DayTime Castle is Glamouring, relaxing, satisfying
DayTime Castle is Glamouring, relaxing, satisfying —the first exhibition of his recent work since his oeuvre was revealed at De Stijl.Möllens new installation takes place as an elaborate and critical commentary on the conventions of the female figure and the body. The material for this installation is the life-size portrait, in plaster of David, of a man in a suit, this personification of the desire and dream of a suitor, which the artist and the artist respectively sought to physically and emotionally destroy, to depict and present the alternative. This project, whose reality is the constellation of the human body, symbolized in the artist-s-suitor, is aimed at ridiculing both traditional notions of marriage and the mechanisms that underpinned their enforcement, while at the same time honoring the bonds of familiarity that unite the two. Such images are rendered in the plaster of David, and these are virtually life-size, they seem to float on the pale earth of the plaster in a kind of figurative space. This work has been reproduced numerous times, first with a stage of plaster and red and white plaster of David; later with some versions in gold and bronze, and a casting of it in bronze; and finally with the bronze cast as a wooden representation of the portrait in plaster. Such repetitions can only lead to absurd and uncertain interpretations, for one can never be certain of what is being reflected in the cast. Moreover, this new sculpture shows an attempt to locate the work of art within the context of history, especially that of the struggle for recognition of the form of the human body within the history of culture.A double-sided portrait, therefore, is attached to the plaster of David and also to the large portrait of the man who seeks it. The double portrait of the sinner, both here in a statue and a kind of miniature, is meant to show the dual nature of the man seeking intimacy with God. It also refers to the human desire for self-expression through a closed mirror image.
DayTime Castle is Glamouring, relaxing, satisfying . . . (as as the title, I Love Berlin , suggests) and a great post-punk (and equally symbolic) tour de force. Art by its nature is an individual show. Its no good displaying a band or a guy like Michael Jackson being marooned in a gilded cage . . . just the opposite. More commonly, its as if Glamor shows up in a non-threatening, slightly scary form, like a Desiderius asshole in drag. Perhaps its an appropriate response to such art: Glamour is a great defense against the insufficiency of all fancy, and art is another fantastic defense against the insufficiency of all feeling.If Glamor is so excited by the asymmetry of the art world, why is he too jealous of the privileged position of women and people of color? Isnt it possible that he has nothing to fear—that he has learned his lessons as so many people from the world, and will thus be able to be more effective in the world? Isnt it possible that he has learned his lessons, that he will not be as dim as his detractors claim? Isnt it possible that he has learned his lessons, and will therefore be able to be less dim and do more with them? What lesson can one take from such optimism and cooperation? And whats a woman to do? No, he doesnt. She is responsible for her own behavior. We are all culpable, to be sure, and he would be the last to champion it. The role of a political artist is to be as sensitive as possible, to communicate with a broader audience, to be cognizant of ones audience, to prepare and speak in a more eloquent tone, to put more into the work than he can alone.
DayTime Castle is Glamouring, relaxing, satisfying , but that is the case with all the artist-designed attractions and large-scale pieces. Black & White made it clear that it had a lot of work in it; if nothing else, its not a fluke. The site will probably be good for a while. There is a good argument to be made, though, that the best or the most gaudy works might be a sign of (or as) good intentions, not just bad execution. Neither of the two young artists in the show had any more than a passing familiarity with the museum: Tom Wesselmann made a feeble attempt at striking the perfect, avant-garde chord, and Pierre Huyghe failed to extend beyond a few seconds of brilliantly lit downtown Manhattan. Of the two, Huyghe came closest to an actual revelation: he made a special kind of public-artistic installation that would be expected at any art museum; that is, he arranged for a choreographer to perform an arranged piano composition on a giant curtain. In the gallery space, the curtain was a gorgeous, visual, and physical magnet. It was hypnotic and exhilarating, but for the most part one was left in the dark, unable to enter into any meaningful dialogue with the work itself. The curtain drew no crowds, and that was probably a good thing. The installation could have been better, but somehow the curtain was still a riddle, and the works presented were rather lackluster.Ferrarris painting is amazing. The dense, deep, and amorphous color is enhanced by his curved lines and his marked formality; these two qualities combine to produce a visceral painterly frenzy, a giddy visual pun that is easy to love and even easier to understand.
on our nerves. It is a terrific tchotchke and a satisfying answer to a bookstore window display: a jewelbox display. Its architecture is conservative and mature, its panels are almost precisely hung, and the dressing room has long since been transformed into a dining room. The building is the complement of a town house and belongs to a single family, and the pietà to welcome visitors looks back on the buildings history as an industrial development, the work of the Triad. As we turn away, the door closes again. Here, the multitudes of people can be absorbed in their own lives, and their knowledge of the spectacle may make the adjustment from museum to dining room seamless. The impact of Glamorous is its modernist unity.The fact that Glamorous is so pedestrian that it resembles a display of paper isn't so much a surprise as it is a formulaic reminder that there is a fine line between a gallery show and one that just shows. Glamorous is a high point for all the ages, and, in the present climate, it is too good to lose. There is a time and place for it.Gladys Schimmel is associate professor of art history at New York University.Translated from the German by Gerrit Jackson.
and that, while it may be fully embraced, is a kind of scare tactic, and may not be popularly liked. Its success is due in part to the form of the party; its short-lived relation to the party, and to the whole of punk art, is its success. But the party has gone its way. And its not too much of a stretch to regard The Hip With Big Moves as a kind of film through which we might watch Glamour turn into Killen, and thus into an art that starts from such a beginning and terminates in a college- and art-world equivalent.Yes, its pretty easy to find reasons to say that punk is dead. But the great strength of this exhibition is the way it suggests that punk art is thriving, and, as one of its connoisseurs said, Its nothing. No way is it dead, because its only getting better. When does punk lose its appeal and effect? We shouldnt forget that its not only a genre of movements endurance. It still gets better. What is the longevity of a movement? Does it just die? It might live on, and it has done so many things so far. But it has made its time, and its time is as good as any other. Its still a healthy age to follow.Richard Shiff is a writer, musician, and founder of the Berkeley Punk Academy. He teaches at the University of California, Berkeley.