Focus on “Whole Fragment” by Cherie Louise Turner
Posted by sierraweb on March 11, 2008
“Whole Fragment,” which was on show at UNR’s Sheppard Gallery from Oct. 15 through Nov. 9, 2007, featured work by a number of artists- Polly Apfelbaum, Chakaia Booker, Nina Bovasso, Jennille Brewster, Arturo Herrera, Fawn Krieger and Losang Samten, who created a sand mandala. The theme of the exhibition, curated by Marjorie Vecchio, director and curator of the gallery, was inspired by poet Ann Lauderbach’s essay, “As (It) Is: Toward a Poetics of the Whole Fragment.”
Lauderbach’s essay is a challenging read, stretching one’s mind around this abstract concept of the Whole Fragment, which takes some mental gnawing on in order to fully grasp. It’s well worth investing the suggested donation of $7 for the show catalogue and taking your time to mull through Lauderbach’s musings. Resultant understanding is a joy to flip around in the mind.
Of general note, it is indicative of the forward movement of our arts community to encounter such an intelligent, thought-provoking art exhibition here; applause to Vecchio for continuing to contribute to the pushing of the local arts offerings envelope. The artists represented have achieved notable recognition on the national, as well as international, art scene; they are part of the greater contemporary art world dialogue.
As to Vecchio’s curatorial choices, the pieces work well to illustrate the Whole Fragment concept in numerous variations on the theme. Works are composed of pieces/fragments brought together to form something larger and at times becoming something different from what they had previously been. One could easily imagine that each of these works could be reconfigured with its whole fragments to create yet another something, another experience, of equal aesthetic value, endlessly malleable and open to change; endlessly capable of construction and destruction, capable of eternal interpretation and experience.
If one absorbs the Lauderbach essay, these works resonate with meaning beyond the visual experience. Without such background, however, the strength of the work varies.
Providing a high note is the wall sculpture of Booker. Created out of rubber tire tread, her work, “Misleading Circumstances, 2005,” all loopy and flailing, transforms this roadside rubble into a well-balanced, elegantly lyrical work of art. The piece ran along an entire wall of the gallery, spilling into the room and all but devoured the desk. Though the message is perhaps not groundbreaking- yes, we’re a wasteful society choking on our own waste- being able to render what is literally garbage as large-scale lyrically flowing sculpture is notable. Beautiful decay.
Other works were nice to look at, but smacked up a little too close to the current trendiness of decorative or cute- specifically that by Bovasso and Apfelbaum- or, in the case of Krieger’s work, quirkly illustrative a la Marcel Dzama. That all said, however, these are works you’d typically not see outside of larger metropolitan areas; it’s a pleasure to see such works here. Game on.
sierraweb said
Guest commentary: Continuing the discussion about ‘Whole Fragment’ and Reno’s art scene, by Marjorie Vecchio, Curator at Sheppard Gallery
I thrilled that Sierra Arts Magazine is printing reviews of exhibitions. This is the first time that I have been inspired to respond to something written about our shows at Sheppard Gallery. I feel deeply encouraged into a dialogue and would like to take advantage of the quality of Cherie Turner’s work and offer a response.
This review makes me think about what I think criticism is, has become, should be in Reno, etc. Local criticism needs to respect the audience while teaching a bit about artworks not regularly seen in the area- to prod the audience into different directions (I would say being ‘pro-art’ is an important stance to have right off the bat). We should not encourage the audience to make flip dialectic decisions about what they like and don’t like: we should not posit work against each other in that vein, but rather ask better questions. For example, with a group show with a variety of artists such as Whole Fragment, a good place to start would be with open questions, such as: Why are these works together, why are they being shown? How do they inform the theme, how do they inform each other? What does the exhibition tell us about how we live, perceive, and experience the world? What is this imagery about, why now, why here? It’s important to remind viewers when they enter an exhibition that “Neither this artist nor this curator designed the show based on my personal likes and dislikes in mind.” It’s important to trust that the artist and the curator are doing things for a reason, that they are making choices, even though it may not be apparent to a viewer right away.
As Jeannette Winterson wrote in Art Objects, “But our poor art-lover in his aesthetic laboratory has not succeeded in freeing himself from the protection of assumption. What he has found is that the painting objects to his lack of concentration; his failure to meet intensity with intensity. He still has not discovered anything about the painting but the painting has discovered a lot about him. He is inadequate and the painting has told him so.”
Liking the piece or not, thinking the work is good or not- settling too quickly into value judgments can take away from more important questions: What can I learn from this work? What questions does this work bring up? What does this work tell me about my life, my history, my responses, etc.?
In a time when no one spends more than five seconds doing anything other than checking e-mail, sitting in traffic and watching tv, context has become much more crucial. In a group show, it’s important to think about the show as a group. It’s also important to do the homework necessary for understanding deeper levels of the show and/or theme. For example, Whole Fragment had three generations of artists in it… Why? What’s that about? Many of the artists were women, most live in America but some do not. What context informs this exhibition and the works that are in it? How to figure out context is to instigate a Q&A in your mind- or better yet, with a friend, family member, stranger, the actual artist or the curator.
Now, I’d like to discuss certain points in the review. I do not disagree with them so much as have opinions about how the review was formulated.
For the comment about Jennile Brewster’s work and her subject matter: her theme might be obvious, but does that make it any less relevant? What about how she chose to express that theme? Does her piece tell me something different about something I know? Why? Usually recurring themes are crucial themes: war and politics, culture, the environment, sociological issues, space, etc. To gently put an artwork down because it’s about something familiar is to completely miss the opportunity to revisit that theme. The important question remains: How much do I really know about this theme? Do I have the knowledge to take such a stand? Reviewers and critics can do not have to know all these answers, but can rather pose the question to the reader.
Comparing artists is tricky and rarely hurts the artist but typically the reviewer when they are incorrect. So even though I agree there is room to review trends and popular tropes, the two artists mentioned as following a cute trend are, in fact, leaders rather than followers. Responsible research is necessary if one is going to compare artists. For example, Polly Apfelbaum is not only in her fifties, but ahs been working with her color and imagery styles for much longer than anyone I assume the reviewer is comparing her to. She has very obvious references through her titles to pop culture such as the Powder Puff Girls. And because of her international reputation, a huge traveling mid-career retrospective, high visibility of her work through exhibitions, being on the cover of all major art magazine and being taught in schools, Polly’s not quite a good fit for that type of comparison. The same for Nina Bovasso, who is in her forties and has been making her swirly work for a long time, and is part of a group of artists who have now seamlessly informed younger artists who mimic the work without even knowing where they picked it up because it’s such a part of therir internet/print media and school culture visual memory. Nina won a Guggenheim in her early thirties while she was still in graduate school for a reason, and it’s not because she was attaching herself to some visual movement that was already occurring.
When one notices similarities in work, go research the artist’s historical imagery, look for how their work developed over time. A lot will be revealed about the artist’s process and thinking. It’s the job of the reviewer or critic to be more informed about artists and movements than most people- to have a greater scope and contextual wide-view. If you ever go out on opening night in New York or L.A., you’ll notice writers and critics at every opening, gallery-hopping, and typically going to an exhibition multiple times before writing a review. (This also goes for food critics- for example, Robert Sietsema of the Village Voice won’t write a review until he’s eaten at a restaurant three times.) Sure it’s timely, but something has to be worth the time and care to be considerate and responsible to that which one is writing about, and to the audience of readers.
Now the comparison with Fawn Krieger to Dzama is hinting at something more accurate, but the choice of artist is not appropriate. First of all, a quick review of both of their works reveals that the work is very different. They ask different questions, they look different, the artists are concerned with very different issues. What the reviewer might be referring to is the hand-style or some familiar formal element; hence a better question to ask is why are younger artists doing this? What is in recent art history (1950 to now) that would inform our understanding of this style? Artists don’t make work in a vacuum; artists are constantly in dialogue with each other, their artwork speaks with other artworks, many will refer to each other without even knowing it, meaning it, or do it on purpose, to forward a dialogue. Better questions are: Who are these artists who are making work that either looks similar or have similar issues, etc… Why? What’s that about? What does this tell us about our time, culture, events, and formal movements?
From my personal experience in Reno, I’ve noticed local writers and art administrators are very bad at attending the lectures, panel discussions and performances. These events are extremely important and provide the most context you could ever get for a show. I put a lot of time, energy, love and money into bringing artists into town and expect the other artists, writers, arts administrators and the general audience to take advantage of their presence. Those who do not come are truly missing out on the more magical moments of an exhibition, when artist, curator and audience are all in the same room together. Nothing beats being able to experience first-hand how an artist lives in their own skin, how they talk about their work, how they interact with other people.
My hope is that there are always unexpected and natural cracks and crevices in every show I curate; it’s the best way to question the work and witness the world we live in. Hats off to Cherie and Sierra Arts Magazine for providing the format upon which to continue the discussion!