Road

I went to the biennial yesterday at the Whitney Museum of art. I was quite excited about seeing it because not only had show opened so recently on March 6th, but as it happens one of my friends had actually won the privilege of being invited to perform at the biennial. So my reasons for seeing it became more than my silly art - fart fascinations, but more a duty, you know, to support my bro's at the show.

Also, part of me was happy to see it because I knew that I could use the biennials steam in my own art making or use its stable of artists as a point of defense in future critiques. "oh the joy" I thought, "to be one of the first members of my class to see the biennial."

What a let down it was though. a soft let down, at that.

I left feeling, well, rather flat after all the Hitchcockian suspense that I constructed in my mind. I wondered if other people held the same sentiment about the collection of artists that were shown this year. At times I would see an artists work and find myself saying with rather sly shock and composure, "i've been thinking about doing the exact same thing" or "I was working on the same subject matter two months ago but let it go, this one is obviously more constructive to form for the original concept of the work."

Let me sum it up my sentiments with the following sentence: "HA! I knew it. . . BUT! Isn't there more?!"

One thing that I noticed was that there was only one painter out of the whole show. And the painter, at that, was showing small works about peacocks and richly designed interior staircases. I guess that other people noticed this as well. Here is a review from New York Magazine's art critic Jerry Saltz who sates that

"These curators seem to think that painting is incapable of addressing the issues of our time or that it’s passé. I suspect Momin and Huldisch didn’t want to include painting at all. Although that kind of academic orthodoxy is moth-eaten—a medium has potential until the ideas it addresses are exhausted—it’s a shame they didn’t go all the way with that notion. A No Paintings Biennial would’ve at least made everyone hysterical."

Karen Kilimnik's The Castle Great Staircase, Scotland, 2007

Jerry also makes the valid if not obvious point that nearly all of the artists have MFA's. Maybe the work is too academic. ? maybe too mfa based . ? I can see elements of the teachings from sfai, art center, and cal arts in some of the works there. Institutions can teach you many many ideals, however sometimes I feel that they can teach you more how to behave like them rather than think for yourself. You know, they can cause you to loose your own directive source rather than propel it - at times, I'm not all the the time.

I do believe that Saltz is right about artists are making art that is not supposed to be taken as art. It's not about the market anymore - - or like it has been for awhile? I have come to this conclusion awhile back and reading the same sentiments in print can make you feel tried arguing this point to some sculpture prof. last year, but alas, the point did not sink in for enough to yield blood.

another review of the biennial that is not as generous

------------------------------

I also went the Armory. If you do not know what the armory regiment is, here is a wiki link

this place was very fun to walk around and each room had a theme or artistic experience that was built for all the visitors to experience. some were very simple, others complex, and the list goes on. great fun though. I went to go see Coco Fusco perform. Here is another link on him

-------------------------------------------------------

I leave to return to kansas in two hours. I will be back in Lawrence monday night - sometime -

on the road again