were so much more interesting. This video made me think its creation was inevitable. It's a product of today and it was inevitable that some young artist thinking they are being creative and maybe even edgy would create this. For all I know, it probably has been done. I imagine there's a version in NY, another in LA, another in the mid-west somewhere. The video isn't truly creative. It's an exercise, student work at best. But what's worse are the "artist books" also on display. If the video was boring, the books are completely vapid. Their subject matters are stale. They don't entice the viewer to really study them. There's nothing to learn from them (well, there is one that will appeal to you perverts out there!). I'm not familiar with any other works by Zimmerman but here's hoping they are better. Something had to encourage Transformer to hand over the gallery for such a lackluster showing. I wonder what it was...

8) Julee Holcombe and Mary Coble @ Conner Contemporary

Holcombe (above) first caught my attention in last year's version of the annual Academy show at Conner Contemporary (I wrote about it here). Her piece, "Babel Revisited," knocked my socks off. Remembering it, I was eagerly anticipating her solo debut at Conner. What I saw disappointed me. Not in terms of the quality, but in terms of the subject matter. The work is beautiful and presented quite well. I couldn't help but notice that. However, I felt the work was inaccessable. Several people that I've discussed the work with have talked about the allusions to significant, historical paintings. If you don't recognize those allusions, you're left out of a significant part of the work. Without this knowledge, the work is nice. But without that little something (an inside joke of sorts) the work falls flat. I don't enjoy art that requires a certain understanding to "get" it. There shouldn't be pre-requisites for art viewing. To me, it seems like a bit of a crutch to grab onto something so successful and established. Who knows... since I obviously didn't get the references and have to trust others that they're there, maybe I just don't understand the work period. Regardless, I know I enjoyed "Babel Revisited" solely on the visual merits of the work alone. This show, not so much.

I've discussed the Coble performance here before. What I got to see at the gallery were the many blood prints of the etched names. These weren't visually interesting at all, but such is the problem of documenting a performance. They were just red names printed backwards on paper. Not much to talk about really. As for the performance itself, Kriston at Grammar.Police covered it pretty well here. Check it out.

OK, I've got four more reviews that will have to come later this week. Please be patient!

Comments

[Renee Stout]

Thanks for mentioning my work and suggesting that people go see the show that Joe and I have up at Hemphill. However, If you think that every piece of my work consists of found objects that have been simply thrown together, then you know absolutely nothing about my work or my artistic process. Even more it means to me that you aren't observing close enough when you look at things. Some things that you may be assuming are foound objects have actually been made by me to look like something that was found and some things are found objects that may or may not have been altered further. Anybody who has been following my work over the years would know that, and would know that that's part of the mischievious trickster in me-to make the viewer wonder which is which. I spend hours, days, weeks and months going to great pains to create these illusions because it's challenging for me and I respect my viewers. I don't mind that you don't care for my work, many people don't, but to suggest that I am simply throwing objects together in the same thoughtless and shallow way that seems to be the current trend in the art world is an insult.

[J.T. Kirkland]

The timing of this comment is almost too perfect to be true with the recent discussions on this site. Assuming this isn't a hoax, let me address Ms. Stout's comments.

First, I'd like to post the five sentences I wrote about Ms. Stout's work:

"Renee Stout makes serious, sophisticated work. However, I didn't care too much for it. I saw it as a more mature approach to the hodge-podge thrown together installation art trend. I know Stout is above most installation artists currently being hyped today. But the objects she uses and displays would be interesting without her (speaking specifically about her use of found objects)."

A couple of further thoughts:

1) I'm sorry you were "insulted" by my opinion.
2) No, I didn't look too closely at your work nor did I think much about it. It didn't draw me in. When that happens, I move on so that I can spend time with things that do draw me in (e.g. Joe Mills' work).
3)In general, I don't care much for art that requires an understanding of an artist's history or art-making process. For me, the work should say everything needed. Your work probably does but it didn't reach me.
4) "Some things that you may be assuming are foound objects have actually been made by me to look like something that was found and some things are found objects that may or may not have been altered further. Anybody who has been following my work over the years would know that" -- Given that I feel like a fool for thinking your work used a lot of found objects... where on Earth could I have gotten such an idea? And no, I haven't been following your work for years. What are people supposed to do who haven't? Be perpetually out of the loop or research your life's work at the local library?
5)I call things as I see them.