M. Sedestrom Guthrie @ Conversions (7 of 11)

M. Sedestrom Guthrie’s piece shows a window washer in action while cleaning what seems to be a single window. The photos are shown on two panels of painted plywood (or MDF) that have been mounted to the wall. In between the panels, and connecting the two, appears to be a poem printed on a clear material. I didn’t read the poem so I don’t know what it says.

We’ve all marveled at the apparent lack of fear of these window washers in the sky as they move with confidence and grace. It’s a dangerous job and one that I wouldn’t want to have. All this got me to thinking about what Guthrie’s piece was actually saying (not literally in the text… you know I don’t go for that unless I’m hooked). Referencing an everyday yet fascinating action like high-rise window washing means that the artwork must go farther than that which is being referenced. For me, it’s not enough to just make an apparatus that roughly resembles a washing platform, post some images on it, mount it so that when a viewer looks at it they see the gallery windows, and hang steel rope from the ceiling around the piece. The result is less interesting than that which is being referenced.

Disclaimer: My proposal for the show would have transformed this entire (all 4 walls) free-standing wall. The ends and other side have been left empty.

Comments

[Xoro For Breakfast]

1. "In between the panels, and connecting the two, appears to be a poem printed on a clear material. I didn’t read the poem so I don’t know what it says."
This is lazy as hell. If you're reviewing work -- even if you don't like it, frigging LOOK at it.

2. "Disclaimer: My proposal for the show would have transformed this entire (all 4 walls) free-standing wall. The ends and other side have been left empty."

Yes, we know you applied and didn't get in. Yes, we know that you would have done something better. You know how we know? Because you make comments like this every bloody time you review a show that you didn't get into. Let it go.

[J.T. Kirkland]

Mr. Xoro,

I did look at it. There is even a picture above that I took of it so clearly I had to look at it otherwise I wouldn't have framed the piece so well. I review visual art on visual terms. The text added nothing to the piece visually. If anything, the cheap, clear sheets the text was presented on muddled the composition. But I did look at it, I just didn't read it.

Is it also lazy to not read a piece that includes 500 words? How about 2,000? Do I have to read them all to be fair?

When did I mention that my proposal was to transform this particular wall? I don't recall writing that. I believe in being upfront and my proposal was for this wall. My review was negative so I wanted people to know this fact in case they thought it clouded my judgment.

Man, I've missed commenters like you Mr. Xoro. I hope you'll stick around a while.

[Xoro For Breakfast]

"The text added nothing to the piece visually. If anything, the cheap, clear sheets the text was presented on muddled the composition."
This is a fair assessment. In fact, I agree. The text and cables detracted from what otherwise could have been a relatively successful piece.
However, there is the possibility that the content of the text could have added something beneficial to the piece, and had it been presented better, maybe it wouldv'e been an asset.
Being able to say "the text says this-and-such, which does nothing to add to the piece, and the presentation is crap" is a much more respectable evaluation than "there's text but I didn't bother to read it."
And reading around 20 words is obviously nowhere near the kind of time investment that reading 500-2,000 would be. Nice empty reductio ad absurdium though. The text was a part of the piece and a layer of intended content. By saying you're not addressing it, and what's more saying that you refused to read it at all because it wasn't presented well -- in effect stating that you are purposely writing an uninformed review -- is laziness plain and simple.

[J.T. Kirkland]

I have to disagree with the lazy assessment. I told you, I didn't read the text because this text added nothing to the piece visually (it starts as only black forms on clear ground when I look at it). It's not lazy. It's a choice... a choice I made you aware of.

Honestly, I hardly ever read text in art. I love Tim Tate's work but I have never read a single word in his sculptures. Sometimes text works visually and it draws me in. Other times not. Too often have I wasted my time on 50 words or 500 words with no reward.

I don't owe anything to the artwork or the artist. I owe an honest personal assessment and I provided it. You can deal with it as you wish. I looked. I judged. I wrote. End of story. If you want a more comprehensive review (conceptually, literary, AND visually) you'll have to wait for another review.

Oh, and uninformed review? Aren't they all in some respect? I don't read titles either if you want to get on me about that...

[Xoro For Breakfast]

[Ed. Commented removed as it only contained an insult and nothing constructive to the conversation.]

[Xoro For Breakfast]

I merely stated my opinion that proclaiming a refusal to take into consideration any informative text related to the work you are reviewing, and furthermore stating that you feel no qualms about writing uninformed reviews, are practices in ignorance, and whats worse, pride in ignorance.
I am not here to hurl personal attacks. I am simply challenging what I feel to be half-assed critical practices.

[J.T. Kirkland]

I only refuse to take into account informative text on pieces that don't "hook" me visually immediately. I consider visual art on visual terms. If the piece is interesting (to me) and I feel the text may add something to the work I will read it. I found this piece uninteresting from the start and any text written about window washers likely even more uninteresting.

This is not ignorance. This is a choice. I made the choice to spend little time with this piece so that I could spend more with interesting works such as Kong's and Yang's. I do not have infinite time to fully consider every piece of art I see. That's just the way it is. And neither do you or anyone else. You want to complain about something... complain about critics who write about visual art shows they haven't seen in person at all.

You state, "I am simply challenging what I feel to be half-assed critical practices." Well, that's where the problem is. TAA is not a critical practice and if you've read my site for long you would know that that is not at all my intent. Because it is not a "critical practice" it cannot be "half-assed." If anything that suggests it is more of a "critical practice" than I intend it to be and as such I thank you for the compliment.

I think we can agree on one thing. If my intent were to provide a comprehensive critical review of the work in the show I would make two changes. 1) I would not use such a short, quick-hit format that is personal in nature. 2) I would read all the text, titles and even do research on the artist's history, statement, thoughts, etc. For my salary publishing this blog and available free-time that's just unrealistic.

A bigger problem would be if I had written the above thoughts and not mentioned that I didn't read the text. Of course though you wouldn't have complained because you wouldn't have known the difference. Now you know I didn't read the text or the title for any of the pieces. Judge my comments however you'd like with that information.

If you'd like, keep coming back to TAA to look at the images I post. Feel free to ignore the writing if you don't find it worthwhile. That's your choice. I won't call you "half-assed" for not reading it.

[J.T. Kirkland]

One more thing...

"...that you feel no qualms about writing uninformed reviews..."

The review is not uninformed. It's a VISUAL ART review and I looked at the piece from every angle (even behind it to study the hanging mechanism). It is completely informed in that respect. From a more broad perspective, it is way more uninformed than just not reading the text. Good thing I'm not trying to be broad... just visual.

[Xoro For Breakfast]

"TAA is not a critical practice"

Sorry, champ... but if you write about a show and call it a "review", you're engaging in art criticism. If you want to avoid that stigma, you could call the writings "Thoughts About {name of show]" instead of "My Review of [name of show]",
which might actually tie in with the blog's title nicely.

Sometimes nomenclature DOES make a difference.

After all, you title YOUR pieces, don't you? And with titles that allude to something external to the physical piece! Oh no! If you want to practice what you preach -- which always helps strenthen your position in exchanges like this -- go "Untitled", or at most, title your pieces with the type of wood used and maybe a number referring to it's place in a series or the number of holes drilled. That would drag us title-readers right back to the artwork itself.

[Xoro For Breakfast]

UPDATE: I do see that some of your titles do refer to simply to the shape implied by the lack of holes, or the behavior of shapes.

[J.T. Kirkland]

I like you Xoro. Except when you call me "champ." But that's ok.

What's clear is that you are a relatively new reader of this site. And that's ok... In previous posts I've addressed the idea of a "review" and "criticism." I've stated that I do not consider my writing to be a "review" in the traditional, critical sense. I use the word review because it's simple, quick and most readers (longtime readers, that is) understand that what I write is only opinion. Now you understand my approach to "reviews" so we should be able to move past this.

As for titles, I've discussed that at great lengths here as well. There was a time approximately 3 years ago that everything was titled "Untitled." But, that became far too difficult to manage when discussing the work. I thought about the generic numbering approach but found that to be corny and put too much emphasis on order and process. So then I decided why not (in the vast majority of cases) just title the work with one unique word that would in some way reference the piece and not be too heady or dramatic. That's how I arrived at names like "Pool," "Pit," "Expanse," etc... These titles are chosen because they are the most evident words I could find to somehow describe what was there in the work itself. For me, they mean absolutely nothing. They are a way for others to engage me about my work. It's far easier to talk about "Pool" than "Untitled" or "Poplar 19." By suggesting I title my work with the number of drilled holes confirms that you don't know a lot about my work (which is fine... why would you?). Honestly, I'd just soon people not give a second thought to my titles in terms of what it means. That makes it funny when people compliment me on the titles. I think of them in an instance and jot them down. Little thought involved.

I think that if you make visual art and rely on the title to make sense of the work, then something is missing in the work itself. What if the title is unavailable to me? What if it somehow gets scratched off the back of the piece and 200 years from now it is lost forever? I think the work should carry it's weight regardless. I ask, if you NEED the title, why isn't it in the work itself somehow (not literally as text). Sure, titles can add something to the work. But if it doesn't succeed visually, no title can correct that.

So, where does this leave us Xoro? You now are aware of my approach to writing about art (and I won't be making any changes as a result of this particular dialogue). You know about my thoughts on titles and the insigficance of them in my own work. I guess if you would like to continue reading TAA, you can do so with a better understanding of my intentions.

[adrian]

This is intense.

[J.T. Kirkland]

No it isn't Adrian! And there are 32 reasons why it isn't. Let's get started so you better understand the nomenclature associated with the word "intense":

1)

I'm kidding!!