Artists "Review" Artists: Pam Farrell on Ken Weathersby

The Artists "Review" Artists Project was launched on June 30, 2008.  Below is a "review" of Ken Weathersby's work, 157(J), written by Pam Farrell.  Ken provided the second jpeg, an image of 153 (murder of abel), as well as a brief response to Pam's "review."

Ken currently resides in Montclair, NJ and Pam lives in Hunterdon County, NJ.

If you would like to participate in this project, please email me at jtkirkland [at] gmail [dot] com.

157(J)
acrylic on canvas with removed and reversed area
36" x 24"
2008

The "Review"

My first response to 157(J), was that I really wished I were able to view the actual painting. But since we’re all in this together, and it’s what I signed up for, I will soldier on, so to speak. This painting is acrylic on canvas, with a cut-out of the canvas removed and reversed. The overall field is comprised of a checkerboard of tiny black and white squares with a large, curvilinear, somewhat biomorphic cutout situated in the center. The cutout reveals a board and braces, in other words, the inside of the back, with large braces placed at right angles, and smaller braces at diagonal angles. Around the inside of the outer edges of the cutout appears the reverse of the removed canvas, positioned against the wood panel. The dizzying, graphic black-and-white checkerboard plays against the prosaic raw wood in a jarring contrast, further complicated by the organic cutout, which challenges the viewer to make sense of the seemingly unrelated array of elements.

 

The exercise of describing the painting underscores its enigmatic and convoluted nature. The viewer is afforded a glimpse into what is so very elusive—the mystery of what’s behind the painting, or perhaps a peek at the artist’s secrets that impel and inspire creativity. This is voyeurism taken to a new level, because while we are teased into thinking we are about to gain secret knowledge from the inner workings of the artist, what is revealed is only what has been removed and the wood construction providing support. What makes this even more complicated, and a bit ironic, is that nothing is known about the artist of this piece, nothing revealed by its title; it is removed from the context of personal history and related works. This is true of course of all the works in this Artists “Review” Artists project, but with 157(J), it heightens its mystery, and amplifies its deadpan, “straight man” delivery of the punch line. For one can view this as a sort of joke on us, the viewers. We are implicated in this caper by wanting to know the unknown. This painting works on several levels. It is balanced by its deceptively simple formal elements, which are unified by contrasts. A high level of craft, material integrity, and forethought is evident in the construction and execution of the painting. Conceptually, the enigmatic 157(J) presents a riddle and a solution, a question and an answer, at the same time--sort of. But the artist has the last laugh; the pieces of removed canvas, reversed in their placement against the wood backing, reveal nothing to the viewer, only to the artist.

By Pam Farrell

153 (murder of abel)
Two-sided painting
Acrylic on Canvas with Relocated Inset Panels
30" x 50"
2007

The Response

It's interesting to see someone respond to my painting with minimal points of reference. She pointed to issues specific to this piece and identified some of my driving interests. I like what she wrote. I object only to the notion of the artist playing a joke on the viewer—it’s important to me that the structures of these paintings are graspable to the viewer in principle (more so in person, as she guessed), even if the thinking and resulting forms are strange.  Sometimes I find them funny, but not a joke on the viewer.

 

By Ken Weathersby

Comments

[pam farrell]

I am responding to Ken's response of my review of his painting. Upon viewing a larger group of Ken's paintings, I feel humbled, as I now have a better sense of his accomplished work and highly developed sensibilities. Ken makes a good point in his objection to my use of the word "joke" in the review, which he felt could be misleading. While I believe we both share an understanding of my use of the word, I feel he is right in wanting to protect, in a sense, the relationship with the viewer. As I said in an email to him, this is what editors are for. I come away from this experience with a newfound appreciation for the art of criticism, and hope others will participate in the Artists Review Artists Project.
Pam Farrell

[paula]

dont feel bad pam, i too used that word in my review. the minute i read this post and his response i felt a PANG. i meant no untowards. i'm a lousy reviewer i guess.
this is a learning experience in more ways than i would have imagined.

[J.T. Kirkland]

Paula,

In my opinion, as long as the review is an honest account of your reaction to a work, then there is no such thing as a lousy review.

Remember, as artists we cannot control every interpretation of our art. And sometimes, a viewers interpretation is much more interesting than the artist's intent. I've seen it happen many times.

Thanks to both of you for participating.

[paula]

well put j.t.
not sure what i expected from this and it even makes me question why do people review art? (is that the dumbest question you've ever heard?) what do you think is the real reason/purpose/goal since ultimately the viewer probably should have his own reaction without being swayed.
its interesting, it is feedback...it can stroke or bend the ego but does it affect the art if the artist is truly following their muse? is it a ploy to sell? does it serve to 'educate' viewers that are deemed too ignorant to have an opinion of their own? or is it just hype to keep something in your face out of fear the art isn't strong enough on its own.
really curious what you think.
thanks
paula

[pam farrell]

Paula...you've posed questions that I often pondered (and the Why question is not dumb!) about reasons for reviewing art. In my experience, reviews can fill many roles...a stand-in for viewers/readers who can't see the work in person; a commentary with a particular point of view; a reaction to the work that provides information and context about the work or the artist that may be new to the viewer/reader; and a contribution to the ongoing larger dialog about the work and Art with a capital A. There are lots of other roles I believe a review can play, but these are the ones that come to mind. I tend to like to read reviews of art, films, music, books, restaurants, etc., after I've had a chance to experience them and then "compare notes" with the reviewer. Sometimes the review is in line with my thinking, often not so much. Most times I learn something new or gain a different perspective or understanding of the work; and that's the most important thing for me.
But good question, Paula...

[J.T. Kirkland]

Paula,

Sorry it took my so long to respond to your comment. I think you bring up many of the questions that I hope this project asks and attempts to answer. I will refrain from giving my own opinion just now and instead allow this project to run its course. Let's see what we think the answers are after a few months of these "reviews."