Slog

News & Arts

Line Out

Music & the City
at Night

« A House Is a Perfect Delivery Syste… | The Beginning of the End of Western… »

Thursday, September 13, 2012

Visual Art Currently Hanging: Irony, 9/11, Jenga, and Justin Bieber

Posted by Jen Graves on Thu, Sep 13, 2012 at 8:49 AM

The Stranger
Scary-play.

Tuesday night was the opening of Derek Erdman's International House of Paintings at 666 S. Jackson Street. The place will be open for four months, Erdman* says. It’s part of Seattle Storefronts, a program that hands artists the keys to vacant retail spaces for limited time periods. The last resident in this particular windowed room fronting Jackson—a room that’s exactly, comfortably halfway between spacious and intimate—was IDEA Odyssey, a collective gallery devoted to the experiences and expressions of artists of color. Derek Erdman’s International House of Paintings (tagline: “a place for the people.”) has a different tone.

In short, the tone is ironic. And this opening show is a September 11 show. An ironic 9/11 show. The prospect of this raised mixed feelings in me. If a line must be drawn, I’m on the earnest side of the earnest/ironic divide. (In me, it’s a matter of choice, chance, and circumstance coming together. Plus, it is not always the case that a line must be drawn.) Applying irony to the 11th anniversary of a terrorist attack seems a certain type of potentially understandable but not-native-to-me response, both layered critique and defense mechanism. (I'm also unsure about what exactly is the meaning of the 11th anniversary as opposed to the 5th or the 10th; for me, it was different in that this was the first year I didn't think about it that day until around noon.)

The most directly critical pieces in the show were anti-commercial works like this needlepoint by Derek Sanchez-Hoeksema.

The Stranger
The most directly critical pieces in the show were anti-commercial works like this needlepoint by Derek Sanchez-Hoeksema.

In this case, though irony is not much in my blood, I find an allure in anything that punctures the American exceptionalism lurking beneath the way we sometimes elevate September 11 above other, just as serious, attacks around the world. (See how doubling down on earnestness backflipped me into supporting irony?) Why shouldn’t September 11 receive all types of responses, even the stubbornly shallow? After all, there is an enormous difference between stubborn shallowness and unintended or ignorant shallowness. And there is enormous risk in ruling out an entire category of response as valid. Remember when Susan Sontag was excoriated for her perfectly reasonable and honest hey-um-it’s-kind-of-our-fault-folks immediate response in The New Yorker?

I suppose that, basically, I defend your right to make a pink painting of cute mega-kittens mauling the World Trade Center with their careless paws (Erdman). Or a diorama (Amelia Bonow) that involves looking through American-flag-patterned glasses into a box and seeing a sad little sculpted scene of the first tower on fire, and then, following instructions to interact with the piece by lifting a weighted string on the outside of the box, seeing the mini-spectacle of a hot dog floating on that string toward the second tower instead of a hijacked airplane. (Hey, um, it’s kind of our fault, hot-dog-scarfing 'mericans. For the most ingeniously vicious use of a hot dog in recent art, though, you must consider Meiro Koizumi’s 2009 The Corner of Sweet and Bitter.)

Yes. I defend your right to make those things, even if I am not moved to take them home with me and love them as my own.

The Stranger
Tara Thomas, Look Out!

As a whole, the show felt distant, disconnected. Which seems, in some of the works, perfectly intentional, just not primarily what I want in this moment on this subject. I appreciated the pieces that grabbed me and held on beyond amusement and stun-ment. For instance, Tara Thomas's painting crowded with grotesque faces turned up toward the unseen grotesque calamity of the attacks. Faces that have become mirrors. Each face, despite the obvious facial/phrenological exaggerations, is yet a specific character. It immediately brings to mind James Ensor.

The Stranger
Emily Nokes, Too Soon

I liked Emily Nokes's* large flag made of limp, thin fabric with the letters "TOO SOON" cut out but dangling there still, casting themselves on the surface like shadows. On the related theme of silences, Aaron Bagley made a black-and-white comic from the perspective of a person who wakes up on September 11, 2001, and as his morning progesses, is increasingly loudly and violently shushed by people glued to the news. Theresia Rosa Kleeman's See Dick Read is, in its stark simplicity, a fairly devastating visual shorthand for the massive cultural denial that leads to such things as an I'm-just-a-regular-head-in-the-sand-ignoramus-like-you president (led around by a Dick) performing the symbolically meaningful action of continuing to read a children's book while the towers burned.

But the totem and monument of the exhibition is Dan Paulus's* Twin Towers Jenga game set up right in the storefront window. During the opening party, it was a Rorschach test. Some people responded to its ultimate collapse by chanting, parodically, "Never forget! Never forget!" I responded with a mix of sympathy for the woman who pulled the final block—having gone through the Jenga-is-already-stressful-but-now-you-added-a-metaphor experience an hour earlier—and relief. At least the towers weren't waiting to fall anymore.

Derek Erdman's International House of Paintings is open seven days a week. Contact information is here.

On a related note (thank you to a friend who tipped me off on this), have you seen Regretsy's 3rd Annual Mother of All 9/11 Posts? That's a tone I can fully get behind. Do you see how well Justin Bieber never forgets, people?!

^{*Achtung!: Derek Erdman contributes regularly to The Stranger and is married to our music editor, Emily Nokes. Dan Paulus worked for years in the art department at The Stranger. I wouldn't blame you if you developed the conspiracy theory that this exhibition was an inside job, but I hope this review was useful, anyway.}

FacebookShare

Comments (30) RSS

Oldest First Unregistered On Registered On Add a comment

"In this case, though irony is not much in my blood, I find an allure in anything that punctures the American exceptionalism lurking beneath the way we sometimes elevate September 11 above other, just as serious, attacks around the world. "

Elevating things that happen to you over things that happen to others is about as unexceptional and mundane as you get.

Posted by giffy on September 13, 2012 at 9:07 AM

Art is meant to make you question and think. It matters not where those thoughts lead or what questions are asked. If it moved you in any way, it succeeds.

Posted by Theodore Gorath on September 13, 2012 at 9:14 AM

“I'd kill for a Nobel Peace Prize.” Steven Wright

Posted by alpha unicorn

on September 13, 2012 at 9:44 AM

@2, That's a pretty low bar for success.

Posted by samktg on September 13, 2012 at 9:51 AM

I have to say I loved this show. Unfortunately I did not want to bring this imagery into my home.

The 7/11 was brilliant, as was the gay orgy.

Posted by Chef Thunder on September 13, 2012 at 9:53 AM

This sounds awesome.

Also, this sounds like the opposite of American exceptionalism. What I find so nauseating about hearing people talk about 9/11 is the constant exceptionalist rhetoric, where something bad finally happened to us and so we deserve the right to act like a big baby on the world stage. This is why 9/11 jokes are so tasteful, because they deflate all of that.

Posted by redemma on September 13, 2012 at 10:31 AM

@4: You must not look at too many pieces. Most of it is profoundly unmoving.

Have you ever produced a piece of art that people found moving or inspiring? If so, please let us know where it can be viewed or seen, since it is so easy. Such a low bar anyone can do it right?

Posted by Theodore Gorath on September 13, 2012 at 10:36 AM

I stopped by Tuesday's opening with my family, and although the show was fine (it delivered everything it promised, and well), all I felt was absence. The content and crowd, the tone & approach to the theme, all taken in the context of the venue (its city, neighborhood and previous tenants), all served to remind me of how mostly absent perspectives of non-white artists are from the mainstream scene, and how mostly absent voices of color are in our ongoing national discussion of all things 9/11. Whatever the intentions of the curator, I walked away feeling that the show--like the broader national conversation in which it's situated--is not "a place for the people" like me.

And that's fine--I just wish we all had the opportunity to also see an IDEA Odyssey curated 9/11-themed show in a traditionally white venue in an overwhelmingly white neighborhood.

Posted by Timmy! on September 13, 2012 at 10:44 AM

I liked the show/party and am glad that Derek staged it in that swanky new/temporary art space, though my main reaction to the mostly successful artwork and general atmosphere was "awkward" and "too soon?". Which, I suppose, was maybe the point?

Posted by Josh Bis

on September 13, 2012 at 11:23 AM

Did you know you can now buy IHOP maple syrup?

Also, when are you going to talk about architecture again? Been noticing the changed skyline and visual impact of building edges in various non-Capitol-Hill locations where most of Seattle lives ...

Posted by Will in Seattle

on September 13, 2012 at 11:31 AM

you people in seattle seem not to understand a lot of things, huh?

Posted by rjxp on September 13, 2012 at 12:33 PM

Everything about Derek Erdman and art seems to revolve around making lazy, "ironically" crappy work without subtlety or thoughtfulness.

Posted by dwightmoodyforgetsthings

on September 13, 2012 at 1:22 PM

@12: According to your "about me" page, your response to "What's worse: Gay marriage or black people being allowed to listen to R&B?" was simply "Blacks."

In this case, I'm subtly calling you racist.

Posted by derek_erdman

on September 13, 2012 at 1:32 PM

I guess Jen didn't see my thoughtful, unironic flower arrangement.

Posted by laceyswain on September 13, 2012 at 1:57 PM

That flower arrangement made me high.

Posted by paulus on September 13, 2012 at 2:38 PM

Jen Graves will defend your right to allow that flower arrangement to make you ironically high.

And she's going to do it while wearing a beret.

Posted by derek_erdman

on September 13, 2012 at 2:53 PM

I cannot see thoughtful, unironic flower arrangements because I wear my beret so low!

Posted by Jen Graves on September 13, 2012 at 3:02 PM

@7, You misunderstand me. My complaint with your comment isn't that it's really easy for a work of art to induce an emotional experience or to provoke thought (it's not - though, most of the art I see here in lower Manhattan moves me to annoyance and provokes me to ponder the artist's mental capacity, so maybe it is easy), but that this annoyingly common belief about what constitutes good art misses half of the equation – the artist. Being moved emotionally and being provoked to thought are good and fine, but are you having the experience the artist intended? If not, the work of art has failed, and is quite possibly bad art.

Posted by samktg on September 13, 2012 at 3:04 PM

Please Jen Graves, feel no sympathy for the woman who pulled the final block.

Posted by ameliamaris on September 13, 2012 at 3:34 PM

@18, to think that a piece art has failed if the viewer doesn't experience the art in the manner that the artist intended is baffling to me. Art that has only one interpretation is the definition of bad art.

Posted by paulus on September 13, 2012 at 4:11 PM

@20, it's okay, @18 is in LOWER MANHATTAN you see, and therefore can't hear you over the din of self-importance.

Posted by ingopixel on September 13, 2012 at 4:20 PM

@4,

I have to disagree. That's an absurdly high bar. What about art that's purely decorative? Is something that's merely pretty not art? Is it bad art?

Posted by keshmeshi on September 13, 2012 at 4:51 PM

@20,

While I agree that art doesn't have to be interpreted a particular way for it to be good (in fact I have little to no patience for artists who bitch that their work isn't interpreted "correctly"), I think your statement is even worse.

Is a beautifully done portrait of a human being "bad art" because it's not intended to make a statement? What are the myriad interpretations of Michelangelo's David? If there are no diverse "interpretations" of that work, does that make one of the best examples of sculpture in human history "bad"?

Posted by keshmeshi on September 13, 2012 at 4:55 PM

Is "bangkok revenge" a sequel to "bangkok dangerous'? is Nic Cage in this one too?

Posted by wolfman420 on September 13, 2012 at 5:06 PM

@23 I think we're more in agreement than not. And the point is moot because a single interpretation is impossible. All art is interpreted as many ways as there are viewers. One person thinks David is sublime. Another thinks his wang is obscene. Michelangelo's intent might add some interesting backstory to the piece, but ultimately comes secondary to the individuals experience.

Posted by paulus on September 13, 2012 at 5:07 PM

@Keshmeshi, I share your lack of patience for artists who complain about having their work misunderstood. If an artist wants to be understood, it's their responsibility to speak a language their audience can understand.

If an artist can't speak intelligibly with their art, they are probably not a good artist.

That's my self-important LOWER MANHATTAN opinion.

Posted by samktg on September 13, 2012 at 6:27 PM

@13- Never respond to your critics. Take that time working on something that doesn't look like you never learned to draw.

And I just find R&B is almost always terrible.

Posted by dwightmoodyforgetsthings

on September 13, 2012 at 7:14 PM

Don't boss me, racist.

Posted by derek_erdman

on September 13, 2012 at 8:56 PM

Ooh, I left for the day and things got all spicy up in here.

@22: I am personally moved by beauty, even if it is just decorative. But of course, ideas of "beauty" are even more subjective. But if only one person finds it movingly beautiful, who is to say the piece has failed?

Perhaps a flaw in my statement is the rather general and immensely subjective idea of being "moved." But it is just a comments section after all.

Posted by Theodore Gorath on September 14, 2012 at 6:36 AM