WPA at The Katzen Museum

Washington Project for the Artsat The Katzen Museum
Jan 31–Mar 7, 2009

This show features work by local contemporary artists and members of the Washington Project for the Arts (WPA)including the work of students Bonner Sale and Zac Willis, graduate Jenny Walton and professors Zoe Charlton and Tim Doud. WPA invites contemporary art aficionados to indulge their passion for art at the 28th Annual Art Auction Gala to be held on Saturday, March 7, at 6 p.m. This noted event has grown in recognition and reputation as Washington's premiere contemporary art event for not only art collectors but also business, social, and art leaders in the community. All proceeds benefit the programs and exhibitions of the WPA. For tickets and more information, please visit auction.wpadc.org.

Zac Willis

Bonner Sale

Opening Reception: Sat. January 31, 2009 6:30-9:00 pm

NINE opening

(photo by Alex Ebstein)


Last night's opening of "NINE," showcasing work by AU's first year MFA students was well-attended.

If you missed it, you missed out on some awesome krab dip, sweet ASICS, and of course, ART JUMPING!!!!

(photo by Alex Ebstein)

(photo by Alex Ebstein)



Luckily, you can still see the terrific art. "NINE" will be up until Tuesday, so be sure to check it out.

"Proximity," our MFA Thesis Exhibition will open Friday, April 18th, from 6-9 pm. Mark your calendars!

To read more about "NINE" and for more awesome images of the opening, check out ArtCade Forum and There Were Ten Tigers.

Friday Night!!!

"NINE"
First year MFA candidates present new work.

Opening reception Friday, April 11th, 7-9 pm

Josh Baptista
Kate Gartrell
Nikki Painter
Igor Pasternak
Allison Reimus
Katherine Sable
Bonner Sale
Lana Stephens
Zac Willis

Work will be exhibited April 10th- 16th in the Katzen Arts Center.

For museum hours and information, please click here.

We hope to see you there!

Barack’s New Diggs

By Zac Willis

I want to comment on just how far the United States political campaigning has fallen to an all time low. A photo a few weeks ago was released of Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) wearing traditional attire of a Somali Elder during a visit to Wajir, Kenya in 2006. The reason for the photo creating a controversy centers around a few topics.

The photo is of Obama wearing a white turban and another sort of cloth wrapped around his body. The Obama camp is calling out the Clinton camp and saying they are using it as a tactic to smear Obama. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) is of course denying this and saying it is a tactic that is being used to distract voters from Obama’s ideas on healthcare, the economy, and his political experience. It just seems to be a he said she said back and forth battle. Clinton is mad and desperate because she needs wins, and Obama is worried because it will hurt his momentum.

The political back and forth is very infantile. We all know that people travel over seas to foreign countries to experience culture and to learn new things. For Obama to go to Kenya, which is where his dad is from, and meet with elders from the town and wear traditional clothing is nothing new or something to sound the alarms about. He was giving respect to the people he was meeting with and showing them that he was genuinely interested in what they have to offer. Clinton herself said that it was ridiculous for this to be an issue because she has been to other countries and worn traditional clothing. So if that is the case, why are there accusations that the Clinton campaign is responsible for the releasing the photo?

This is a clear indication of an act of desperation by a campaign that is fallen. In my opening sentence, I said that political campaigning reached an all time low; in my eyes, it might even have fallen off the map. For a country that has major problems with foreign policy, economy, healthcare, and so on, we should be caring about these issues and who will be the best president to lead our country. Hopefully, the election results will bring a change to benefit all Americans. The Presidential race should not revolve around smearing someone’s name, the American public is better than that and definitely deserves better. If candidates have problems with one another, fight it out in a debate so people can really understand and see how they handle pressure on the topics that matter.

The question is going to be how will this affect Obama in the last remaining primaries? I hope that it doesn’t. It shouldn’t. People should not be afraid to go to a foreign country and dress like a native to that country, then later have to worry about how they are going to be viewed if they return home with a picture.

The Ants Go Marching

By Zac Willis

The Black Box at the Hirshorn once again draws me in for a video piece that leaves me with more questions than answers. The current work is by Rivane Neuenschwander. She collaborated with Cao Guimaraes for the piece. The video consists of ants collecting left over confetti from a previous event. It is shot extremely close to the ants so the viewer can understand what they are doing. By shooting it close, it allowed the artists to capture the sounds the ants were making and other subtle noises that humans may not hear. It sounds simple, an easy concept to understand and watch, but it becomes complicated.

The ants respond and behave in ways to make one think that the confetti is a precious metal to them. It seems as though they will do anything to get their hands on it. In watching I started to see their struggles and triumphs. The ants where behaving like humans. There was a sense of pride in carrying the object, they contemplated what they were going to do with items, and they also fought over the items.

While viewing the piece I was thinking of how I collect items and covet them because they have become special to me. The ants were doing the same thing. The video was acting as a device to make me examine my own life and how I behave towards items that are special to me. I was watching the video, but I was thinking about my own situation. However, this is the shortcoming of the piece. I was bringing my own ideas into the piece and creating my own narrative to what I wanted the work to be about. I do not think that was the intention of the work. I think it was more about the ants reacting and responding to this change (confetti) to their environment. If there was to be a narrative for the work Neuenschwander would have followed one specific ant and not moved from ant to ant. Therefore, it is solely about the ants’ movement with these confetti pieces and how the ants respond to the environment with them.

In some ways I see this as nothing more than a documentary of ants that should be shown on the Discovery Channel. I am what is making this piece more than what it is. I as the viewer bring it the content to make it my own. I bring the story to give to the ants. There is nothing more for me to do than just pretend and let my mind wonder about my experiences. So in a sense, I am making the art. The viewer can not just be a viewer; they must be a participant for this piece to do anything.

Recognize! Hip Hop and Contemporary Portraiture at the National Portrait Gallery

Kehinde Wiley, "Three Graces," oil on canvas

By Zac Willis

"Recognize!," a show at the National Portrait Gallery, is a contemporary look at portraiture in the hip hop world. The show consists of photographs, paintings, video, installation and graffiti. Overall, the show was nicely arranged. The flow of layout worked well for what was being shown and for whom it was being shown too. It showcased a selected number of artists whom are known for works associated with the hip hop community. The structure in which the show was arranged allowed for nice mixture of mediums to be shown together and not overpower one another.

One of the main reasons I wanted to see the show was because of Kehinde Wiley’s large oil on canvas paintings. I had not heard about him until recently when he was featured in several magazines and there was buzz about him in the graduate hall. So I started researching and examining his work. The colors, the scale and the ornate backgrounds immediately impressed me. The paintings where very exciting to see in print and on the computer. After discovering that there was going to be six of his works at the National Portrait Gallery I knew that I had to see the work.

After weeks of waiting I was anticipating seeing how amazing these works really were. I arrived at the museum and prepared myself for what I was hoping was going to be an awesome experience. Finally I was looking at these large oil paintings of African Americans stylized with ornate patterns. It was everything I had thought it to be except for one thing: the quality of the work. When I approached I did not notice, but as I got closer, I started to see the quality of line and just how fast or carelessly the work was painted. Upon seeing this, I changed my opinion about the work. I had such high expectations of the pieces. Seeing the paintings for the first time and realizing the inconsistencies, I became disappointed by the work. This made me examine the tactics being used in this work.

Wiley’s work is clearly made to be viewed at a distance or in print. One can not say that the work is not eye candy, but after seeing the work in person I understood what type of eye candy it was, the kind of work that is reproduced easily. I felt like I was in a trance. I was turned on by the works for their beauty and that alone. I did not look at the idea behind the work, or even consider what Wiley might be trying to say with the work. I got lost in the colors and patterns. After seeing them, I felt like I was jolted out of my trance by the fact that they are not painted with as high a degree of craft as I was expecting. After this happened, I started to question Wiley's ideas and why exactly he was painting these. The paintings fell short after I dismissed the craft. There is nothing left as far as a concept for the work other than the quick read and that first wow factor of how aesthetically pleasing they are. Where does that leave the work and where does he go from here? I am sure he is going to keep making these and will continue to sell these works. Despite an artist's becoming famous, he or she should not forget his or her craft.

Violence and Tranquility: Tony Shore at C. Grimaldis Gallery

Tony Shore, "Tracy Adkins Park," acrylic on velvet


By Zac Willis

I want to discuss the work of Tony Shore. His current show is at C. Grimaldis Gallery in Baltimore, MD and is entitled Violence & Tranquility. The work is partly based off things Shore has seen in his lifetime, a secondary component of the work being still life paintings of fish and other miscellaneous items. The work itself is impressive; it is not necessarily the content by itself but the materials that are used to make the work and how they can be used to contrast what the subject matter is in the work.

Upon first glance, it looks like pastel or paint on black paper, but after closer inspection I realized that it is paint on black velvet. Once I had figured out what the materials were, I was able to start looking into the paintings to question the reasons for the velvet. Why the black velvet for the background color? Why street violence with velvet that I or someone else might associate with wealth, or perhaps associate it with painting done in the 70’s? I kept finding myself coming back to these specific questions as I looked at the work. Why the velvet? How does that take these paintings and elevate them or lower them in terms of content and style? For me, the velvet elevates them above linen or canvas. I am drawn into that texture that velvet can give you. These paintings would be totally different if they were just painted black canvas versus the velvet. The surface on which the paint sits gives them depth and life. This is enhanced by the velvet. But let us not forget the question I am struggling to answer; what is the main role of the velvet? I am sure that there is a reason, or a least I hope there is a reason other than just wanting to use velvet for a body of work. The content and the way they are painted tells me that velvet was used deliberately and for a specific reason and this is why I keep coming back to this work. I can list my own reasons why Shore would use velvet but it is probably not why Shore used it.

I will give Shore some credit- the paintings are very appealing. When they hang on the wall they command your attention. There is nothing else to do but stare at them and get lost in the use of light and color. But that is what makes them so successful and bad at the same time. Shore draws the viewer in with his use of light and colors in such a way that you forget what you are seeing, so you find the paintings too amazing; however, this is the moment I feel the paintings start to fail. They have successfully pulled the viewer in, but they are so seductive that while I was engaged with them I forgot what I was looking at, scenes of violence and dead fish. I had to take myself out of it a couple of times because I was getting into the colors and lighting so much, but when I stopped myself, I switched gears and started to look at content only, and I saw what I hope the work is really about, the violence and death associated to the streets in Baltimore. If I look at work from this perspective only I really start to generate questions. If these were things he saw in his lifetime was he a participant in the acts or was he the one being beaten? Is Shore tying to raise awareness of these acts that I assume are still going on in the city today? If so, is generating paintings that are very seductive and elegant and then showing them to a limited and select group of people the best means to do this?

The work is good, but is it good enough to be able to keep being made? I am not sure if Shore has done works before on velvet, scenes of street violence, fish heads or similar content. Where do you take the work from here? He seems to be getting notoriety for this particular body of work. I just hope that he, like so many artists, does not fall into the trap of making work the same way over and over again. It would be a shame to see the velvet used over and over again to the point where it has lost the power of what makes Violence & Tranquility so commanding.

Deeparture-Video by Mircea Cantor

ZAC WILLIS


When I heard about the video, I could only imagine a deer and wolf together in a room. What could happen? What am I setting myself up to see? All these images of death and carnage raced through my mind. Going in to the watch the video, I was already assuming the worst. But to my surprise, I saw a deer and a wolf coexisting in the room afraid of themselves, each other and what type of environment they were now in. After finishing the video, I found myself wondering which animal was more frightened: the deer, wolf, artist, or viewer. While thinking about this issue I started thinking about the artist in the space while filming the piece. His presence had to bring some tension to the space.

What Cantor does surprisingly well is the camera angles and the method in which the video was shot. The viewer is never left with the sense that the animals are alone in separate rooms. They are together interacting in ways that are accelerated by the use of video. Another thing that Cantor has done is left the video wide open for interpretation. The viewer can place whatever relationships they want on each of the animals. I am sure the artist has his own interpretation and I have my own, which no doubt differ in all degrees. This is what makes the video important: it relies on the viewer to interact, to make a judgment on the animals.

The strongest and most important factor in this work is the concept. The piece allows itself to be whatever the viewer wants it to be. One can place a complete detailed story on the wolf and deer or it can simply be a dialogue of wolf and deer. The beauty in this piece is that it is left up to the viewer to determine the relationships.