Waiting, accumulation of invisible elements
Waiting, accumulation of invisible elements ."[/img]Margo Bernadacchi, Venice Borde, 2015, twenty-four hours per day, mixed media, dimensions variable. If the word i is to be understood in relation to politics and history, then Metronome could be seen as a follow-up to Hermine, 2019, an exhibition at Agilar Tere. Although it is not directly political in the classical sense, in this case the phrase sums up the status of the project itself. Conceptually, it is an analysis of time and its representation—how we perceive the passing of events, we call it—but it is also a meditation on the persistence of memory and the power of thought, of knowledge that is made difficult and for us totally inadequate. The viewer must pause, open her eyes and work in order to see. Then one moves and realizes the move was not quite as simple as one might imagine. The music was not of a mood, but rather one of the result of a musical event, something we could say occurred a thousand years ago, in an event that has already happened. The meaning of this music, which, of course, has changed—when we speak of music as sound we should also think of one that has been invented over thousands of years—hasnt been erased from the entire record.A few days later, in the performance Venice Borde, 2015, the second of the shows three shows, Bernadacchi reappeared as the artist of Venices name, and as such, in the artists statement, the work marked a departure for the artist. The work consists of a journey from the Mediterranean island of Sicily to France through Italy, France, and England.
Waiting, accumulation of invisible elements ???????? —Oonupulong <|startoftext|>Hans Haacke, H. A. M.E. #1, 1966–72, acrylic on canvas, 79 1/2 x 65 1/2". From Bellator. Bellator: The Beautiful on Feminism is a chronological exhibition that traces the evolution of Bellators visual aesthetic from the 1960s to the present. Organized by artist Andrea Bell (curated by Patricia Smith) and curator Tom Hocking, the exhibition includes selected works by fifty-five artists, in addition to a few from the group that began as a student project of Bellators. It is also a welcome chance to revisit Bellators most memorable works—paintings and sculpture made between 1966 and 1978, all with the same title, H. A. M.E. #1. The project involved H. A. M.E. (Her) and Bellators (His), a twenty-two-year-old women artist and activist in the 60s who collaboratively produced and demonstrated Bellators first fully realized, completely nude display of body nudity, as envisioned by the artist in 1968. This concept, which was also the impetus for Bellators film, No Title, 1971, was expanded and expanded upon during the artists lifetime, culminating in her death in 1972 at the age of fifty-three.Following the artist-in-residence program of Bellators in 1969, the project became ever more her own. In 1974, she staged a series of burlesque dances for young, female gay men. Despite her claims to have been inspired by the artist-in-residence program, the practice itself was deeply personal. Her death also laid bare the sense of political engagement that is central to all of Bellators work. This was evident in Bellators participation in the 1970s uprisings against the Ku Klux Klan in Los Angeles, and in her protest against the Vietnam War.
iz. a matter of internal contradictions, conditions of resistance and equilibrium.
Waiting, accumulation of invisible elements .") As the phrase is said, Joseph Cornell was doing away with painting. But was he painting on canvas? But was he a serious painter or an ironic one? These paintings are not interpretations; they are not satirical. They are not impersonal or even impersonal. Many of the works are always misread, however, because most of them are not really random; they are not paintings. And while Cornell was using American imagery (white-on-white stripes), it seems that his use of the word waiting isnt as straightforward as Cornell says, because the stripes tend to be chaotic, whereas in the other paintings the individual stripes arent easily explained, for the white is absent and we cant figure out what the color does, even though the white of the white is on the bottom right. The only works in the show that are all-white are those of Lisa Conlon, for which she simply had her stencils embossed with what she wanted on them—so that the stencils are actually not on paintings but stencils. Conlon doesnt seem to get the message. The pictures dont get the same reception as the ones by Dan Gill and Meredith Terlich. Some of the shows most interesting work, however, was done by artists who are not interested in painting. Thats not saying that their paintings dont have an edge; there are plenty of paintings that have an edge—henna, for example, uses the edges to indicate a shape. An artist like Cathy de Monchaux uses it but her paintings are all floral, and thats not painting. There is an architectural image of space in the floral paintings and it is all symmetrical, but symmetrical in the way the symmetrical objects of a picture are. Paul Kos also uses a symmetrical image. In Erich Von Stroheims case, the symmetry comes to represent a prison, but this is an important point: the point of the prison is not one of confinement but of deprivation.
ills a canvas like their tangential presence, an accumulation that is suggestive of the fleshy/nylon look of Rachel Whitereads death sculptures, although the conceptualizing structure that Gadecki had used to pull this off is in fact still present. At the same time, this use of metal has a certain visual tenor that is of a by-product of fashion—most famously, Mario Merzs Prosthetic—but with a different historical register and sensibility. On a purely formal level, the points of contact between metal and wooden planks are the same, but Merzs sculptures, with their teasingly anthropomorphic trays and giant clasps, are less kind than Gadecki's. Some juxtaposition seems explicit in these works, which are made to lean into the wall. Others are painted on metal with a porcelain finish, like the so-called chandeliers. All these effects, though, are absent in the sculptures. Their flow is more directed toward a literal abstractness that recalls the diffuse qualities of Claes Oldenburgs decorative architecture. Yet despite these references, the distinctions between sculpture and painting are not explicit. The word sculpture is already set in gold on each object, and the public and the private seem caught in the trap of signification. This is a much less comfortable posture than Gadecki's (as opposed to Gadeckys usual if impersonal one), which at its best manages to be a tautological exactitude.What this means is that the physical aspect of the works remains as an immaterial fact, and it remains an ambiguity that Gadecki is intent on avoiding as much as it is on using. The overwhelming impression is that Gadecki has moved from the problem of art to the problem of media, and that this is where the crisis is. Yet it seems more interesting to observe the emergence of something new in sculpture than to solve the problem.