Slog News & Arts

Line Out

Music & Nightlife

« Re: I Hope They Don't Fuck Thi... | Deadline for Death with Dignit... »

Tuesday, July 1, 2008

Questions and Answers

posted by on July 1 at 15:47 PM

Why did a high-profile, cutting-edge commercial gallery host a student show last month?

Because Scott Lawrimore does what he wants to do at Lawrimore Project: it’s his gallery, he’s become interested in the University of Washington’s DXArts program, and he wanted to host its undergrads as an experiment.

Was it a good idea?

Hell, no. For one—setting aside questions of when dealers should be allowed to pounce on young artists—why should these artists get what other student artists would kill for?

Well, but what if these artists earned it? What if they were better than other artists?

They weren’t. The DXArts BFA show at Lawrimore Project was the weakest BFA show I have ever seen. It didn’t even hold a candle to the DXArts BFA show I stumbled across at ConWorks in 2006. Some of the pieces were so awful, so clueless, so limited, I felt uncomfortable being there at all. It was the art version of a high-school science fair—a problem heightened by the prestigious venue. It was a classic backfire.

eric.jpg

There was one exception: Eric Thompson’s Cleaning Out the Dead, a superlatively white room with its own finely calibrated, invasive atmosphere.

But wasn’t it smart for the DXArts program to get its students such good exposure?

Does this sound like good exposure?

RSS icon Comments

1

all publicity is good publicity

Posted by max solomon | July 1, 2008 4:04 PM
2

Jealousssssss

"why should these artists get what other student artists would kill for"

Posted by Non | July 1, 2008 4:31 PM
3

table 4 "saucer of milk"

Posted by Snarky | July 1, 2008 6:41 PM
4

who are you talking to>

Posted by JR | July 1, 2008 7:01 PM
5

Has anyone cared what Jen Graves thought for a while now? I for one was thrilled to see something different at a gallery. And while several of the pieces fell flat on their faces, as a whole it was a really compelling show with a lot of potential. I find it interesting that she'd do this write up now, rather than at a point in time where people could go and form their own opinions.

All in a day's work for Jen, low-brow critique that doesn't probe beyond the surface but still manages to engage a little controversy. Yawn.

Posted by Jimbo | July 2, 2008 8:26 AM
6

I've never been particularly impressed by the DXArts department, but it's bad form for you to rip on a show that people can't then go see and form their own opinions of.

Posted by Greg | July 2, 2008 9:10 AM
7

The last time I saw you at Klatch I remember you ripping on the Cornish students that were in the class you were teaching there. So classy Jen...

Posted by John | July 2, 2008 9:32 AM
8

Stefan Moore's video piece in the main room and Matthew Salton's 8mm film were science fair experiments? Give me a fucking break. Whether or not you liked either of them or not, your generalized evaluation of the entire show is absolutely meaningless.

Next time you want to do a Q & A with yourself, do it on something that other people can head out and form their own opinion of... like any other critic with an ounce of class.

Posted by Jared | July 2, 2008 9:37 AM
9

@7: What the hell are you talking about? I loved my Cornish students and have never ripped on them. Seriously. Shame on you.

Posted by Jen Graves | July 2, 2008 6:09 PM
10

Obligatory snide comment: Jen, were you in a pissy mood when you wrote this? If you weren't going to write a real review, you could've just shut up and let the "science fair" flounder on its own. Strangely, you come off sounding bitter?

I agree with Jared, this is a very generalized perspective, I would actually love to see a run down with short specifics from you, Jen. I could very easily see about half of the specific works in the show as inappropriate for gallery exhibition, however, if the works had been curated and some restricted from public showing, I predict you would not be making such generally blatant statements.

I also have to commend Scott for taking this risk on. He's not allowed to sell any of the work, so it's not a matter of a dealer pouncing, he is simply fostering a relationship with a unique academic program that has like-minded individuals working to rattle up the Seattle Art scene from the ground floor up. You make him seem like an opportunist, which is the opposite I glean from my interactions with him. Maybe you think offering an internship to DXARTS students would be a better use of his tutelage than the construct of a short gallery run... i think not. I would love to see more opportunities for Seattle Art student to show to a wider audience, how can you knock a pioneering notch in making that a more likely possibility in Seattle?

Here's my take, from a DXARTS insiders' perspective. I know all these students personally and I apologize if I offend, but I'm trying to be honest and objective (in regards to not playing favorites) in counterpoint to this posting, perhaps to elicit a more deep discussion of the work than simply responding to Jen's steel wool blanket:

(Warning the following paragraph maybe contain indoctrinated DXARTS rhetoric)
I must state first that I agree with the experimental protocols set forth by the DXARTS program, regardless of whether or not they create great artworks or science projects, because the goal and the direction is well fed from the faculty with great heart and good intent. Enormous expectations are placed on the students to reach those goals of becoming the ideal Art-Science chimera, even if sometimes the reach obviously exceeds the students capability for grasp. Of personal note, I created during my 2006 BFA show what I consider to be an artistic failure (I think Jen agreed), and from the experience of program-exterior feedback (it can be a bit hermetic in there sometimes), I was able to find my balance along the Art-Science-Commerce hybrid line, and am much better situated in my abilities as a result. It becomes more of a great self-experiment as litmus of the gauging of our abilities to provide some perspective beyond the nascent undergraduate state, and should be a cherished opportunity by all students good or bad who are afforded the opportunity. Many of the students in the show have a weighted fixation along this same line, nor are they simultaneous coherent with one another along this spectrum, and is probably in part of the reason the show feels misplaced in an Art gallery. These students themselves are inherently misfits by design and that is why they are exploratory and engaged students and not flawed and misguided professionals. It also requires that an art-centric perspective is not the only one used to engage the works, although gauging in a scientific and commercial context may not elicit higher marks in review (which also may be another supporting argument to a separated showings in the future).

First the works I would remove from the gallery and leave for a private exhibition:

The 3D video and graphics work by Alex Georgescu and J.D. Pirtle, were topically lacking in artistic depth, albeit they probably required a large portion of the students time, due to the arduous nature of working in 3D by oneself, the technology at this level of teaching/engagement/implementation is far from any gallery standard beyond raw experimentation or student assignment one-offs. 3D video is hard to make look good in teams of 20+ working endlessly, it's hard to expect equal or better from single ugrad students, so some commendation from me occurs due to this fact alone. Possibly as a commercial design projects these would function as single experiments or studies, but still do not hold up to thesis-level standards.

The interactive algorithmic work by Erica Bethrum and the RP sculpture by Jonathan Evans, and the LED Dance by Naasir Ramji, was simply lacking in any real artistic depth and the implementations looked sloppy. The mediums of these works have deep precedence in media arts (ala Masaki Fujihata, Andrew Werby, Barbara Lee, Daniel Rozin, Merce Cunningham, Michael Rees, etc.) and I berate these 3, simply on their inability to survey the history of their field and find a research/artistic vector to explore beyond previous work. This also speaks to the deficit in the lack of Art History education, students exploring new media at the University of Washington lack and desperately need infrastructure for.

Collin Monda's video was not an artistic, but a commercially minded endeavor. It was writhe with MTV cinematic grammar and was practically stolen from Gondry's playbook and not really consistent with a gallery showing, however with tighter editing and better writing, the work shows promise as a basis reel for further cinematographic studies/work.

Now for the works I would leave in the gallery showing context:

I truly believe, that had Jared Friend been given a few more iterations of the construction of his piece it would've lived up to its conceptually rich basis. He was deeply dedicated to the exploration of this idea, and far from any other student put more sweat equity into this work than anyone else in theirs. That said, the construction left a lot to be desired; I would've loved to have a more gestural and composed system of sounds and the audio and visual elements were poorly integrated and played as disparate systems of engagement when I believe the intent was a more seamless path. Whether or not he was successful in constructing a cinematic installation, I felt the implementation was strong enough to merit placement in the gallery and brought to light an interesting experience and strangely beautiful moments, nonetheless.

Maybe you have to know Stefan Moore personally to truly appreciate his work. He is probably the single artist in this show, whose work is clearly representative of his unique artistic voice. His astronaut/lawnmower/coke-binge video was far from a science experiment and I know it raised some of the faculty's suspicions as to its artistic merit and the effort placed in making the video. However, the piece was exactly what it was supposed to be; succinct, ethereal, inescapable, loaded and humorous (insert microcosm of R. Kelly's trapped in the closet reference here). Stefan will go on to a successful career doing what he does best, despite you (the proverbial you).

Gary Pennock's video work of scene-light interplay was simple, poetic, cryptic and mesmerizing. I'm still not sure what I was looking at, but it was captivating.

Lei Zhang's mediative video piece, reminiscent of a visual tone poem, was only hindered by the sweltering heat experienced in the viewing room. The work brought forth a sense of tangible connection between the director and the material, that was felt, not shown.

Matthew Salton's video piece was superbly crafted and stunningly beautiful, although it lingered in parts, and the Lynchian tones were present. The piece stood well on its own and was one of the more memorable pieces in the show. It is obvious he is still working through his voice in cinema, however, this work shows great promise and is a remarkable labour of love.

Eric Thompson's installation was superb, I echo Jen on this one. The sound design was impeccable!

Posted by Johnathan | July 2, 2008 6:21 PM
11

whoa, what a rabbit hole you have wandered down Ms. Graves. i feel bad about all the pissy - very very shamelessly pissy remarks. sharp reviews (pointed or general) go hand in hand with showing art. in fact criticism is what make artists stronger and if it doesn't, well, that is telling.

yet - i agree - there is something to glean from this. as much as anybody in the art/tech world doesn't want to believe it, they are fringe artists. if they weren't, there wouldn't be so many dedicated sites to just tech art - a topic in its own right. and as fringe artists it is necessary for them to find their voice first and foremost and learn to communicate it regardless of how the work is produced. this trumps rhetoric, apptitude and all that. it takes commitment, failure, luck, genius and blah blah blah.

this is true b/c (warning uneducated generalization) less than .01% of the art professionals in america are able to project onto tech artworks what they accommodate to say paintings. does this mean art history needs to make an effort towards the objet a petit of new media (YES) and does this mean that young practitioners of innovative media need to understand the narrative of the last 100 years of art - uh no brainer. wait was that a q and a to myself - whoops. But it's more than that. this is the challenge. history will have its say, but what will we do in this moment. or does anybody want to do anything? i won't answer this one.

i would like to hear from Mr. Lawrimore. he is after all, the one who is in the unique position of attempting to bridge this gap. and it is up to the tech artists to go the extra mile in the meantime. don't leave this guy hanging. there aren't too many like him out there. and from Ms. Graves review, this is what they did. that was her point.

Posted by hmmm | July 2, 2008 7:52 PM
12

@11: The problem with the post is that there is little actual criticism. Instead a meaningless one liner...

The one thing that I got from the DXARTS program was an ability to take harsh criticism and internalize it. There's not criticism to take here, nothing of value, just someone seemingly pissed off because the traditions of BFA shows were apparently upset by Scott Lawrimore taking a chance.

I hated half of the works in the show (and I was one of the participants), but even those works deserve an opportunity for the "artists" to get a genuine response. In that vein, thanks Johnathan.

Posted by Jared | July 2, 2008 9:29 PM
13

oh crap, I forgot Amir Stone's piece. Sorry amir! I hope I didn't forget anyone else.

I would leave this piece in the show purely on its intrinsic beauty of as a monolithic sculpture of activated light interplay and the well-constructed materials, and not because I feel guilty for forgetting it. The forgetting is probably driven from the fact that the work is again a direct derivation of the over-trodden trope of mirrors (again ala Rozin) and doesn't really expand on the conceptual content beyond a visualization medium.

...

In defense of our collective pissiness, I have no hard feelings (pending further dialog with Jen), I understand the role of a critic and am not bitter in the sense that the review is negative, but I felt that these students dedicated a year of their lives to manifest these works as well as countless hours of support from friends and family and DXARTS personnel. To have their only real review, be a harsh blanket statement in response to a let down, is neither fair to the students, but is not the level of deconstruction and engagement you'd expect from someone lauded as the albeit partially underground and alternative literary and critical metric for the emerging art scene in seattle. I apologize for my inherent anger, but I was deeply saddened and disappointed by your post.

I too want to hear from Scott.

I doubt Jen expected the backlash (maybe?) but this is a very passionate and aware group of people and want nothing less than a complete critical engagement regardless of if it's all bad or not. Or if you don't agree maybe you should start using a 1 to 5 rating system, it would be far more efficient.

Posted by Johnathan | July 2, 2008 10:13 PM
14

@13 it sounds like you have hard feelings.

Most artists spend their entire lives focusing on making their work not thinking about getting any critical attention. A DxArts student shouldn't feel entitled because they spent an entire year and have expensive toys to play with.

Posted by not telling you my name | July 2, 2008 10:38 PM
15

@14 what artists have you been talking to? I assume you mean "high profile" critical attention, but regardless, artists should LIVE for getting critique and feedback. In the 20th/21st century it's often been a primary catalyst in motivating and stimulating young artists (both positive and negative reinforcement).

I don't think it's entitlement, it's just hunger.

on another note, does anyone know the correct capitalization of dxarts? there's like 5 different versions in this string alone.

Posted by spinner | July 2, 2008 10:54 PM
16

touche, in a sense, mr or mrs not telling you my name. i agree, maybe they didn't deserve any review at all. my qualm was that this review came 2 weeks past the show, only on the slog and felt targeted towards the people involved. Frankly, I was completely surprised when my class got a review. I think I clearly stated that no review would've been fine, in my first post. I perceived this as a directed dagger.

common misconception regarding expensive equipment use... the equipment is actually available to all university students (specifically students doing digital humanities research), including those in the school of art. we are not special nor entitled because of our gear. most of these students are paying out of pocket or obtaining outside grant funding for their work. i can't comment on the source of the sense of entitlement and how that correlates to dxarts enrollment, but I think I'm pretty awesome sometimes, and wish people would blog about it. Is that so wrong?

Posted by Johnathan | July 2, 2008 11:09 PM
17

Jonathan:

Good artists make good pieces. It's not I think I'm awesome so write something about me. You are an idiot.

Good artists make work every fucking day, not because they have a show (or an class assignment).

Jen's post isn't a review of the show, but her thought about whether it was prudent of Lawrimore or any gallery to allow a student show into their gallery. Whether or not the Dxarts show was a success or a failure is beside the point.

Other gallerists would never consider allowing a BFA, MFA, or even PhD show in their galleries because they believe that their galleries have standards for every artist that shows under their roof. Unfortunately, Scott is not as classy, and the Dxarts BFA show just wasn't that good.

Whether or not equipment is available to students is irrelevant. If a viewer spends more time looking at what kind of television is on the wall than thinking about what the artist is trying to say --- the artist failed.

Posted by not telling you my name | July 2, 2008 11:53 PM
18

"If a viewer spends more time looking at what kind of television is on the wall than thinking about what the artist is trying to say --- the artist failed."

Marshall McLuhan might take issue with that.

Posted by Jared | July 3, 2008 12:45 AM
19

Moving the discussion away from the works themselves...
The show had the double burden of being both a student show and a "digital art" show - two sources of /immense/ baggage. There's a tremendous amount of machinery behind a show like this - art pedagogy, consumer technology, public university economics, the hobbyist "tech art" world, etc. - and all of that is visible behind every pixel and dangling wire of the show. Some of the works made peace with that machinery, some managed to sidestep it (Stephan's Astronaut did this particularly well), and many were just crushed. It was disappointing, though, that there seemed to be no real curatorial attempt to wrestle with that baggage. Showing students from a department like DXArts in a relatively progressive space like Lawrimore seems like it could have been a chance to experiment with new ways to deal with these sorts of problems - the "student show" problem and the "digital art" problem. Instead, it was just a collection of works - some successful, some not - in a warehouse.

Posted by fsc | July 3, 2008 1:35 AM
20

I love all this.

So healthy.

So passionate.

Perhaps to a small measure this is why I wanted to do the show all along...

We've been talking a lot about education programs at the Klatch this past year. Its something I'm really interested in because of the amazing imbalance between the number of graduates coming out of every program in the country and the audience/support systems that can/will bear them. It's tragic. We've been looking at other models and results beyond the typical BFA/MFA program path -- the atelier/apprenticeship model of Olafur Eliasson, Damien Hirst, Jeff Koons, et al; the 'learning it while doing, being and teaching it' model of Daniel Birnbaum at the Stadelschule; Larry Rinder's and Jens Hoffman's eccentric approaches at CCA; the history of the Yale-Chelsea pipeline; the recent history of CalArts/UCLA-Whilshire/Culver City pipeline; residency programs like CORE, Art Pace, CHINATI, and the Whitney pipeline; as well as the hawkish trend of collectors and dealers snatching artists up before they graduate -- all things that are fascinating (in admirable, despicable and edifying ways) in this complex art world of ours.

And, yes, we also spoke about the model of DXARTS. I've had the good fortune of receiving 'insider' information from one of their PhD candidates, as well as hearing from undergraduates and graduates that frequent the gallery and attend the Klatches.
It was from these conversations that I became interested in learning more about the program because, from the outside, it looked like a radically different kind of curriculum than traditional art schools even if one removes the moniker of 'new media' from the equation. In fact, it was everything outside of their emphasis on technology that excited me about the program -- their cross-disciplinary approach, their professor/student research projects, their art historical imperative, their intense, critical systems of feedback, and their impressive 'you're not going to get away with that so easily' attitude about individual projects, interests and avenues of inquiry.

Stepping back and looking at models like Yale, CalArts and UCLA, what separates their programs are their professors and where they are operating in the art world. A little reasearch into the professors' resumes at DXARTS is revelatory. Not staggering, but certainly impressive when compared to other programs in the region. I equated what was necessary for the above programs to start having a larger impact with this very nascent period for DXARTS.

All this was transpiring at a time when I was continually being asked to juror exhibitions, do studio visits, write MFA catalog essays, and give lectures at places like the UW School of Art, Cornish, Gage Academy, Central Washington, etc. Not taking anything away from all the fine work being done at those institutions, those experiences, in contrast to what I was learning about DXARTS, led to my decision to 'promote' what I felt was one of the more progressive ways of training a student to be a critical thinker and thoughtful maker, even (and especially) if those students were not destined to follow traditional artists' paths upon graduation.

I suppose this is where the exhibition 'failed' in the minds of some and, on the straight-up art front, I would tend to agree. But we have to remember that not all art paths lead to gallery and museum shows and sales of discreet objects. Many (most?) of these trained individuals will go on to creative careers in other worlds beyond the insular art one. They will impact our lives and thinking in ways that have yet to be determined. I am confident that the audiences they will affect will be far greater than the one good regular art critic and the paltry number of art denizens in this region.

So, to be clear, I was promoting an education program that I admired. It was my hope to bring attention to the department and encourage people to do a little research about it and glean for themselves why I might authorize a BFA exhibition by program 'A' as opposed to program 'B'. Jen was right -- it was an "experiment" -- but I cannot disagree with her more about it being a failure. A little adjustment of one's frame of reference and others might have viewed it the way I did.

Further clarification:
-While things were theoretically 'for sale' at the exhibition, the gallery was removed from any and all dealings in the work.

-Due to Washington state law regarding funding, authorizing and certification, the gallery was forbidden to curate what work would be included in the show. The gallery's only role was to help make what work was brought into the gallery look and feel its best.

Regrets:
-Not being able to curate the exhibition.
-Not being able to hold a formal press preview and allow the artists and critics to have a dialog about the work.
-Not being able to shepherd the artists along on each individual project so that I could properly articulate and contextualize the work for myself and others.

Thanks again for everyone's involvement in this thread and their passion.

Warmth,
Scott

Posted by LAWRIMORE project | July 3, 2008 11:57 AM
21

oBNcUa safasf fsafs fsfaf fsfafas fsafsaf asjjytjgf

Posted by 1800f | July 6, 2008 11:43 AM
22

oBNcUa safasf fsafs fsfaf fsfafas fsafsaf asjjytjgf

Posted by 1800f | July 6, 2008 11:44 AM
23

oBNcUa safasf fsafs fsfaf fsfafas fsafsaf asjjytjgf

Posted by 1800f | July 6, 2008 11:45 AM
24

CFy0ig jgfjgf jfgsjgj jfjydj hgfsjysrj hth46t

Posted by 1800flowers | July 8, 2008 11:35 AM
25

CFy0ig jgfjgf jfgsjgj jfjydj hgfsjysrj hth46t

Posted by 1800flowers | July 8, 2008 11:37 AM
26

CFy0ig jgfjgf jfgsjgj jfjydj hgfsjysrj hth46t

Posted by 1800flowers | July 8, 2008 11:39 AM

Comments Closed

Comments are closed on this post.