"piece" that I saw was a model of a house protruding
from the wall. To accent the paper cutout house, the artist
drew a diagram of an atom, in pencil on construction paper.
Then, I proceeded to the bathroom, and I only mention this trip
because, to my surprise, there was art in the bathroom. It was
a video of "Pretty in Pink," but all the dialogue
had been spliced and it was a continuous stream of Molly Ringwald's
lines, with no interruption (the artist went so far as to eliminate
the spaces between her words.) So, the movie was approximately
seven minutes in length and the artist looped the film so that
it played, without interruption, the entire night. I was intrigued
because, as I interpreted the film, it struck me that throughout
the movie, Molly Ringwald changes her outfit a total of ten
times and speaks for only seven minutes. Well, it is a John
to say, in every show, there is a piece too disturbing to watch
in its' entirety. In this particular video, the artist demonstrated
the four stages of self-destruction. I will spare you the details
but the video incorporated fake blood, scissors and phallic
symbols. Other than these striking, thought-provoking works,
there was nothing else of particular interest to me. The model
and diagram were, I would assume, the last resort for an artist
with a deadline.
in Pink" video was merely amusing in its' statement against
80s films. I wouldn't quite label it art (although the definition
is art is extremely skewed), nonetheless, I have never experienced
a work so aptly installed in an art space. The mildly entertaining,
if only for its' absurdity, video on self-destruction seemed to
exploit the "shock art" trend ( unfortunately, shock
art seems to be on its way out.) Most likely, the artist wanted
to incite a surge of emotion from the viewer. In my case, she
succeeded such that it confirmed my distaste for videos handled
in such a manner.
patrons of this seedy bar in the East Village, glanced at each
piece of art for, I would say, thirty seconds, and continued in
a night of social merriment, aka drinking and smoking. Actually,
the main attraction was the pool table which, was situated in
the middle of the bar and prompted social interaction with the
artists' and the artists' friends. I can only imagine how long
the event would of lasted if there were no pool table or alcohol.
in this show propped up their art in a bar in an effort to gain,
what, exposure?. Now, I am confused. Well, everyone at the bar
knew each other and were already familiar with the art on display.
The principle reason for gallery shows is exposure, whereby, artists
can tap into an isolated and restrictive art market. As I see
it, these artists are using this "show" as a stepping
stone. Right now, the show could be an excuse for a group of artists
to have fun, the end...