Showing posts with label Amy Misurelli Sorensen. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Amy Misurelli Sorensen. Show all posts

Sunday, June 22, 2008

THIS WEEK: Paper Airplane AND Girlish Ways!!!!!

"Paper Airplane" at Paperwork Gallery, THURSDAY



AU students Bonner Sale and Nikki Painter have work in this show, which opens Thursday, June 26 from 7-9 pm. See Paperwork Gallery's website for more information!



"Girlish Ways" at Bobby Fisher Memorial House, SATURDAY!!!

(Photo from amberhawkswanson.com)


AU alumni Lauren Rice and Amy Misurelli Sorensen have work in "Girlish Ways," which opens Saturday, June 28th, from 7-10 pm. See below for more details...


Girlish Ways: A selection of eleven artists under the age of 35 investigate how contemporary lifestyles effect and re-define the women of this generation.
Curated by Rachel Fick and Marissa Botelho
Sponsored by ArtCadeForum.com and The Pink Line Project


Artists:
Satomi Shirai
Amy Misurelli Sorenson
Amber Hawk Swanson
Pierette Montone
Lauren Bender
Sara Hubbs
Trish Tillman
Meg Onli
Pamela Norrish
Zoe Blackwell
Lauren Rice

Opening Reception:
Saturday, June 28, 7 - 10 pm with live performance art and local music talent
@ Bobby Fisher Memorial House, 1644 North Capitol Street, NW

Exhibition:
June 28 - July 13
Open on Saturday and Sundays 12 pm - 5 pm, and by appointment.

We'll see you there!

Monday, May 5, 2008

Art from Brightest Young Things

AU artists' work created for Brightest Young Things website relaunch party...

Josh Baptista



Bradley Chriss



Amy Misurelli Sorensen



Cory Oberndorfer



Great job, guys- way to represent!!


What is "Brightest Young Things," you might ask. Well, here's what you need to know, straight from the source: (quoted directly from brightestyoungthings.com)


Brightest young things is a website
for
the entertainment of your own
DC making.
Written by the young and urban of DC for the young (at heart) and urban of DC.

...

BYT contains things you need to know to survive the nation’s capital:
the parties you want to go to
the dance moves you want to have
the desserts you want to eat
the pools you wish to crash
and
the people you want to brunch with every saturday, sunday and monday
(if only you did not have to work).
welcome to our and your playground.

Check it out!

Friday, May 2, 2008

Brightest Young Things, May 3rd





Website relaunch party, featuring music, dancing, and LIVE ART by:

Kelly Towles

AND American University MFA art stars:

Josh Baptista
Brad Chriss
Cory Oberndorfer
Amy Misurelli Sorensen

Wednesday, April 23, 2008

Images from Proximity: MFA Thesis Show

These are a few selections of work by AU's graduating MFA class. "Proximity" will be on display at the Katzen until May 18th.


Geoffrey Aldridge

(video)



(detail from drawing)



Brian Barr








Andrew S. Blair








Tim Campbell









Bradley Chriss








Lily Desaussure




(detail)





Katherine Knight











Amy Misurelli Sorensen










Max Perry




(video)




Cory Oberndorfer





(photos by Alex Ebstein)




Lauren Rice









Sharon Servilio





(image from art book)


Come check it out!

Tuesday, April 15, 2008

Proximity: MFA Thesis Opening, this Friday!!!



Proximity

An exhibition of this year's graduating MFA candidates

Opening Reception Friday, April 18th, 6-9 pm

Featuring the work of:

Geoffrey Aldridge
Brian Barr
Andrew S. Blair
Tim Campbell
Bradley Chriss
Lily Desaussure
Katherine Knight
Amy Misurelli Sorensen
Max Perry
Cory Oberndorfer
Lauren Rice
Sharon Servilio

Work will be exhibited from April 19- May 18 at the Katzen.
Click here for museum information.

Wednesday, November 7, 2007

Amy Misurelli Sorenson @ Passion Fish Gallery


AU Grad Amy Misurelli Sorensen explores her history of religion, sexuality and family through unique drawings and prints in her first Baltimore solo exhibition.

"False Gods"
@Passion Fish Gallery
1129W 36th St.
Baltimore, MD 21211

November 10-December 2
Opening Reception:
November 10
7pm til close

Tuesday, April 10, 2007

Francis Bacon: Paintings from the 1950's

The Milwaukee Art Museum

by Amy Misurelli Sorensen

I had marked Francis Bacon’s “Paintings from the 1950’s” on display at the MAM on my “to do list” while I was home in Wisconsin for spring break. I wanted to proceed into the exhibition with a dispiriting voice, recently disappointed by a “muddy mess of a pope” painting on display at the Met in New York. Looks like the Met had an abstract pro-Americana agenda at the time of this purchase; it is a diminutive and mediocre piece in comparison to the works on view in Milwaukee. Unfortunately, The Met, one of the most attended art museums in the world, gives little recognition to Bacon as one of England’s most celebrated figurative painters of the twentieth century.

I was also disturbed with Bacon’s film memoir, Love is the Devil, which I viewed days before the exhibition. The film is a half-ass documentary on the tortured life of Bacon and strategically highlights the tortures he administered to himself, friends, and lovers. The opening scene initiates a narcissistic portrayal of Bacon with an aggravated burglary. Bacon calmly encounters the thief in his studio, he propositions the thief “Go to bed with me and you can take anything you want.” The documentary did not depict his expulsion from his family at the age of sixteen for being gay, his father’s brutality towards the young Bacon, or the devastating losses of his beloved nanny and male lover. It did not emphasize the anxieties and struggles of learning to paint. The film made Bacon out to be a monster. It works successfully with its visual distortions mimicking the technique Bacon used in his paintings. However, it did not compliment Bacon’s psychological sensitivity of portraying the figure. The self-consumed, loathing monster, I envisioned, died at the doorway of this exhibition.

In this exhibition, I recognize the trials and tribulations Bacon faced with the process of painting. The paint and his content bastardized Bacon, like his family. Bacon knows human tragedy and despair in their most primal states. He is also a great painter.

Upon entering the gallery, I am confronted by a photomural of Bacon’s infamous studio littered by resources. The walls are spotted, used by Bacon as an unlimited palette. The studio is windowless, with the exception of a skylight, echoing the chaos and confinement found in his work. On display are more than fifty paintings from a prolific decade in Bacon’s life. Many of the paintings, revealed to me for the first time, are on loan from museum and private collections from around the world. They reflect the self-taught Bacon’s plagued life. After familiar abandonment, he encompassed a Bohemian lifestyle dominated by the bottle, sex, and gambling. He lived without a fixed address for years all while establishing himself as an artist. It was not until the 1950’s that Bacon gained financial and artistic success, thirty years after he started to paint.

Bacon taught himself to paint. He dedicated himself to habit and practice. He studied from the masters. “Figure with Meat” on loan from the Art Institute of Chicago, depicts a screaming pope and flanks of meat showing Bacon’s obsession with Velazquez and Rembrandt. Also included in the exhibition are sphinxes, animals, studies from and of Van Gogh, and triptychs of the twisted faces of friends, including protégé Lucian Freud. Pablo Picasso, Bacon’s greatest influence may be credited for the dynamic single figure compositions referencing cubist and surrealist traditions. He researched film, the media, and his community with an intuitive eye. He questioned the process of painting-by-painting on the wrong or unprimed side of the canvas. He used tools, including his hands to manipulate the paint. He vigorously built up the paint to create seductive textures juxtapose saturated washes. His palette is rich and brilliant with fuscias, crimsons, pinks, and minty green. I dare say, in Bacon’s biggest defense, the quality of reproduction of his paintings do little justice to their presence in person. I actually compared the exhibition catalogue to the works on the wall at the exhibition, and the book’s plates were dull, off color, and dark in comparison. What a shame and discredit to such an exemplary show.

I encourage fans and foes of Bacon to view this traveling retrospective; it will be traveling from Milwaukee, WI to Buffalo, NY in May.

Be skeptical of reproductions, good paintings should look better in person.

Be critical of the early financial success of young emerging artists and thieves today (umm Cicely Brown). It takes years; sometimes even a lifetime, to be a great painter.

Bacon takes the throne as the father of macabre. I admire his rejection of the two major art movements, Abstract Expressionism and Minimalism, of his time. He stays committed to the figure and instead of joining forces with American Modernism portrays the devastation of modern man.

“It comes from such a buoyant, optimistic person – these dark images, and that’s part of his genius,” – Michael Peppiatt curator, biographer, and friend of Francis Bacon.

Saturday, March 17, 2007

Water Media on Paper at Heineman Myers Contemporary Arts

Congrats Ms Davis on your win!

Congrats Marty Weishaar, Kelly Ulcak,
Amy Misurelli Sorensen, and Sharon Servilio
for being included in this show.

The National Society of Arts and Letters Washington Chapter
announces The Harriet L. Newbill Art Competition 2007
Water Media on Paper

exhibit at Heineman Myers Contemporary Art in Bethesda, Maryland
open to the public March 18
Exhibit opening and announcement of winner 2-4 p.m.

My take by David Waddell

I could not really be surprised at the choice of grand prize for this competition. They went with the safe choice. The jurors chose an artist who captured realistic portraits through watercolor. They were very traditional pieces. Overall, Davis' pieces all looked pretty much the same.

I think it was a huge achievement for Amy Misurelli Sorensen's work to be included in a Water Media on Paper show as it was displayed in a conservative locale. Her work is exciting, colorful, crisp and SEXUAL. As you enter the gallery, her clean and professioanlly framed work is the first to be seen. It was as if they were practically handing her the $4,000 prize and yet, they did not.

Wednesday, March 7, 2007

Extinction of Printmaking? Cannonball Press celebrates Woodcut in Chelsea



by Amy Misurelli Sorensen

American University instructor, Don Kimes, guided several AU graduate students on a tour of Chelsea galleries last weekend in New York. I had a rewarding and disconcerting experience at David Krut Projects, a gallery featuring the work of Cannonball Press.

Cannonball Press is a small printing collaborative, which celebrates the tradition of woodcut printmaking. The group is comprised of both master-printers and artists selling fine art prints at an unusually low cost.

Martin Mazorra, an American University Alum, and Mike Houston are the artists and printers responsible for the exhibition “Treasure of the Black and White Brigand” at Cannonball Press. Martin and Mike collaborated on the project and printed the colossal works with an intimate team of colleagues. They are lucidly stealing from and celebrating a lost tradition, woodcut printmaking, hence the title “Treasure of the Black and White Brigand” and subtitle “Woodcutological Plunder”. While the woodcuts lend themselves to a specific visual stylization and employ propaganda derivative of the work of Tom Huck and Raymond Gloeckler, the presentation of prints shows originality and ingenuity. The exhibition features mural or banner sized woodcut prints on canvas hung from wooden and steel rods evocative of Vatican Tapestries and political posters. The prints on paper collaged onto sculptural forms to enhance the prints’ narratives are playful. The monumentality, quality of line, and presentation is engaging. The political content of the narratives and the concept of appropriating and sampling this method of the woodcut give the show a permissible place in a contemporary gallery.

Bravo! Martin and Mike have resurrected the traditional woodcut in Chelsea. The exhibition evoked in me sensations of pure visual pleasure. However, it has left me on a quest to unearth why this printmaking tradition is becoming extinct.

Why does this show highlight the pillaging of a lost tradition? Is traditional printmaking dead? When I say traditional, I am referring to the processes of intaglio, relief, and lithography. A history of processes that can be traced back to the carved relief, for example, the wooden stamps in Egypt, brick seals in Babylonia, and clay seals in Rome. Multiple prints, picture-making, newspapers, book illustrations then came with the invention of paper. Rembrandt, Goya, and Durer relied on the processes of printmaking. What happened to limited editions? Has the haughty, commercial New York Art World eliminated the print because of its affordability and accessibility? Is there a misinterpretation of “originality” linked to the print? Did it die with Warhol and his money scheming factory? Shall we blame the technological advances of Xerox machines, computers, the media, and digital ink-jet printers, or should we be looking at technology’s advancement as a continuation of the process. Do academic institutions influence the minimal production of printmakers? Why is it that the investigation of historical printing concepts and contemporary printing concepts are only being investigated primarily in the Midwest? Has printmaking, a process as old and as innovative as painting, been lost while painting continues to triumph?

Saturday, March 3, 2007

Stanley Lewis; The Legend



By Amy Misurelli Sorensen

I was amazed to see so many people in attendance at Stanley Lewis’s opening and lecture on February 17. He led a discussion on his retrospective currently on display at the Katzen Museum.

Stanley Lewis comes from a specific school, The New York Art School, where form takes precedence over content. It has a history. It is a very modernist notion and I believed this notion and his work to be dated. I was prepared for the rhetoric to accompany the monotonous display of landscapes presented on the wall. I thought I had Stanley all figured out, and I admit, I went into it half-heartedly.

The audience was a problem. It was a very large crowd. I had a hard time hearing Stanley speak. The fans in attendance fascinated and distracted me with their gaping mouths, frozen smiles, and adoring eyes. What kind of man generates such a large fan club?

Stanley Lewis does.

He stepped in like a breath of fresh air. I found myself engaged with his nonspecific descriptions of process, his humility and honesty to his obsession with paint and paper applications. He is entertaining and I found myself laughing aloud. Finally, someone, an artist, is simply saying it is o.k. to do this art thing, just for the love of it. What a gala and free wine to boot!

On February 19, I witnessed the true genius of Stanley Lewis. Stanley is an admirable teacher. He instructed a drawing class at the National Gallery. After showing the class several Dutch paintings, he recommended we sit and draw from one painting to figure out and reveal its secrets.

I choose to draw from Rembrandt’s “Man with an Earring.” I specifically choose this painting because of the one figure composition and the compelling portrait. Stanley begins to draw along side of me. He eagerly assimilates the larger forms in the planes of the face to their relationships to the planes in the ground. He makes discoveries and shares them with me. I see in Stanley a commitment to figuring out Rembrandt’s formal decisions. I questioned his presumptions, and continued on my own investigation. Then, as I stand and draw from this painting, I have a revelation. Through drawing, I have revealed the analytical rhythm of this painting that is not apparent from first glance. I search through this drawing for two hours, and finally I too figure out the puzzle. I dialogue with the ghost of Rembrandt through my pen and paper.


Stanley’s contagious passion and teachings are a gift. Stanley Lewis is committed, as Picasso was, to figuring out the language of art.

Thursday, February 15, 2007

Zoë Charlton and iona rozeal brown: Artist to Artist at Hirshhorn












Zoë Charlton and iona rozeal brown intimately reveal themselves and remind us to be aware of imitating social constructions
by Amy Misurelli-Sorensen

There is no line upon entering The Hirshhorn Museum today, no “headliner” draws only a small crowd, and Ryan Hill, manager of interpretive studies at the Hirshhorn, invites the audience to fill the first few rows of seats nearest the stage. Ryan Hill introduces Zoë Charlton and iona rozeal brown, two local women artists, and they begin a casual discussion on their work and the world.

Iona brown’s paintings are evocative of 17th and18th century Japanese woodcuts and rely on a multitude of resources from eastern and western cultures. She is constructing a “Warrior Aesthetic” where Samurais and Hip-Hop unite. Brown’s dual career as an artist and a D.J. inspires a body of work that represents Hip-Hop’s influences on the youth of Japanese culture. She captures Japanese youth mimicking the hip-hop scene in America through costume in black face, afros, baggy jeans, drawers, grills, logos, and attitudes. One painting depicts a teenage Asian girl in corn rolls; her smile reveals a grill and the audience are faced with a beautiful and pleasurable image of conflicting identities. Brown questions the history of the black face, the Yellow Negro, Warriors, trends, stereotypes in the media, and identity theft.

Charlton’s work explores similar issues with the face as identity. Black face and white face are explored in relation to the figure, usually female and nude. Unlike Brown, Charlton uses the figure to make a statement without clothes, but relies on props and symbols to convey a message. Her theme is politically and sexually charged in a playful way, yet loaded by serious undertones. In one image, for example, Lincoln’s Hat sits on top of the butt of a bent-over black woman. Brown states that Charlton’s work makes her want to laugh, but more willingly cry due to the historical burdens of women, specifically black women represented in Charlton’s work.

Brown and Charlton address sampling, appropriation, and the unquestionable significance these devices have in both of their work. Charlton believes sampling to be culturally free and that an artist is able to “sample” or use something and have the freedom to change its meaning, but not its character. Charlton clearly states that appropriation is a cultural denial. Brown stays committed to research, “owning it”, which is why she is critical on issues of social responsibility in her work. The devices of sampling and appropriation through process are as inseparable from the appropriation and sampling of cultures addressed in their work.

Brown and Charlton both rely on the media as a core source for research. They are critical about the media’s representations of culture and they exemplify a critical view of the media in their work. Charlton states, “We must be proud and critical of who we are and be aware of imitating the constructions of who we are.” Brown gets personal by confessing her shame and weakness to consumerism; she has recently purchased an ipod. This fall to consumerism has inspired a new body of work; ugly, teethed worms trying to drink Hypnotic painted on mirrors in the style of Japanese Animation. Brown tells us to fight the demons, stay strong.

Throughout this lecture, I cannot keep my eyes off iona and Zoë. Their clothing, body language, and personal exchanges exert confidence and pride. There is an element of magic to their presence. I am aware of my own “whiteness” and just as I begin to start aestheticizing these two black women artists, it is no longer about race. As I begin to share similar ideas on women and beauty, it is no longer about gender. We, all people, struggle with the complexities of identity. The discussion has taken a turn and it is not about separating, but instead about celebrating the commonalities of people. After the discussion, I find myself on an unintentional journey tracing back to my own history and personal experiences.

Tuesday, February 13, 2007

The Patron, The Centerfold and the Ghost: Amy Misurelli Sorensen at the Matthew Barney Lecture




“Barney drops only a few crumbs for us to follow; we lose his trail in this lecture” by Amy Misurelli Sorensen

On January 31, I attended the lecture at the Hirshhorn Museum to hear Matthew Barney, art superstar, lead a discussion on his work and the work of Joseph Bueys.

Word of advice: leave your expectations at the door when attending any “meet the artist” lectures at the Hirshhorn. Do not expect a good discussion. Do not even expect to get in.

Matthew Barney is a celebrity; I anticipate a large crowd and a long line. I arrive at the museum three and a half hours early, and, yes, I get in, by luck, not democracy. The museum is unorganized and the rule “first come basis” does not apply to their wealthy patrons. I believe the wealthy patrons of The Hirshhorn receive tickets in advance, which allows them to stroll in minutes before to a guaranteed seat in the auditorium.

Upon entering the museum, I take my place in a line that snakes around the outside circle of the lobby. I am about fifty people deep in line. An hour prior to the lecture this line doubles, maybe triples upon itself. The museum staff concerns itself with the overwhelming amount of people still walking through the door an hour before, and neglects the two to three hundred people swarming their lobby that sacrificed their afternoon to see the great and magical Matthew Barney.

A half hour prior to the lecture, the staff is unaware where the line starts or ends. They begin to lead the various lines closest to the escalator downstairs to the auditorium. I am now about 150 people deep in line. How did all of these people get ahead of me? Who are some of these people, clad in jewelry and minks, and why did I not notice them three hours ago?

I thankfully take my seat and watch as people make their way into the auditorium. I am subdued from the four-hour wait, but perk up to the quiet welcome as Matthew Barney takes his seat on the stage. The welcome is quiet due to the overwhelming amount of seats left uninhabited. The museum has already sent the disappointed, unadmitted, upstairs crowd away, it is too late to rescue these empty seats, and a mediocre DC welcomes Barney.

The lecture begins with a Q&A between Nancy Spector and Matthew Barney. Nancy Spector is a curator at The Guggenheim Museum in New York and Berlin. She curates Barney’s Cremaster Exhibition in 2003 and curates the more recent collated project on the works of Matthew Barney and Joseph Beuys in Berlin. This exhibition “All in the Present Must Be Transformed” explores the affinities and differences between the works of Beuys and Barney, and is the anticipated focus of this discussion. However, poor Beuys only surfaces in this discussion as a ghost, and is silenced by the elusive Barney and the monstrosity of mystery in Barney’s presence and projects. The justification as to why the Beuys and Barney project exists is rooted in the concept of drawing and the significance of conceptual sketches for their theatrical, sight specific installations. This gives Nancy and Matthew something to circle around and around during the first portion of the lecture. I personally would like to hear more about fat and vaseline.

The dialogue on the Beuys and Barney Project is lost due to the reoccurring dialogues on Matthew’s Cremaster Cycle and Drawing Restraint Series. Specifically, Barney leads the discussion on his process, projects, and drawing experiences in relation to his athletic experiences, Harry Houdini, and the internal construction of self. Barney’s projects are inseparable, his career indivisible; and we are not able to draw a timeline from the last football game he participated in, to his bodies of work started at Yale, to the last finished project he conceived. The audience is the blimp, Barney the wind, and he floats us into a vat of confusion. The jumbled dialogues and the continuous stream of “Ummms” that keep flooding out of Barney’s mechanical mouth bore me. Has he suffered from too many football injuries to the head? I now find myself only engaged in the slides and have fallen into a subconscious state of picturing the handsome and athletic Barney in a pair of Calvin Klein underwear.

Matthew Barney is a myth and a poster boy for the superstar artists of our time. He is the celebrity, the centerfold model, the man of mystery, the MVP, the Oscar contender, and the sexist man of the year. However, as dissatisfied as I am with this lecture, his work I cannot discredit. Did I really expect him to give his secrets away? Did I expect to be invited into his world, a world I visually and psychologically love to get lost in? It is the myth that generates his success.

It is at the Guggenheim in 2003 during the installation of The Cremaster Cycle that I decided I wanted to be a committed artist. He inseminated me with a new awareness and passion for contemporary art and this lecture does not defeat my adoration for his works.


What was your experience at the Matthew Barney lecture?
I enjoyed the talk via satellite.
After waiting in line all afternoon, I was glad to make the cut.
I missed the lecture after I was turned away and could not make it home in time to watch on the internet.
I am a patron and walked in minutes before the lecture.
I am one of the many empty seats that were reserved for those that did not show up.
I was more satisfied reading the article in Modern Painters.
  
Free polls from Pollhost.com