Chris Duncan at Gregory Lind Gallery (San Francisco)
Chris Duncan; The Repercussions of Cho Seung-Hui. 33 Murdered in My 33rd Year.; 2007; wood putty, paint, gouache, marker, graphite, colored pencil on panel; 71.75" x 95.75"
installation view
Chris Duncan, The Beginning. The Middle. The End. 2007
wood putty, paint, gouache, marker, graphite, colored pencil on panel, 40" x 60"
Chris Duncan; Oh Dear, The Never Ending Spiral of Human Consumption (Myself Included); 2007; thread, wood putty, paint, gouache, maker, graphite, colored pencil on paper; 20" x 15"
This show is great, but the titles of the works and the exhibition statement left a bad taste in my mind. Titles like "Oh Dear, The Never Ending Spiral of Human Consumption (Myself Included)" seem to be trying to make the artworks about things they can't actually be about in any meaningful sense. It is absurd to assert that an abstract picture is actually about "human consumption" somehow. And why would you want it to be? Abstract art has the special ability to be about things that can only be expressed visually; trying to make it about things that are better suited to verbal discourse is missing the point; it's architecture about dancing. Abstract art at its best creates a world and allows us to enter it; saying the art is actually about consumerism or current events breaks the spell.
The exhibition statement goes much farther than the titles in making ridiculously grandiose claims about what the artworks are supposed to be able to do. Visitors are told that the artist "bridges the gap between the ephemeral and the eternal in a compelling commentary on the nature of human existence," for instance. First, what the "gap between the ephemeral and the eternal" actually is, why we should want to bridge it, and how a painting is supposed to be able to do that - these are not explained. They can't be explained because this is pure nonsense. Second, we already have words for creating commentaries on human existence; why should we force abstract art to attempt to do so, when it is so ill suited to the task?
The statement goes on to assert that Duncan "literally examines the visible (and invisible) threads between nature, science, and the spirit by condensing images and ideas into discrete, yet overwhelming, parcels of information." This is more nonsense: If he "literally" examines these threads, are we to understand that these are literally actual threads? What can it possibly mean literally to examine metaphorical threads? Even if we allow that this absurd proposition is somehow possible, how can "condensing images and ideas" accomplish this? And how is abstract art meant to condense images and ideas? Is the beautiful spiral pictured above, the title of which asserts that it is about consumerism, actually a condensed version of the idea of consumerism? It is not; it can't possibly be. It is an abstract image that has been associated with the idea of consumerism by sticking some words on it, to the detriment of the artwork and of any meaningful discourse about consumerism.
Reading further, we are told that Duncan's work "fuses both personal and political," and here we may begin to understand the motivation behind the absurd claims being made for the art. Of course abstract art can't fuse 'the political' with anything, or do anything else with 'the political,' in any meaningful sense. This is why we need abstract art, and we should celebrate it! We already have words and pictures for political discourse; abstract art is worse than a bad tool for the job, it simply can't even begin to attempt to do it. I suspect that the artist's desire to address the political situation somehow led him to put his artworks in this uncomfortable position.
This suspicion is based on my personal experience and introspection. It's hard making apolitical art in the current political situation. I don't want people to think I am sticking my head in the sand. I want people to know that I care, that I desire peace and abhor war, that I fear and mistrust the U.S. government. I often think that maybe I should start making art that addresses these issues, but simply sticking political-sounding titles on my paintings wouldn't solve anything. Politics is often on my mind as I'm working, but that doesn't make my work about politics.
Readers may object that art is about whatever the artist says it is about, that an outsider has no right to argue with the artist's statements about his own works. I agree with this in principle. But if an artist shows me a painting and tells me it's a sandwich, I won't try to eat it. Chris Duncan saying his spiral is about consumerism is exactly this type of claim. It contains information about the artist and his thoughts about the work, but no real information about the work itself. It is a distraction from the actual looking at the work.
My companion and I both enjoyed this show a good deal, and we both felt disappointed when we read the titles and the exhibition statement afterward. The grandiose claims made for the works only constrict their meaningfulness. The world Duncan created, which we enjoyed being in, was shattered - it was like someone turned on the theater lights in the middle of the film.
Chris Duncan
The Beginning. The Middle. The End.
through Oct. 13, 2007
Gregory Lind Gallery
49 Geary St., fifth floor, San Francisco
tel. 415-296-9661
5 comments:
What about Brian Eno's song titles for his ambient pieces?
Is it alright to name an abstract piece, as long as avoids the topical?
Yeah, I think it's a completely different thing. Eno's titles generally refer to some aspect of the sounds in the piece; they are like placeholders allowing us easily to know which song we're talking about. To me, titles like "Sky Saw" and "Sombre Reptiles" don't pigeonhole the works in the same way as Chris Duncan's "Oh Dear, The Never Ending Spiral of Human Consumption (Myself Included)." Eno might have titled that piece something like "Never-ending Spiral." Also, the titles of Duncan's works become far more annoying when taken together with the exhibition statement. It's more like if Eno had named the song "The Sombre Reptiles of Late-Capitalist Oedipal Fetishism," then included an essay in the album notes claiming that the (instrumental) music constituted "a concise indictment of the brutality of technology's tyranny over the spirit" or something.
Spot on...it's irrefutable.
Thanks, D.
I very much agree, Sam. I liked the pieces when I was skimming your post, but even before I read your commentary after seeing the Consumption title I frowned a little. I wonder if Duncan felt like the title would help make the piece more appropriate for the exhibit? They seem to make the same mistakes, at least.
Re: Authorial intention: I think it should be taken into account, but ultimately if the artist says his abstract piece is a literal examination of a lot of political and scientific themes, and it's really a big spiral, I'll probably (1) think less of the artist (2) ignore his or her intention. I kind of think that artists are in some ways no more qualified to judge their own work than any other slob.
Your perspective on abstract art sure seems to respect the audience and the art a great deal more than the Lind Gallery show does. I'd be interested to see your artistic interpretation of the current political situation, if only because I know you have the judgment to do it well.
Post a Comment