Artists "Review" Artists: James Bills on Donna Dodson

The Artists "Review" Artists Project was launched on June 30, 2008.  Below is a "review" of Donna Dodson's work, Golden Elephant, written by James Bills.  Donna also provided a second image of Golden Elephant, as well as a brief response to James' "review."

Donna currently resides in Boston, MA, and James lives in Brooklyn, NY.

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

 
Golden Elephant
polychrome osage orange
36" tall
2008

The "Review"

Yikes.  That is what I said when I first viewed this piece.  I am afraid I won't be able to say much that is positive about this piece.  I hope my honesty will not come across as hurtful.  I will try to be as constructive as I can be.
 
Carved wood is a very traditional material, and it is hard to make it seem fresh and interesting.  The carving here, to me, comes across as static and timid.  The artist seems to be going for a simplification of form, an elegance you might find in Egyptian art or other ancient statues, but it falls short.  The lines of the ears seem tentative.  The tusks and the arms are too similar.  The columnar body reads like a stiff dress.  The trunk blends into the body.  I've seen so many wooden sculptures where the carving is truly astounding.  I feel like I'm getting the short sell here, where I am supposed to see simple forms as more important than they actually are.
 
The scale and painting are problematic for me as well.  At 36 inches, you are in the range of either a large doll or a piece of furniture.  If this was 6 feet, you would be talking monumental statue, which is where I think this artist wants this piece to be.  As for the painting, the black arms versus the white tusks are too simple, the contrast too apparent.  Wood is such a beautiful material and painting over different parts seems like a shame.  I would have left the entire thing unpainted.
 
It has crossed my mind that maybe the artist is trying to be funny, that maybe this is a figure in a dress with long sleeves and an elephant head.  Sort of a Nutcracker Ganesh in evening wear.  If so, push that more, because that is not coming across clearly.  If this was not the intent, push it the other way.  Right now this piece is too tentative, stuck in between for me.

By James Bills

                   
Golden Elephant
polychrome osage orange
36" tall
2008

The Response

No response provided by the artist.

By Donna Dodson

Previous "Reviews":
Pam Farrell on Ken Weathersby
Paula McCullough on Aric Calfee
Lee Gainer on Leigh Waldron-Taylor
Aric Calfee on Paula McCullough
Matthew Ballou on Heather Levy
Giovanni Garcia-Fenech on TJ Norris
TJ Norris on Giovanni Garcia-Fenech
Susan Tolbert on Mary Klein
Heather Levy on Gail Vollrath
Sharon Butler on Matthew Ballou
Mark L. Power on Steven Alexander
Steven Alexander on Mark L. Power
Molly Norris on M. Trigos
Ken Weathersby on Joseph Barbaccia
Sondra Arkin on Susan Tolbert
John M. Adams on Sharon Butler
Michael Paul Oman-Reagan on Brent Hallard
Daniel Mafe on Pam Farrell
Joanna Knox on John M. Adams
John Lucien Grillo on Joanna Knox
Brent Hallard on Lisa Klow
Joseph Barbaccia on John Lucien Grillo
M. Trigos on Michael Paul Oman-Reagan
Mary Klein on Imants Ozers
Richard Schemmerer on Michael Konrad
Michael Konrad on Richard Schemmerer
Jennifer Mawby on Lee Gainer
Lisa Klow on Molly Norris
Bob Barbera on Jenn Figg
Tom Wagner on Kimberley L. Lindsley
Michelle Hunter on Aaron McMasters
Gail Vollrath on Daniel Mafe
Aaron McMasters on Michelle Hunter
Demetrius Romanos on Chris Rywalt
Chris Rywalt on Demetrius Romanos
Imants Ozers on Sondra Arkin
Timothy Buckwalter on Rob Hitzig
Rob Hitzig on Susan Constanse
Carolina Mayorga on Timothy Buckwalter
Leila Holtsman on Carolina Mayorga
Grant Dale on Matt Hollis
Matt Hollis on Mel Prest
Mel Prest on Marina Reiter
Susan Contanse on Alexandra Silverthorne
Ryan Burkhart on James Bills
Donna Dodson on Ryan Burkhart

Comments

[JaneDahling]

Yikes indeed! Although there was some constructive criticism, mostly it came off more as angry.

[*]

It doesn't sound angry to me. It sounds honest. I immediately understood what he meant by 'yikes'-- I'm sure he would have preferred to be given a piece to review that was just really great and exciting as art. I'm pretty sure 'yikes' reflected his dismay upon seeing he would have to choose between being totally positive and giving a real critique. Maybe he could have been a little more soft in his presentation, thrown in a few light compliments to help the medicine go down, but, really, the things he said were on target, and not gratuitously cruel. I'm sure Donna is a nice person, and it can be tough to absorb something like that. But isn't a direct response from someone with a sense of what works or doesn't in a piece what she wanted in participating in this?

[clamhead]

This criticism reminds me of top chef’s judging table, where the chef is evaluated solely on the meal of the night, not how he or she has performed over the season. I looked at Donna’s blog and it was interesting to see this piece in the context of its siblings, and felt if the reviewer was familiar with some of the other work, perhaps the criticism wouldn’t have felt so bleak, like Ms. Dodson should just give it up already. Is this the first negative review in the Artists interview Artist project? I wish Donna had provided a response, a defense, even an “I’m just doing my thing; sorry you’re not into it.”

[ken]

It's true, sometimes things look better or make a different kind of sense in the context of a whole body of work. On the other hand, this project, as J.T. set it up, is to see how someone will respond to just one piece. That is valuable information for an artist, unless one only ever shows the work in grouped installations. In that case I would think this project wouldn't suit you, or that maybe it would be a good idea to submit a shot of a whole installation.

[Donna Dodson]

My response is that this review reminds of the Blondie song 'Rip her to Shreds.' But seriously, yes, it is the first negative review of my work I've ever received and I don't think the reviewer understood what my work is about. It's obvious that the reviewer didn't like it, but he also got some of the details wrong which says to me he did not spend much time with it or look very carefully. Is it because sculpture is much more difficult to represent in a digital image or did he not understand the nature of the project. I was also confronted with an image out of context when it was my turn to participate in the project as a reviewer and yet I gave my impressions very carefully and considerately. Too bad I was not treated in the same manner.

[Joanne Mattera Art Blog]

Jeez--or yikes--this was one negative post! Of course that is the reviewer's prerogative within the parameters of this project.

If I were reviewing Dodson's work, I would comment on the spiritual quality of the carvings, noting that the artist seemed to be tapping into that collective place where essence is manifest by reductive form, and by respect for the materials. I'm struck by the gentleness of the work, by the aniumal/human identities, and that the human figures are female. I spent some time on Dodson's blogsite, and enjoyed her work very much. Finding out that it connected to feminist thinking and matriarchial cultures increased my emotional connection to it as well.

[Brent Hallard]

The first word always hits the hardest. And while I can engage the criticism I think that the reviewer should have thought twice about how to begin the critique. I have known Donna and her work for some time. And maybe that is what it takes. Please James edit your review. Take out the Yikes. The rest is your opinion and no-one can can deprive you of that!
A little clumsy of J.T. to let this go through!

[J.T. Kirkland]

Brent,

I don't follow. What is clumsy? I set the parameters of the project and the artists participate. As long as the artists follow the guidelines, I publish what is submitted. Nothing is edited by me. There are no rules set forth about tone. That is the nature of the project.

As long as James was giving his honest thoughts on Dodson's work then I have no problem with the review at all.

Are you suggesting that James' opinion is ok but a one word emotional response to the work is not?

If nothing else, I think this specific review starts to bring up some of the questions I hoped this project would raise. If anything, I'm surprised it has taken this long.

Thanks for commenting everyone!

[Brent Hallard]

Hey JT...

The parameters are that we are working with fellow artists... no set rules there, certainly. I tend to make them up though... like show at least a very simple level of respect.

"Are you suggesting that James' opinion is OK but a one word emotional response to the work is not?"

Can't find where I said that. I did say...

"Please James edit your review. Take out the Yikes. The rest is your opinion and no-one can can deprive you of that!"

I guess that is called a plea.

Honesty is a very hard thing, and it's tied to the professional. I think Ryan perhaps was trying to do his best with the honesty factor, as he saw fit, but fell by the wayside with the professional aspect.
Now if it were a delivery by Charlie Finch, you know Donna may have felt very honored... a piece spiritedly written, sinister in fact, tongue-in-cheek, even ‘set up’ perhaps. But every rotten bit of curlicue would have been sculptured at a very high pitch. And it would have had some content in there... some of which Joanne mentions above. That's what you can do when you are that good/bad. For garden variety, such as the likes of me, slinging just isn't singing it. I didn't make those rules up. Just seems they are pretty standard.

I've said what I wanted to say. Thanks for responding JT.

[Donna Dodson]

I agree- It comes across like a Jerry Saltz gut reaction- finger on the pulse type response but without merit. The project is inherently compromised but the fact that the reviewer isn't seeing the work in person- what if you set this up in a gallery context and invited reviews from people who saw the work in person? Admittedly the project has value since most of us artists are using digital images on the internet and websites to promote our work as well as to compete for grants and shows by submitting digital images on cd's or via email. The idea of seeing one piece of a body of work 'out of context' and without the artist statement is an interesting one but not a criteria that invalidates a work of art i.e. some art requires seeing more than once to 'get it' some art requires 'knowing what the artist's intention is' or 'art historical context' my only gratification was that it provoked a STRONG reaction from the reviewer- it would have been interesting to find out why or what exactly the feelings were that my piece evoked in the reviewer. That would be valuable information for me. Thanks JT!