art event

SMP 2

The second set of SMP exhibitions and lectures were by Jenny Metz, Sam Nickey and Koko.

Jenny’s work dealt with alternative views and abstract photographs taken of familiar objects and spaces. Jenny’s work employed almost the same depth of field technique that Elise employed in her work. Both of these artists’ works were exhibited in the same space and because of this gallery attendants drew parallels between the two sets of work. Formally the two works are very similar and because of the same exhibition location in the gallery Jenny’s work was read as unoriginal and reactionary.

Sam’s work was an investigation into moth-like forms and the implications of transformation and guiding lights that the iconic form is laden with. Sam employed the use of oil painting for her work.

Upon entering the gallery to view Sam’s work, the viewer is confronted with a large panel containing a lot of her preliminary work. This gave the viewer insight into the process of creation and created this persona of the artist that matched the work that was being presented, an enigmatic fluttering being.

Sam displayed her paintings in a series, which caused the paintings to be viewed as a whole object before they were read individually. This was beneficial to the viewing of her work. Her paintings were of a modest size and were heavily laden with details and surface textures. The arrangement of the paintings in a single broad line drew the viewer to the paintings and then the fine details of the work kept them interested. If the paintings were hung more spaced apart and isolated the work would not have been received the same way. The calculated displaying of the work greatly benefited the artist. At the gallery opening the work that garnered the most attention were Sam’s paintings.

Koko’s work dealt with idea of community, wall painting and visual representations and innate human visual communication. The way her work was displayed in the gallery was very confusing and disorganized. Her work was further affected by its exhibition by its remote location away from the gallery.

I think her work would have been more successful if she painted on large panels and hung them in the commons area outside of the gallery. This would have been a more populated location for the school community to interact with the piece and it would have made the disorganized clutter in the gallery less random. I found it peculiar that the piece she wanted to represent the school community and to bring members of the community together was located in a remote location in a building that is scheduled to be demolished. There are murals in the dorms that need to be repainted and this outlet would have been more effective than hiding the work away and associating the campus community with an eminent demolition. The piece itself is very captivating and because of its presence I am even more upset by its location.

Personally I am very interested in how humans communicate visually and it was enlightening to see both Koko's interpretation and the coagulation of different views that resulted in the final mural as a result of its process.