Saturday, July 24, 2010
Anarchy at Cook & Co
There's Anarchy in Avondale and a mutiny on the high seas of Cook & Co as Octavia Cook looks back to the days before the establishment of Cook & Co. In these rebellious teenage years there was the Cook brand when notions of jewellery and value were tried out and thrown in the air - like these wigs in Wig Riot 2010 (pictured).
Wednesday, July 7, 2010
Beneath the Blue - Joanna Langford
Just fresh from the NewDowse where she has installed a work for the exhibition Under Construction, Joanna Langford moved into our space for the weekend to hang and construct Beneath the Blue.
We talked to Jo about the work and possible new directions for her 'architecture of the fantastical'.
MNG: Someone said something interesting about your work recently in the context of your use of skewers. They said that traditionally that was how sculpture and spatial relationships were taught at art schools, using skewers to delineate space and as the basis for forms. Which makes your work as much as sculpture as it does about architecture... any thoughts on that?
JL: I think of my work as installation or sculpture or paintings in real space. In a way I think it's all quite similar - there is an interest in materials, form, space and illusion.
MNG: These latest wall works also seem to be about some kind of expanded painting or drawing, would you agree?
JL: I do a lot of photoshop drawings when I am working towards an installation. This allows me to play with the materials and motifs in virtual space. The wall works that I made for Beneath the Blue originated from these drawings. I had also painted a wall in my studio blue to create a ‘blue screen’ for an animation I am making (a blue screen of green screen is often used in film so you can film action in the foreground and add a back ground later). I started to adopt this screen for the background for my drawings.
MNG: With the floor works we are back in familiar Jo Langford territory, except that the view has shifted to Iceland or the Antarctic...
JL: Imagery of Iceland has been lurking in my consciousness since I did a residency there in 2008. I am interested in landscapes that exist in the real but that have a feeling of the fantastic. Iceland is one of these places. The expansive lava fields and smoky geothermal happenings in the snow-scape makes it feel otherworldly. There is also a sense of unease in this landscape that hints at the drama that is going on beneath us - a mass that is in flux, a gurgling and surging up.
MNG: In earlier work you have used liquorcie allsorts and wafers to build your constructions and in the Any Dream series you have used icing sugar. How do you connect confectionary and the landscape/urbanscape (the delicacy seems perfect)?
JL: I am primarily interested in the formal qualities of these materials - the color and texture.
Saturday, July 3, 2010
From the stairway to the heavens - Joanna Langford
Joanna Langford's Beneath the Blue series moves away from her 'stairways to heavens', and finds us up above the streets amongst the clouds in an urban skyline clutterd with aerials, and cell phone towers.
Saturday, June 19, 2010
Tom Sladden's 'Sleepers'
Duck! included six new paintings by Tom Sladden. The substrates on which all of the images in this exhibition are painted have a pre-history - sometimes marks from their former lives, sometimes holes from screws and protrusions.
Charger 2002-2010 above is a good example of Tom's interest in what isn't painted, what isn't said - and the holes and marks circle the blocks of colour adding to the atmosphere around them.
Study for everything I know 2009-2010 is a whimsical painting that hints and hides. It reminds me of good poetry - open-ended and suggestive but ultimately enjoyable because it doesn't tie down meaning or answer questions.
Charger 2002-2010 above is a good example of Tom's interest in what isn't painted, what isn't said - and the holes and marks circle the blocks of colour adding to the atmosphere around them.
Study for everything I know 2009-2010 is a whimsical painting that hints and hides. It reminds me of good poetry - open-ended and suggestive but ultimately enjoyable because it doesn't tie down meaning or answer questions.
Wednesday, June 16, 2010
John Roy and the art of denial
John Roy is one of the three artists in Duck! currently on at the gallery. John works in ceramics and his work stands out amongst peers working in the same medium. Primarily figurative, it sets up associations between us and the things that we create - like buildings, the rabbit problem, relationships, religion .
We recently talked to John about his work.
MNG: You originally wanted to call the exhibition "Head in the Sand" or something similar. Can you talk about the ideas that started this series off?
JR: It was keep your head down, I was also the one that came up with Duck! It is pretty much self-explanatory I feel, when you look at what is going on at the moment.
MNG: Lots of people have commented on the patterns in this new series of work. They seem like the patterns and colour of New Mexico. Were you looking at these?
JR: I haven’t heard that one before. They are more like an abstracted camouflage pattern breaking up the lines of the pared back forms. They have more in common with street maps or circuit boards.
MNG: Your works are always perforated in some way. Anything you want to say about that? I know sometimes it suggests architecture...
JR: The holes and cuts are like drawing with dark and light, in that a hole is the blackest black, and when viewed from another angle light come through. I also like the contradiction it creates as the forms look solid and heavy. Sometimes they are about architecture.
MNG: I'm also intrigued by the way you use the brick patterns. In this series it seems to cement the idea of head in the sand, ie. the figures are stuck. What would you say about that?
JR: It is all about the traditional associations of the terracotta clay in this country.
MNG: And then there is the large impressive work with it's head stuck up the arse of someone else. What's going on there...?
JR: I felt the need to make a large piece as I can make larger works. I felt that people in Wellington had only seen smaller pieces and assumed that that was all I did.
MNG: Your work seems to also be about an aesthetic of awkwardness. Would you agree?
JR: No I see it more as more of a transformation, turning something into something else. I also like being ambiguous. A object is more interesting if it is about more than one thing.
We recently talked to John about his work.
MNG: You originally wanted to call the exhibition "Head in the Sand" or something similar. Can you talk about the ideas that started this series off?
JR: It was keep your head down, I was also the one that came up with Duck! It is pretty much self-explanatory I feel, when you look at what is going on at the moment.
MNG: Lots of people have commented on the patterns in this new series of work. They seem like the patterns and colour of New Mexico. Were you looking at these?
JR: I haven’t heard that one before. They are more like an abstracted camouflage pattern breaking up the lines of the pared back forms. They have more in common with street maps or circuit boards.
MNG: Your works are always perforated in some way. Anything you want to say about that? I know sometimes it suggests architecture...
JR: The holes and cuts are like drawing with dark and light, in that a hole is the blackest black, and when viewed from another angle light come through. I also like the contradiction it creates as the forms look solid and heavy. Sometimes they are about architecture.
MNG: I'm also intrigued by the way you use the brick patterns. In this series it seems to cement the idea of head in the sand, ie. the figures are stuck. What would you say about that?
JR: It is all about the traditional associations of the terracotta clay in this country.
MNG: And then there is the large impressive work with it's head stuck up the arse of someone else. What's going on there...?
JR: I felt the need to make a large piece as I can make larger works. I felt that people in Wellington had only seen smaller pieces and assumed that that was all I did.
MNG: Your work seems to also be about an aesthetic of awkwardness. Would you agree?
JR: No I see it more as more of a transformation, turning something into something else. I also like being ambiguous. A object is more interesting if it is about more than one thing.
Saturday, May 22, 2010
Stupid Stupid Stupid Stupid Stupid Daddy
We talked to Scott Eady about his recent exhibition Stupid Stupid Stupid Stupid Stupid Daddy.
MNG: In the past your work has taken a humorous look at masculinity as it manifests locally. This new work seems to be about the anxieties of parenting, but there are some tongue-in-cheek references to 'child prodigies' and 'o my child could do that' attitudes to art. The humour of the small bronzes off-sets that very sad clown. What was your thinking there?
SE: Parenting has to be the toughest yet most rewarding job in the universe. But it comes with enormous responsibility – a responsibility that translates to a universal anxiety which I can only imagine all parents must experience. We want to protect our children from all dangers but realise the need to instil them with the skills and tools necessary to negotiate a not-always friendly world.
Apparently children laugh on average 300 times a day. Adults laugh on average only 15 times a day. Why is that? I guess for adults, it is RESPONSIBILITY and the knowledge that innocence is only short-lived.
Give a child a few blocks of ‘Dukit’ (bakeable modelling plastcine) and within minutes the baking tray will be full with playful, colourful forms. Give an adult the same material and they will likely over-think the process, the material and the expected outcome until the whole exercise becomes unproductive or silly.
The reference to ‘child prodigies’ is intentionally tongue-in-cheek. Yes ‘one’s child could do that’, they could make the ‘Dukit’ marquettes - they take only minutes. But to then employ the complicated and costly process of enlarging the marquettes, making silicone rubber moulds and finally casting in bronze and painting them, is just absurd, stupid even.
We are so accustomed to seeing the bronze uber-monument, so a tiny brightly painted bronze on a narrow plinth, a scaled-up figure by one of your three children - actually a whole series of painted bronzes - is quite another experience.
Why paint the bronzes? Why scale up children's marquettes? So many people seem to take offence at the idea of painted bronze. I don’t understand why. Traders of scrap metal value bronze quite differently to the art world even though many of the industrial scrap forms found at a yard could well have come from the same furnace used to produce a bronze sculpture.
Bronze is not a precious metal, yet to my children it represents treasure. They would often sift through the foundry sand in search of small bronze spills. We would polish the small pieces and they would trade them like gold at school.
The colour (paint) applied to the finished bronzes brought all the joy back to the forms. Unpainted, the sculptures were bronze forms first and foremost. They spoke of the material and it’s history. By painting the objects the material and the history remained but came second to form and colour. The glossy paint finish heightens the desire to touch and hold the objects at which point the weight also revealed the material.
The huge drawing also looked fantastic as bare aluminium, however the material once again dominated, diminishing the importance of the line. By powder coating the drawing black the line became all important and the aluminium all but disappeared. By scaling-up my children’s marquettes in bronze I was effectively monumentalising their work - making permanent things that would otherwise eventually disappear into the ether (trash).
MNG: You have written about wanting to give your children a positive experience of having an artist as a father? How did you do that in relation to this exhibition?
SE: It is really important to me that I spend loads of quality time with my family. Like most parents, this requires juggling work commitments and domestic duties in order to create that time. I want my children to remember me as a good family man. By including my children in the process of making the exhibition Stupid Stupid Stupid Stupid Stupid Daddy, we got to spend lots of time together and rather than my work be something foreign to them they took ownership of the forms, the ideas and even the titles.
MNG: Dubuffet and other Modernists were of course interested in the drawings of children, and you have mentioned Modernism in the context of the exhibition. What was your thinking there?
SE: Give a young child a pencil and paper and they will immediately produce marks/images. They do not hesitate. It was the freeing from intellectual concerns that affected Jean Dubuffet’s interest in ‘Outsider Art’ and art produced by children. He recognised in the work, an unlocking of the artists’ most basic creative instincts, a strategy he employed in the production of his own work which he chose to term “raw art”(Art Brut).
Personally I am not sure it is possible for an art-schooled adult, to free him/herself completely from intellectual concerns. I had great difficulty making and justifying the making of my own abstract clay forms as they were not honest. My children made them honest.
That said, I cannot help but be impressed by Urs Fischer’s recent hulking, lumpy cast aluminium sculptures which are simply scaled-up handfuls of squeezed clay. Despite their fully abstract forms the sculptures are still humanlike; in fact, they remind me a lot of the figurative bronzes produced by Willem de Kooning in the 1970’s. It seems it is difficult to escape the figure. Even my children found it necessary to give most the works human or animal related titles.
MNG: In the past your work has taken a humorous look at masculinity as it manifests locally. This new work seems to be about the anxieties of parenting, but there are some tongue-in-cheek references to 'child prodigies' and 'o my child could do that' attitudes to art. The humour of the small bronzes off-sets that very sad clown. What was your thinking there?
SE: Parenting has to be the toughest yet most rewarding job in the universe. But it comes with enormous responsibility – a responsibility that translates to a universal anxiety which I can only imagine all parents must experience. We want to protect our children from all dangers but realise the need to instil them with the skills and tools necessary to negotiate a not-always friendly world.
Apparently children laugh on average 300 times a day. Adults laugh on average only 15 times a day. Why is that? I guess for adults, it is RESPONSIBILITY and the knowledge that innocence is only short-lived.
Give a child a few blocks of ‘Dukit’ (bakeable modelling plastcine) and within minutes the baking tray will be full with playful, colourful forms. Give an adult the same material and they will likely over-think the process, the material and the expected outcome until the whole exercise becomes unproductive or silly.
The reference to ‘child prodigies’ is intentionally tongue-in-cheek. Yes ‘one’s child could do that’, they could make the ‘Dukit’ marquettes - they take only minutes. But to then employ the complicated and costly process of enlarging the marquettes, making silicone rubber moulds and finally casting in bronze and painting them, is just absurd, stupid even.
We are so accustomed to seeing the bronze uber-monument, so a tiny brightly painted bronze on a narrow plinth, a scaled-up figure by one of your three children - actually a whole series of painted bronzes - is quite another experience.
Why paint the bronzes? Why scale up children's marquettes? So many people seem to take offence at the idea of painted bronze. I don’t understand why. Traders of scrap metal value bronze quite differently to the art world even though many of the industrial scrap forms found at a yard could well have come from the same furnace used to produce a bronze sculpture.
Bronze is not a precious metal, yet to my children it represents treasure. They would often sift through the foundry sand in search of small bronze spills. We would polish the small pieces and they would trade them like gold at school.
The colour (paint) applied to the finished bronzes brought all the joy back to the forms. Unpainted, the sculptures were bronze forms first and foremost. They spoke of the material and it’s history. By painting the objects the material and the history remained but came second to form and colour. The glossy paint finish heightens the desire to touch and hold the objects at which point the weight also revealed the material.
The huge drawing also looked fantastic as bare aluminium, however the material once again dominated, diminishing the importance of the line. By powder coating the drawing black the line became all important and the aluminium all but disappeared. By scaling-up my children’s marquettes in bronze I was effectively monumentalising their work - making permanent things that would otherwise eventually disappear into the ether (trash).
MNG: You have written about wanting to give your children a positive experience of having an artist as a father? How did you do that in relation to this exhibition?
SE: It is really important to me that I spend loads of quality time with my family. Like most parents, this requires juggling work commitments and domestic duties in order to create that time. I want my children to remember me as a good family man. By including my children in the process of making the exhibition Stupid Stupid Stupid Stupid Stupid Daddy, we got to spend lots of time together and rather than my work be something foreign to them they took ownership of the forms, the ideas and even the titles.
MNG: Dubuffet and other Modernists were of course interested in the drawings of children, and you have mentioned Modernism in the context of the exhibition. What was your thinking there?
SE: Give a young child a pencil and paper and they will immediately produce marks/images. They do not hesitate. It was the freeing from intellectual concerns that affected Jean Dubuffet’s interest in ‘Outsider Art’ and art produced by children. He recognised in the work, an unlocking of the artists’ most basic creative instincts, a strategy he employed in the production of his own work which he chose to term “raw art”(Art Brut).
Personally I am not sure it is possible for an art-schooled adult, to free him/herself completely from intellectual concerns. I had great difficulty making and justifying the making of my own abstract clay forms as they were not honest. My children made them honest.
That said, I cannot help but be impressed by Urs Fischer’s recent hulking, lumpy cast aluminium sculptures which are simply scaled-up handfuls of squeezed clay. Despite their fully abstract forms the sculptures are still humanlike; in fact, they remind me a lot of the figurative bronzes produced by Willem de Kooning in the 1970’s. It seems it is difficult to escape the figure. Even my children found it necessary to give most the works human or animal related titles.
Wednesday, April 28, 2010
Lauren Lysaght and The House of Lentigo
Lauren Lysaght is an artist who has found her time. For years her practice didn't seem to fit with the ideas of the times (the eighties and nineties). She made work that was sculptural (but not Sculpture) based around ideas about kitsch and craft, and low/high art amongst other things. Her work was really only shown by the risk-taking Dowse Art Museum of Lower Hutt.
But in today's contemporary art scene, her work fits perfectly with its interest in ideas and materials that amplify those ideas.
The House of Lentigo, her new exhibition which opened last night, is no exception. A series of Rococo-esque 'mirrors' contain an image of a leopard, the Leopard of Lentigo, or the Leopard of Our Old Age (not to be confused with the coogar!).
More soon.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
