Tag Archives: SOIL

Color: A Guilty Pleasure Dome

If we needed art shows to always be somber and appropriate, we might be disappointed with a show dedicated to Xanadu. Why is this necessary, this homage to Olivia Newton John and roller skates? Is Seattle really better off with neon laser beams and thirty-something women in legwarmers dancing down Third Avenue?

I think it is.

Like Erin Shafkind, I spent my childhood in the 1980s in Los Angeles, yet I somehow have never seen Xanadu. (My parents weren’t purists or hippies, but if I wanted to bite snowflake shapes out of Velveeta cheese and watch non-PBS TV I had to go down the street to Tracy Clark’s house and I guess I was never there when Xanadu was on.) At this point I don’t feel like I need to see Xanadu now that I’ve seen how several artists have used Xanadu.

Xanadu, the film, is about the frustration, then celebration, of an artist. It’s about fantasy clashing and exploding into reality; utopias and dystopias. It’s about color. Xanadu: A Stately Pleasure Dome, curated by Erin Shafkind at SOIL, is about letting yourself have a hot relationship with media. By “hot” I mean Marshall McLuhan hot. McLuhan wrote about how different media are hot or cold, and our responses to them are hot or cold. TV (a show on a box in your living room), he said, is cold because it’s easy to control; it’s smaller than you. Film (a movie in a theatre) is hot because it is huge and enveloping and becomes your world. Hot is engaged, cold is distanced. In inviting these artists to participate in this show, Shafkind was essentially inviting them to let themselves have a hot response to Xanadu. The same invitation is extended to the viewer of her curated exhibition– except here the invitation is to have a hot exchange with hot art.

That is a lot to ask on both counts, when hot isn’t what’s cool.

In Chromophobia, David Batchelor writes succinctly about how color has been uncool for much of the lifespan of the Western world. Throughout art, history, and literature, color is associated with base desires, sex, the feminine, intellectual decay, loss of control, fall from grace.

Charles Blanc in 1867:”The taste for colour, when it predominates absolutely, costs many sacrifices; often it turns the mind from its course, changes the sentiment, swallows up the thought. . . The lower strata of nature takes the first place instead of human beings [who] alone represent the loftiest expression of life, which is thought.”

Roland Barthes, 1970′s: “Colour. . . is a kind of bliss. . . like a closing eyelid, a tiny fainting spell.”

L. Frank Baum’s Dorothy, on leaving colorful Oz to return to black-white-gray Kansas, 1900: “East, West, Home is Best.”

Kant, 1790: “The colours which give brilliancy to a sketch are a part of the charm. They may no doubt, in their own way, enliven the object for sensation, but make it really worth looking at and beautiful they cannot.”

In more subtle, less specific language, contemporary art criticism still often communicates a preference for non-color. I think of Jen Graves’ writing about Isaac Layman’s photographs at Lawrimore Project. She explains how this photograph

is fine as a cover for The Stranger, but it lacks the conceptual rigor of the “darker, almost morbid, and therefore interesting” Hot Dog Wrapper.

Aside from the fact that Otter Pops is colorful and Hot Dog Wrapper is not, I can’t find any differences in the conceptual implications of the two works; except to say that the mere use of color is meaningful, with its own host of conceptual implications and seedy association with pleasure.

Xanadu the art show has helped elucidate for me this quiet yet persistent discourse about color. During the Xanadu artists’ talk at SOIL, Cable Griffith talked about how participating in this show gave him the excuse he needed to finally use the neon colored acrylic paint he always pined for in the art supply store.

Cable Griffith, Pleasure Pan-Portal, 2010

Andy Arkley and Julie Alpert talked about their giddy opportunity to use colored laser beams in their collaborative video Gene’s Got Lasers, Who Could Ask For Anything More?

Color is a forbidden fruit that the artists in Xanadu: A Stately Pleasure Dome let themselves eat for the purpose of this show. Like Dorothy in the Wizard of Oz and Sonny in Xanadu, they had a dream/lapse/fall/trip into color. Like Dorothy and Sonny, I expect they’ll need to return to Kansas/Earth/greyness. Though I’m not sure I buy the reason why.

{photo by Stewart McCullough}

p.s. Also in the show, and fitting with this post was Joey Veltkamp’s PINK portrait of Gretchen Bennett and Amanda Manitach’s “hermaphrodite, bathing in the fuchsia and banana yellow glow of Gene’s Got Lasers, Who Could Ask for Anything More?

Amanda Manitach, Glory, Utopia (the head of Samuel Taylor Coleridge on the body of Terpischore)

A neat pile of pink bubblegum lies at the rollerskates of this blushing hermaphrodite who sheepishly, daintily, resides somewhere between utopia and dystopia.

Duet

Curtis Erlinger’s piece in the New Members Show at SOIL is fantastic. Titled Duet, it is a painting and a live projection of that painting facing each other from opposite walls in the gallery. A description of it might be hard to follow so I’ll go step by step.

Erlinger found a negative in his parents’ archives and painted a picture of it. It’s an image his mom took of her friend playing a guitar in her bedroom. The painting is exactly representational of the negative, except that Erlinger painted the eyes differently. The painting is hung on the wall.

About three feet out from the wall is a video camera on a tripod. It’s on, and it’s filming the painting on the wall as well as whatever/whoever crosses the space in front of the painting.

The live video is being projected on a monitor that is hanging on the wall opposite the painting. The video camera is inverting the negative/positive imagery, so that what you see in the monitor is the opposite of what is being filmed. Therefore, a live, inverted version of the painting is facing the actual painting. (Which, remember, is a negative.)

This is complicated and wry, and could be mistaken for one-liner trickery. But there is so much more going on. The live-filming/inversion process is not the punchline of a joke, but the mechanics of perception of a much bigger conversation.

I, and maybe other excitables, could go into orbit finding the duets within this duet. It is a duet of painting and video. Past and present. Positive and negative. And here’s the best one: historical scrutiny and nostalgia.

That’s a Mammy Doll on the shelf behind Erlinger’s mom’s friend, to the left. Unbeknownst to these guitar-playing 60′s youngsters, their Mammy Doll would implicate their inherent racism for decades to come, to be sorted out by their progeny. Erlinger had intended to do a precise representation of the negative, but was so distressed by the Mammy Doll that he had to paint its eyes on the girl with the guitar.

The girl’s new eyes are the Mammy Doll’s eyes; they are the artist’s eyes; they are a check on nostalgia and a self-conscious rendering of history. They are regret, an indictment, and the subject of the riddle. Because in the end, the girl is left with the Mammy’s eyes, and the Mammy Doll is not a Mammy Doll anymore. She’s white.

Bahogkins

Jeff McGrath‘s backspace show (at SOIL) called Bahogkins was Ken Kelly’s pick for the City Art’s First Thursday awards.  I love that a guy who does this

chose this

as his favorite work of the art walk. At the after party Kelly explained for a moment why he chose McGraths’s show, and while I don’t remember exactly what he said, I think he touched on that weird, refreshing limbo this work puts you in. There is no safety net of easy sophistication, though the sophistication is there. There is also humor, and also just an honest peek into McGrath’s work and play. These critters are not trying to be anything they’re not, and what they are is exuberant and true, but undefinable. Are they forest boogers, perched on logs for you to find and admire? Or Hobbit turds, as the show title and font choice might suggest? They are friendly, messy little things that are almost embarrassing with their show of affection. Thanks, Bahogkins.

A gay day at SOIL

It was a hot, sweaty Saturday Talk at SOIL last week when we new members talked briefly about our work. I could be wrong, but I think SOIL might have been all hetero before this round of homos joined this year.  It was nice/interesting to see common yearnings in our work. All three of the gay members present for the talk (one bear couldn’t make it) are making work about our sexual identities, histories, and relationships. And, all three of us are using somewhat abstract means to do this. Also, I think talking comfortably about these things in a gallery setting is relatively new to all of us.

Chris Buening talked about how Mad Dog is a kind of abstract “portrait” of his fifteen-year-old self drunk on a date with his much older boyfriend.

Derrick Jefferies found the body for Anatomy in cinnamon and mint chewing gum, stretched and and molded together to shape sinews and nakedness.

I’m using The Song of Songs from the Bible as a way to paint the trajectory of my love song to my wife and son.

Related: Erin Shafkind’s take on the Saturday Talk.

Rainbow Bears

I took my parents and Grandma to see the Soil in Residence show yesterday and had yet another fulfilling experience with Joey Veltkamp‘s Rainbow Bears.  I am totally pleased that they’re luxuriously spread across this giant wall. They bring humor, sex, and possibly dismay to a building that is predominantly filled with lamps. (The strangeness of this show has not left me.)

Some of the bears seem to be smiling sheepishly, some growling, and I’m not sure if it is a wrestle of love or war between the man-bear and bear-bear.  The not-knowing makes for an unsettling feeling that floats delicately with the rainbow parade.

I think it is the combination of the medium (paint on paper), the tacks holding them to the wall, the curiosity of emotion, the vast space they traverse, and the resulting odd staccato rainbow that makes me certain that these bears need to be here.

Magic, Chance, Gifts (Bang, Universe, Everything)

Decoy, 2010

Chauney Peck’s solo show at SOIL is lovely with its titling. Bang, Universe, Everything pays homage to the special object, which may be given as a gift. It attempts to measure the incomprehension of a nuclear bomb. It grants shelter to a duck, cozy with chopped colored wood in its abdomen, perched on battered wood with toxic orange markings.

To create the sculptural works in the show, Chauney followed directions given to her by chance cards that she made. Drawn and collaged upon playing cards, they say things like “thin bricks” or “cardboard or “NOT CENTER.”

The works on paper are based on the USA’s atom bomb test sites in the 1940′s and 50′s. Inhabitants of islands in the South Pacific were told to leave because the U.S. government was going to blow up their home. {By the way, U.S. government (as I’m sure you read this blog), what is the point of “testing” a nuclear bomb? What’s the worst thing that could happen? That it might not work? That the destruction wouldn’t be complete enough?} Not comprehending this undeniable force threatening to wipe out their universe, the people appropriately concluded “A powerful new god is coming.”

A Powerful New God is Coming, 2010

Chauney has let magic into her show by offering some of her work as gifts. (If you would like a gift from her show, you can contact her. At the end of the show, she’ll randomly select a recipient for each of the sculpture “offerings.”) In Bang, Universe, Everything, fourteen of the thirty pieces are offerings and the remaining sixteen are for sale.

Here, she talks about gift-giving: “I’ve recently received gifts made of wood, like driftwood carved into the shape of a gun.  Those interactions have a power and energy that is vastly different than going out and buying a something made of wood.  I’m a reading a book called ‘the gift’ by lewis hyde where he talks about the hunters that go out and kill ten birds.  They take eight to their families and give two to the priest.  The priest eats one and prepares the other as a talisman or an offering.  He gives it back to the forest to make the birds come back next time they go hunting.  It’s a humble gesture and a reflection of their gratitude towards nature. Similarly, it makes me happy to give an offering, and if you receive one hopefully, you will give something to someone else.  You don’t expect anything in return except a vague karmic return from the universe.  It’s about giving thanks and moving energy around continually. Giving my chance sculptures as offerings is a formal gesture that reflects my belief that art is gift that can keep returning.”

It was interesting to notice that the way I looked at the work actually changed when I realized I might actually get to have one. The object, and its possible transference to me, already felt magical. I’ve long struggled with the retail identity of the art objects I make, and I love the solution Chauney created for this show. It’s not a senseless free-for-all; rather, she thoughtfully measures randomness and decisiveness to counteract some of the inherent power of commerce in art. People’s wishes are noted and the work is then randomly dispersed. In the end, Chauney will have actually had more control over who will own her work than the artist in the typical commercial transaction. Likewise, the offerings themselves, which were created within a prescribed vocabulary of chance, emanate a calm control. Their precise, tender arrangements make a quiet space where one might wait for a powerful new God that is coming.

Nicholas Nyland at SOIL

{Nicholas Nyland, Garland, 2009, Acrylic on paper, grommets, rope, Dimensions variable}

I really love these weird creations of Nicholas Nyland‘s that are hanging/drooping/slouching in the back room of SOIL this month. I’m not sure if it’s Painting as an awkward teenager or Painting as a sometimes incontinent yet cheerful elderly person. Not really funny, but endearing and slightly embarrassing. One of the objects is like this big tongue perched on the wall– part painting, part sculpture. Another (Garland, above) might want to sway gracefully like a Calder mobile, but its parts get in the way.