D.C. Gallery Shows

Continuing what I started with the Arlington Arts Center post, what follows are some images and thoughts about gallery shows in D.C. that caught my eye.

Up at Hemphill is a solo show by Joseph Mills. The work demonstrates Mills' unique vision of mixing photographs with found wooden implements. Gritty at heart, the glossy finish gives the pieces - sculptures, really - an elegant glow.

Here Mills uses an interesting wooden object as the mount for the photograph. I loved the shadows cast by the legs(?). An obvious, yet compelling, correlation between the legs of wood and the figure's arms, sealed the deal for me liking this piece.

At Irvine is a solo show of Phil Nesmith's old-school-meets-new-school photographs. These should be familiar (in broad terms) to readers of this site as I presented his work last year at H&F Fine Art as part of a three-person group show called "Place, Space and Time."

Nesmith is quite concerned with the presentation of his work and this installation bears that out. The photos are strong, as always, but the presentation is where the show stands out. The framing relates to the work very well.

One small thing I noticed with the framing was that the brass corners holding the glass plates in place were sometimes out of square by a few degrees. I didn't notice it often but when I spotted it, it was distracting. It's a minor detail, but with such exacting presentation, slight issues like this stick out.

In the front room at Irvine is a group show of gallery artists. This painting by Lori Esposito was the most interesting to me.

Local artist Matthew Langley has a solo show up at DCAC. Based on images I had seen online I thought I would enjoy the show. And I certainly did. I think it's one of the more interesting shows up in D.C. right now.

Kriston Capps wrote about the show in the City Paper. I think he captured the show pretty well. I agree with his assessment.

The paintings call back to the days of minimalism but Langley's touch introduces some intriguing painterliness. Details abound. Black isn't just black. These minimalist paintings aren't just minimalist.

One thing I did notice in the show was that the works were hung awfully low. After installing several shows in the last year (almost always with a center line of 60"), I am attuned to the height at which paintings are hung. I noticed immediately how low Langley's works were hung and assumed that it was done intentionally for some purpose. After checking with Langley via email, the show was hung at its present height intentionally but I was not given any specific reason except that it seemed about right. This is a perfectly fair reason for hanging works at any given height, but for me, it was a bit distracting. Had the work not been as good or as powerful, I think it would have impacted my take on the show. As is, it's only mildly distracting.

Titled "Stylus," this piece was easily my favorite in the show. It's a stable composition knocked off balance by the three black squares, and infused with a sense of life as a result. The yellow, gray and black color scheme is unusual but simply works.

Based on Langley's art resume online he has not had extensive solo show experience (his last solo was in 1995). Something tells me that will change going forward.

Comments

[Matthew Langley]

JT:
Thanks for the write up of my show, I'm glad you enjoyed it.

Thanks for noticing that the artworks, while reductive on the surface, really try to push the painted approach in both directions minimal and painterly.

Thanks also for the positive comments about the future of my work at the end of the article.

M

[paula]

the incorporation of brackets and dimension to the photos are refreshing as you might know i would like based on my photo assemblages....
i can see why you love the works below, they are interesting too. i like that you take the time to show works that aren't the same ole same ole.

[Michael Fitts]

I really dig the Langley stuff. He has great stuff on his site also. Thanks for posting it.
--Fitts

[Douglas Witmer]

On the hanging height of Langley's work you write:
"...the works were hung awfully low. After installing several shows in the last year (almost always with a center line of 60"), I am attuned to the height at which paintings are hung...After checking with Langley via email, the show was hung at its present height intentionally but I was not given any specific reason except that it seemed about right..."

I would like to add that in my experience installing art for galleries and museums there is no standard center line. Five feet is common, but not always appropriate for the space or the work. Langley's larger paintings--in the 5-6 foot range each way--seem very much involved with the scale of a (his) human body in the experience of the piece. Also I sense from the photos a certain "sculptural" aspect of the work--the geometry on or within the panels cannot help but relate to the line where the wall meets the floor. That Langley would install the work at a height that "seemed about right" (read: felt right) probably means it is right...at least for him.

Now, whether another person finds himself looking "up" or "down" at the paintings, well, that adds a certain other element of course. It can become a layer of content and needs to be thought about.

Anyway, I unfortunately didn't get to see this show in person, but from the installation shots, I love how the paintings are drawn towards the floor. They seem grounded and part of my world.

[J.T. Kirkland]

Douglas,

These are great points! And you're right, if Matthew felt the height was right, then that's what matters. The work just felt too low for me, but it might work better for someone else.

The space is difficult. The walls feel short... if the pieces were at 60" center they may have pushed up against the top of the wall. That would have been distracting too.

The most important thing is that the work is good. Real good.

[Tim McFarlane]

Thanks for this post on Langley's work. I like the painterly minimalism he's got going.