A high brow review of an exhibition by artist Josh Rowell, discussing the relationship between the physical and the digital that is evident in his coded paintings and paintings of broken screens. Also put emphasis on the fact that this is a poor quality exhibition.

Result #1

A high brow review of an exhibition by artist Josh Rowell, discussing the relationship between the physical and the digital that is evident in his coded paintings and paintings of broken screens. Also put emphasis on the fact that this is a poor quality exhibition. The smallest of Rowells four video installations had a small screen on which a flickering print of a copy of an obscure text appeared, accompanied by the sound of a copy machine that plays old tapes and back to the speakers. By sheer quantity, Rowells installation of his own works (including the two highest-profile pieces) was the only work that contained a whole room of its own.In a different way, Rowell is also interested in the way that digital and physical artifacts interact. In his sculpture, he has always looked to the physical world as a source of information; in his painting, however, he has attempted to present this world in a digital form. In this exhibition, Rowell came to the digital world as a series of unreadable digital traces, which he now presented as drawings and prints. The message is clear: We want to see if digital artifacts, when viewed through Rowells lens, can now be understood as a natural part of the body, and, therefore, as subject to the same artistic principles as the body itself. The work that was shown here, the only piece that was not digitally generated, is one that was placed on the gallery floor. The work consisted of a large piece of white Styrofoam with a few pieces of string stuck to its surface. The string was twisted into a knot so that it looked like the tip of a pea. The piece was set in a white pedestal that allowed one to look at it, pick it up, and see what it was. The string wound around a small metal object, like a watch. It was a symbol of not only the artist but also the body, which may be considered a function of the mind. Another piece, which Rowell also used as a support, was a dented display case that contained several small screens, like a tool or a watch.

Result #2

On the one hand, Rowell might like to consider his work as a whole a reflection on his digital work. On the other, he may want to point out that it isnt really possible to discuss art on a computer—if only because computers are inextricable from and incapable of making art. Riffing on the black-on-black colors and the name-brand status of the art computer, he has managed to establish a practice that is actually more radical than the art computer is. This is to say that it is more like a film. Rowell has managed to make art appear like a film by making art into a film.

Result #3

A high brow review of an exhibition by artist Josh Rowell, discussing the relationship between the physical and the digital that is evident in his coded paintings and paintings of broken screens. Also put emphasis on the fact that this is a poor quality exhibition. The same can be said for the art that came from the limited selection of projects, which makes its only possible function to be a superficial critique of the world.The shows launch coincided with the release of the Roles of the Handsworth Project, an ongoing project in which Rowell plays a character on the TV series The Wire. In this series, he performs subversive actions. At a recent protest outside of the Whitechapel, he drew a flag and a swastika—the only symbols of protest that Rowell had used. As an artist, Rowell tried to avoid the obvious symbolism, but the gestures revealed the sociopolitical context of the work. In a video, he describes his show at the gallery and how it feels to be a part of the team, of the team, as opposed to an isolated individual. He also describes the TV as a way to get a lot of people to work together.The Roles of the Handsworth Project is an attempt to counteract the collapse of the artist as a social and political force. As part of the show, Rowell made a screen that would look like the entrance to the gallery from a gallery, and the painting it was, was on view. And the fact that it was installed on the floor in a straight line of the room rather than an elliptical, curving line, added a new aspect to the works ambiguity: its status as an object, a fragment of a painting, and, as such, as a drawing. The implied critical distance between artist and work of art is itself a form of distance. And it is the distance that Rowell seeks to erase.In another work, Rowell hung a cardboard sign on the wall at eye level. It read HAY, MUM, BITCH, BITCH, BITCH, and then the letter H together, as if the letters were the only elements of a sentence.

Result #4

(I mean the artwork does not look good, but its good.) But Rowell also addresses a contemporary problem: he poses the question, Is the digital the only way for artists to communicate or is it a more naturalistic, genre-driven way to communicate? I think it is, but the difference between the two is the difference between art and media. This is a difficult question, but one that is still unanswered.Josh Rowell: I look forward to seeing the work of Josh Rowell in the Bay Area in the next several months.

Result #5

The selection of works from the artists portfolio reveal a lack of creativity and an inability to handle the ambiguity of the various aspects of digital painting. In most cases Rowell took such a tacky and/or avowedly amateurish approach as simply presenting the best works from the artists portfolio, but did so with an amateurishness that could only be obtained through a high level of technical control. Rowell will do a great job in the future of painting, and I will be proud of him.