Steve McCallum King Cake/Lucky Dog acrylic on canvas  Sarasota artists star in Tampa exhibition Through Sept. 16, the Tampa Museum of Art is presenting underCURRENT / overVIEW 5, which features recent work by area artists. Of the 14 artists selected by curator Elaine Gustafson, five are from Sarasota. They include Leslie Fry, Steve McCallum, Florence Putterman, Sabrina Small and Roxie Thomas. This is the first year that Tampa has included Sarasota artists in their call. Make the one-hour drive to see this exhibition. It is beautifully installed to show each artist's work to its full advantage. This is a challenge, considering the diversity of media the artists have chosen. Leslie Fry is represented by strong works on paper and two handsome sculptures. Her work focuses on nature and the organic. Her leaf-dress bronze sculpture is exquisitely patinated, and her prints manifest a delicate balance in the subject matter, texture and weight of the paper. Steve McCallum's entry is a large, bold hard-edged canvas that dominates the wall. McCallum combines color, curves and diagonals in complex compositions that challenge the eye to find entrances and exits through this sometimes maze-like illusionary space/labyrinth he portrays on a two-dimensional surface. Florence Putterman is showing both paintings and work on paper from her continuing series of explorations inspired by primitive cultures. The paintings are layered and striking, while the works on paper are more subtle with their mixture of opaque and translucent pigments. Sabrina Small is represented by her recent large compositions that are dominated by figures articulated by strong, confident lines and soft, ambient, atmospheric and original color. Her combination of scale and subject matter engages our eye in a lively exchange that leaves us wanting to see more. Roxie Thomas has installed her work on a shade of yellow wall that provides the background for a series of sculptures that continue her "SinEaters" series. These are a marked departure from the work she exhibited last year in the Sarasota Biennial 2000. The scale has changed. The works have grown in size and they now combine cast-metal with a soft sculpture element that utilizes fabric and reflects light. The two disparate materials are well integrated in works that allude to the everyday and the fantastic. They are serious and, at the same time, somewhat mischievous. The combination makes their presence seductive. The exhibition also includes work by the team of Robyn Voshardt and Sven Humphrey, who are presenting three new video pieces. Each asks for several minutes of focus and concentration. Your investment will be amply rewarded. These three works appropriate imagery and sound from everyday life. Through subtle and witty manipulation of time, direction, focus and perception, the two artists have questioned how we see. How do we see and hear each other in a conversation? How do couples define themselves and their respective selves in a relationship? What makes a daisy move? How does memory inform our sight? What is extraordinary about the ordinary? The equipment to present these video works is state of the art and that suits their sophistication. The work of Ryan Berg, a new faculty member at the University of South Florida, is also featured. He presents sculpture that will set you back a minute. He has created an amazing installation of his work in ceramic that takes the form of lamp bases we might find in a child's bedroom and they are complete with bulbs and shades. However, after a quick glance we discover the subjects of the bases depict the dark side of fairy tale land. These objects are amusing and witty and primarily for an audience who has spent a few hundred hours reading children's stories. It is so important to see the recent work of artists working in our community. This is a great opportunity. © Mark Ormond, 2001 Originally published in "About Art," Pelican Press, Siesta Key, FL, August 30, 2001 Jules Olitski Courtesy of the Marianne Friedland Gallery Looking at Art Reading the Space: Jules Olitski As he shows in this work, Jules Olitiski has an innate sense of how to mix and suspend colors in an aqueous solution and lay it on beautifully textured paper. He can manage to apply wet color over another wet color and retain the integrity of each. Olitski confidently controls his choice of a saturated pigment, such as black, violet, brown or blue, and makes it appear to float like a cloud or cascade like a waterfall. He also reveals shades of pink, turquoise and gold. A light shimmer of mica dust adds further animation to the surface. This painter encourages us to delight and revel in the success of his process. Many years ago Olitski, an important American abstract expressionist, chose the Florida Keys as a retreat where he would paint. But he has an Asian sense of space. We seem to be able to read three perspectives at once: through or across, above and below. Reading the space is neither a linear experience nor a sequential one. Olitski allows us the freedom to wander in the transitional areas of the watercolor paper. The white reserve of the paper shows through here and there, and the artist uses it to enhance the sense of landscape in the composition. Olitski draws us in with the richness and subtlety of the color that marks the paper, adding dimension and density of form as well as atmosphere of place. This work and others by him can be seen at Marianne Friedland Gallery, 359 Broad Ave. S., Naples, 262-3484. © Mark Ormond, 2004 Originally published in "Looking at Art," Gulfshore Life, Naples, FL, October 2004   London's Tate Modern offers art, architecture and amenities... The new Tate Modern in London offers the best of modern art and amenities in a landmark building that is located on the banks of the Thames. A new span designed by Norman Foster crosses the river and connects the Tate to the central business district of London. Herzog & Meuron, the team of Swiss architects who were recently awarded the commission to design the expansion of the Walker Art Center in Minneapolis, have succeeded in meeting an extraordinary challenge in transforming an electrical power station into a museum that works well on every level. Its rooftop restaurant and bar aglow at night awe the viewer from across the river. Issues of scale humble the visitor experiencing the soaring eight story height and football field length of the building's entrance lobby that dwarfs the physical mass of hundreds of school children waiting for tickets. I elected to go directly to the café since it was one o'clock and I had begun my morning with a long walk through Kensington Gardens about a mile away by subway (the tube). One of my criteria for a visitor friendly museum is that it has several choices for dining and the Tate offers three. The café is on the ground level and my table offered a great view of the riverwalk and river traffic. No sooner had I sat down and ordered than my Minton gently carbonated water, Fentiman's Ginger Beer (est. 1905 & botanically brewed,) chicken cumin wrap with mint, tabouli and tomato sour cream drizzle arrived. The place was bustling with activity. I relaxed ordering a coffee while next to me three mothers with sleeping infants had a delightful chat. After a quick stop in the Bookstore (no gift shop here) I perused dozens of modern art periodicals from all over the world, gazed over the extraordinary offering of recent books and catalogues, noted they had slides for sale (I teach) and calculated less than 5% of the shop area was dedicated to museum related products or "gift" items. From the shop I took an escalator to the first exhibition floor. Like the Pompidou in Paris, every floor of the museum is accessible by escalator or elevator. My experience in the first room established my expectation for the remainder of the galleries and the Tate delivered. Here I found a cluster of Bonnard paintings with a bench to light upon and an acoustiguide wand to delight me. I was offered eight choices. I could hear the history of the painting, Bonnard's colour theory, what clothes tell us or Bonnard's nephew, Charles Terrace, describe his visit with his uncle in 1949. Next to this gallery cantilevered over the soaring height of the lobby was a small space the architects had added as a reading room. There I saw a grandmother speaking with a boy I guessed was about 7. She was seated at a small table where books on Bonnard had been placed. While trying awfully hard to indulge her the lad found he had to question why Grandmummy was looking at pictures in books when the actual paintings were in the next room. The permanent collection galleries are filled with surprising installations. Interpretive options abound. One gallery had only objects begun or completed in 1951, another recreates a room Mark Rothko designed to hang six of his paintings he gave to the Tate in 1969. These had originally been painted for the Four Seasons restaurant in New York. Another room with a double height ceiling and light streaming in from one side displayed major works by Joseph Beuys. They included a version of his The End of the Twentieth Century from 1983, that is basalt, clay and felt objects the size of human bodies. Another work Blitzschlage is a monumental bronze about 21 feet high that looks like a giant slice of the earth's crust hanging from an I-beam that crosses two corners of the room. Another powerful juxtaposition was a wall-size Richard Long mud drawing the English artist had created across from a wide horizontal painting by Monet of Water Lilies. During my visit the temporary exhibition provided the work of Arte Povera artists. That show will travel to the Walker Art Center this winter. After three hours of making my way through the entire museum and the special exhibitions galleries I craved a coffee and headed to the 7th level and the skyline café overlooking the Thames. Currently on view through January 1, 2002 is the exhibition Surrealism: Desire Unbound featuring works by Duchamp, Max Ernst, Magritte, Dali and Giacometti. The Tate has live webcasts of some of its events. For more information visit the Tate's website at tate.org.uk ©Mark Ormond, 2001 Humor and art... For me the best humor is in some way self deprecating because it reveals the vulnerability of a person trying to be funny. A person tells a story about some issue or incident we can all recognize and then finds humor in some aspect of the daily dilemma of being human. A person who can laugh at her/himself gives the listener permission to laugh as well...to share the experience of being vulnerable. For me the worst humor is cynical, acerbic or condescending. It is engaging in a way that encourages a negative view of the world. Last week I attended a lecture by an individual from New York who is a decision maker in the world of art. His portrayal of the contemporary art world was bleak and his view of artists condescending. If he understood the artist's intent of the work he was talking about it certainly was not apparent from his presentation. And he used cynical remarks followed by his own laughter to try and hook the audience into laughter as well. (For those of us who are uncomfortable with looking at contemporary art because we do not understand it our discomfort creates some anxiety and so laughter comes easily because it reduces some of the tension.) There were many in the audience who did not laugh. The question I wanted to ask of the speaker at the end of the presentation was "What role do you think cynicism and humor play in the positive reception of contemporary art and ideas?" I did ask him to tell us about some contemporary art he had seen in the past few weeks that he liked. He could not think of one artist's work that he liked. It is tragic when those in the business cannot find anything to like in the New York art world where over 10,000 artists live and work. When art becomes an acceptable subject for cynical or condescending humor in the mainstream culture it is difficult to reverse the trend. I have always been astonished when I hear the mention of art on prime-time network television because it is so rare. Two instances that stand out in my memory were on comedy shows. In an episode of Cheers over ten years ago, Diane comes into the bar and she is laughing. Someone asks her what is so funny and she says she has just been working at the Public Television Telethon and has heard the funniest joke. Of course everyone wants to hear it and so she proceeds. "How many Surrealists does it take to change a light bulb?" The camera pans the faces of the central cast at the bar and everyone looks incredulous. Diane continues "...a dog" and she begins to laugh. The camera pulls away for a wide angle view and everyone is shaking their head and looking quizzically but accepting that this is Diane's wacky sense of humor. Seeing no understanding or response she says "Well, ...I guess Surrealist humor is not your cup of fur!" (referencing a work of art by Meret Oppenheim that is on permanent display at the Museum of Modern Art in New York. In 1936 Oppenheim made a surrealist object when she covered a cup and saucer and spoon with fur.) What is different about these particular lines in the script is that they appeal to at least two kinds of viewer. There are those who would agree with the rest of the cast that Diane, the character who was written as someone with above average intelligence and seems constantly out of place should be the victim of ridicule and scorn. For those viewers who understand the reference it is a funny joke and also an affirmation that Diane's character does have a place in the world. Another example was on Murphy Brown where the cast of FYI is at Murphy's preparing for a GE College Bowl type debate with an Ivy League College. To prepare and cram the FYI team is dividing up the books in various subject matters. Each takes a subject such as science, math or history. There is only one subject left: ART. And Corky is given that. She opens a book and says "Nude descending a staircase ????...(huh)...why don't they just call it fish eating a cheeseburger ?????" (laughtrack) In this case too, we have a line that provides humor for a variety of viewers. The Corky character is not so bright so we might be laughing at her. If we do not know the reference we are laughing with her. And if you know the reference is to Marcel Duchamp's (in)famous painting of 1912, Nude Descending a Staircase, we are laughing because her remark is absurd. And absurd is what Jerry Seinfeld brought to television. He looked at the absurdity and inexplicable in everyday life and made us laugh about it. Although I do not remember a program when he chose to look at art. Perhaps if there were more positive references to art on prime-time television our mainstream culture would have a better appreciation for its merits. For those of us who believe that the art of our time is a necessary reflection of our lives we can only hope to see less cynical humor and more that is witty, wry or ironic. © Mark Ormond, 2001 "Art is in the eye of the beholder"...or is it beauty? An individual asking me a question about art used this expression recently. The startling idea of the expression "art is in the eye of the beholder" is that it seems to give authority to everyone, any beholder, to determine what is art and what is not. How could this be? What happened to education, experience, and connoisseurship? A connoisseur is someone who has developed an "eye" for knowing the qualitative differences between good examples and bad examples of art and of an individual artist's work. An "eye" is developed over many years and much comparative analysis. Individuals can be born with abilities and powers of discrimination; however, connoisseurs have to learn not only from looking on their own but also from looking with others who have an "eye." At some point individuals develop enough confidence about their 'eye." They begin to make judgements on their own and their peers agree they have an "eye." Not everyone is in the position to evaluate what is art and what is not art. Would the person who thinks that art is in their eye as the beholder say that any observer in a hospital can judge a surgical procedure or the identification of a chemical reaction can be determined by just any eyewitness in a laboratory? Determining the quality of a work of art takes a trained "eye" and years of experience. I was curious to find out about this expression. As is often the case with expressions, they change over time or we rearrange the words. Although the expression I heard is in widespread use I could not find an authoritative author of it. A version of this expression can be found in the book The Magnificent Ambersons written by Booth Tarkington (1838-1918) and published in 1918. In Chapter VI he writes, "You mean beauty's in the eye of the beholder, and the angel is all in the eye of the mother. If you were a painter, Fred, you'd paint mothers with angels' eyes holding imps in their laps. Me, I'll stick to the Old Masters and the cherubs." I recently stood in a gallery at a museum with someone and they looked around and pointed to a few works and said "Well, those are art and this one next to you is not!" At which point I said "So, you think the museum was trying to see if we could find the one work that was NOT art?" If something is hanging in a museum we have to trust that the curator of the museum made an informed choice. We may not like or agree with his or her choice but we can not say, "That is NOT art." I was discussing this very incident with a friend of mine who is an artist. He said "When people say that what they really mean is that they know what they like and they do not like it and that is why they are saying it is not art." I thought for a moment and replied. "When I see a car I do not like, I say I do not like that car." "I do not say that is NOT a car." He laughed. I continued "I do not see people in clothing stores look at a dress they do not like and say 'That is not a dress' or deny shoes to be shoes." We trust the buyer or merchandise manager is doing their job to only present us with objects that are what they appear to be. Another friend of mine who is an artist told me after hearing this story that what people are saying when they say it is NOT art is that they do not understand it. I replied that I can look at an engine running and not understand how it runs or think it is ugly or noisy. I can not say it is NOT an engine. She smiled. Everyone can think they are an art expert but not everyone is qualified to be one. Just as it takes years to learn how to be a lawyer or doctor or mechanic it also takes years to be able to evaluate the quality of a work of art. ©Mark Ormond, 2000 You Can Take The Man Out Of The Ghetto... Last night, during the taping the second annual Vibe Music Awards in Santa Monica, a man approached Dr. Dre and punched him. Dre's bodyguards and Dre himself--who was just about to accept a lifetime achievement award from Snoop and Quincy Jones--pounced. A 26-year old man was stabbed in the melee and is now in stable condition. Maybe some of the sleepytime ad industry awards shows could learn something from this bad Vibes incident.              Finding someone to punch certainly wouldn't pose much of a problem.

http://www.adpulp.com/archives/2004/11/

Last Update 2007-09-29 | Copyright© Charles Mingus 2008 | |