Amongst the Process boxes, I saw something that I felt deserved special recognition. This something was Panda Head, by Paul Abacus. The head was modeled after Dr. Hieronymous Yang, a giant panda with whom the artist was familiar. It was previously used as part of a matching costume which was used to promote Filament this week. However, the functionality of the piece is not all that attracted me, but also the airs in which it was presented.
I feel that too often artists push themselves or are self-deluded into attaching a deep meaning into their work. Although some or many honestly and rightly feel a strong sense of purpose, the rest of their colleagues must struggle to keep up and overextend themselves. This unfortunately leads to a public perception of pretentiousness or elitism, uninteresting to the everyman. It is therefore refreshing when an artist takes themselves lightly and work practically.
"It's a panda head." The opening sentence of the artist's statement immediately levels the attitude toward the piece. It becomes obvious that the head was made to honor his animal friend, and has since been taking a fun an participatory role in the festival, an attitude that may not be conveyed or shared by the glass boxes containing the other artworks in the gallery. The mood is so playful that if a prankster were to steal the head, the artist states that it "would be unsurprising, really."
The fact that the head is even on display is notable. It almost takes a Ready-Made position. The head was a part of a tool; it was half of an inelegant costume. On its own, it is not a fanciful piece, but by displaying it as artwork sends a message. Look at me. See what I do. Observe the time and effort I put into my projects. It is not necessarily the end result that is art, and maybe not even the process, but the emotion that goes into loving your job. If that love is enough to be art, than any of us can be performance artists in our daily lives, and all of us should, at least for ourselves.
I wanted to write about the Process boxes as well. I thought it was really interesting to see how the different artists interpreted their work into a small box. The ones I thought were most interesting were the ones that, like the Panda Head, were an object or abstract construction representing their work. I thought the boxes that just contained a small dvd player streaming the artists video weren't as playful or imaginative. My favorite box was actually the paper representation of Nuria Fragoso's Global Underground. It represented his work well but was still interesting and fun to look at.
ReplyDeleteThe Panda Head wasn't there when I visited the Process Boxes! At the very least, I somehow missed it which seems pretty strange considering that it was a Panda head that was on display. I thought the Process Boxes were interesting on their own, especially when trying to figure out what the completed project was based on the stuff in the box. I agree with the above poster, however, that the ones with just a DVD player playing some of the artist's work was not as imaginative as it could have been.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the above posters about representational versus reproductive Process Boxes - Volkmar Klien's box is a great example of a strong standalone sculpture representing an even stronger (in my opinion) sonic work.
ReplyDeleteBut I wonder what else some of the other artists could have done instead. For example, what could Jennifer Tipton have done? (Hers was a video of projections onto the outer surfaces of EMPAC).
Conversely, how successful were some of the other representational boxes? One that comes to mind in particular is Bruce Odland and Sam Auinger's "Four Ears" box...
Paul Abacus's process box was definitely one of my favorites, and I didn't even get to see the Panda Head! When I stopped by the box, it simply had a piece of paper on top that read "Gone Fishing" (hand-written of course).
ReplyDeleteI was immediately struck by the humility of the gesture. Paul was admitting to the meaningless nature of placing this object in a box for people to gawk at. It is an active work, meant to be used and put back whenever Paul has need of it, which takes away all of the prestige that we give it by placing it on a pedestal amongst the other Process Boxes. (On that note, the Panda Head was one of the few boxes not placed on a pedestal. I imagine that was VERY intentional.)
Another interesting observation comes in the name of the whole exhibit. These are "Process" Boxes, meant to express something about the artistic process of these EMPAC artists. What better way to show the process than to provide a work that is constantly in flux, constantly being moved around and used to create new art experiences?