It’s Saturday. As we speak Fisk and I are on a bus on our way to Connecticut to visit a very dear friend of mine. I’ll be keeping my eye out for those special outsider suburban art gems. Today is the first day in a surprise 4 day weekend, so to celebrate I’ll share with you my experience at MIXED GREENS.
This exhibition and space seemed like fun so I was happy to check it out. Here are some works that I enjoyed/found compelling and/or interesting for various explained reasons. Someone once told me that group shows were opportunities to be the best artist among peers, I don’t like to think of it that way because you know, apples and oranges my friends. Not that some works don’t shine a little brighter than others...
These photos by Dana Sherwood sat well with me. I think I just have a love for monochrome that’s done well. I also think green was a perfect color for this type of swampy environment. It’s an especially affective color because so many things we eat are green, yet there is also this bacterial association we have with green that makes the food desirable yet gross.
At first I wasn’t struck by Seth Scantlen’s painting below, but then I noticed these special details that made it unique. So well hidden, and subtlety crafted into perfect abstract corners of this piece, which made the work compelling. I also think this artist is onto to something bigger, the organic colors and textures are quite opposite to the bold graphics that are being hidden into the work, I think if both ends of this spectrum are enhanced interesting relationships could develop, this painting felt a little crowded though.
There was also this great sculpture by Bonnie Collura. Many varieties of textures and shapes, all of different scales.
The last thing that interested me about this show was collage. There was, to no surprise really, the ever popular photoshop collage (Hilary Pecis). The one that at least one person in each graduating BFA class dedicates their time and effort to making. Not that there isn’t skill in it - there is, but what was especially fun about this particular collage was that it was in the same show as another collage (Brian A. Kavanaugh) - albeit tangible, made out of paper, paper!? Crazy town. I’ll let you compare detail with detail. This is fun.
One of the first noticeable differences is color. The tangible collage is one that falls into the color palette of mainstream magazine production. In the photoshopped one, color is well calculated manipulated and executed. The tangible collage is limited to the scale of found subject matter, the photoshopped unlimited, can I scale cute white cat to the size of an elephant? Done. I guess the question isn’t about the differences really, so much as it’s about how these collages are communicating, I mean, what are they trying to say, and why is their respective choice of collage more/less important to their subject matter? I’m asking the same question of both, it doesn’t seem to be clear. As for now it’s a matter of preference really. I make collages out of paper - so I prefer the one made out of paper - it’s as simple and complicated as that.