Showing posts with label ICA Boston. Show all posts
Showing posts with label ICA Boston. Show all posts

Sunday, November 15, 2009

Getting ". . . OUT OF HERE"


The video imagery of " . . . OUT OF HERE: the Veteran's Project."

Will wonders never cease.

There is currently a great work of contemporary art at the ICA.

Krzysztof Wodiczko's ". . . OUT OF HERE: the Veteran's Project" is the first installation at this waterfront mall-of-coolness that transcends its usual curatorial mix of formal fetish and pop bullshit to actually achieve something like genuine power.

No, you can't take your kids. And no, it isn't particularly "awesome." But it has meaning. Remember that?

Probably not, but with time, you'll get used to it, and maybe even grow to like it. Although to be fair, after the intellectual wastelands of the Tara Donovan and Shepard Fairey shows, the ICA has perhaps begun to right itself: just across the hall from the Wodiczko installation is Damián Ortega's retrospective, "Do It Yourself," which actually has some content, too (which I'll consider in a later post).

Could curator Nicholas Baume's departure already be bearing fruit, I wonder? Probably not - and at any rate, the Sandra and Gerald Fineberg Art Wall ("clockwork for oracles," by Ugo Rondinone) still sucks, as ever. But then we wouldn't want the marketing department's talons to totally detach from the galleries, would we; the shift toward quality shouldn't happen pell-mell! It's okay if we ease into it.

(And just btw, to those still wringing their hands over the various Shepard Fairey brouhahas - the way to turn Boston into a hub of contemporary art is not by importing some trendy L.A. posterboy, but by devoting serious resources to our own best artists. ". . . OUT OF HERE," which was curated by Carole Anne Meehan and the nifty Randi Hopkins (of the late, lamented Allston Skirt Gallery) counts as a small step in that direction.)

But back to the work itself. Wodiczko, who's based at MIT, has become known for his gigantic projections on public buildings and monuments, and part of "OUT" documents his recent videos of veteran's statements, such as Flame, which features harrowing memories from veterans whispered over a constantly flickering candle. Flame is both touching and ironic: it effectively deconstructs the familiar "eternal flame" memorial by reminding us that our memory of actual war flickers out once the granite tablets go up.

". . . OUT OF HERE" takes this insight a big step - no, a giant leap - further. This is a "war memorial" that attempts to immerse you in the experience of war, that tries to communicate something of what veterans of the Iraq War have actually been through. The piece consists of a large, darkened room (if only it could have been of marble!); some ten feet up its gray walls, a video projection of frosted windows (above) is visible. Through their "glass" we can see little more than distant clouds drifting past; from an unseen set of speakers come the chirps of playing children and the clatter of a busy street. Somewhere someone is singing in Arabic; we can hear Barack Obama's voice too, echoing from a passing radio. Suddenly a stray soccer ball whacks one of the "windows," breaking it.

Then the shadow of a descending helicopter falls over us, and the audio turns nightmarish. What sounds like an armored vehicle rumbles to a stop; we can hear soldiers, confused and uncertain, scrambling past us, as we, too, try to make sense of what, precisely is happening. "We were here before; remember us?" someone says in English. The children have long since gone silent; when the explosions erupt, and the sniper fire starts shattering the "windows," they begin to scream.

It's all over in a few moments, although the great power of ". . . OUT OF HERE" derives not merely from its attention to the chaos of war, but also its aftermath. A child has been wounded, but the American soldiers are forced to abandon it. The vehicles rumble away again, to another conflict. The voices in Arabic return, this time wailing, and desperately calling out the names of the missing. The wounded child does not answer.

The piece, to be honest, isn't perfect; the imagery of the descending helicopter lacks the verisimilitude of the rest of the effects, and on a second hearing, both the politics and the melodramatic mechanics of the "script" are a bit bald. But the work's initial impact is as potent as that of a gripping piece of theatre, while its formal isolation from the events it depicts (we can't actually "see" what's going on) elicits a panicky engagement from the viewer while conjuring a contradictory sense of dislocation in terms of both time and space. For a moment, it seems, we are not in a "memorial" so much as a memory. And all we really want to do, of course, is get OUT OF HERE - although ironically enough, this piece is probably one of Boston's current must-sees for serious fans of both art and theatre.

Wednesday, February 7, 2007

Who should win the Foster Prize?


Geoff Edgers of the Globe's Exhibitionist blog reports that none of the artists in the running for the ICA's $25,000 Foster Prize are very happy about the ongoing visitor poll as to who should win. According to Edgers:

". . . since we're keeping score, the most recent public vote shows Sheila Gallagher(above) in the lead (40.47 percent of the vote), followed by Rachel Perry Welty (below) (30.16), Kelly Sherman (14.98) and (Jane D.) Marsching (14.4)."



Of course no, the Foster Prize isn't a popularity contest - still, it's striking how good the public's taste has turned out to be, isn't it? Kelly Sherman's floorplans, poignantly witty as they are, hardly exist beyond their conceptualization (I know, to many lost souls that's enough), while Jane D. Marsching's digital imagery (below) feels almost completely appropriated from other artists.



For the record, I think I lean toward Rachel Perry Welty (perhaps because I wrote one of her first local raves), although Gallagher is certainly a worthy winner. To me, however, Gallagher's installation, "The Cloud of Unknowing," was in something of a fog as to how it should coalesce around any correspondence between form and content. Its centerpiece,"Cumulonimbus," (detail above) a "live" painting made of flowers, was lovely but vague in its Hare-Krishna-esque ramifications; far stronger were her paintings in smoke (yes, smoke), such as "Unknown Title, After Church 2" (left) - if Gallagher had centered her exhibit on these elegies to the romantic American landscape, I'd have handed her the prize, hands down. As it is, after suffering through her video installation, I'm not so sure she understands her own strengths.

By way of contrast, Rachel Perry Welty is almost too focused on herself. Welty builds up sculptures and "paintings" from the obsessive manipulation of consumer detritus - she weaves zillions of twist-ties into shimmering columns and vast quilts (below left), or teases shop receipts into subtle, haunting glyphs. Unlike Gallagher, she has a clear handle on how form and process can sensually align with content; her work is gorgeous (she's truly a painter and a sculptress, not just some web-enabled conceptualizer). The trouble is that, not too surprisingly given its provenance in obsession, her work is also getting a little - well - repetitive.

So the choice seems to be between a far-ranging talent without much in the way of quality control, and a perfectionist who may just be stuck in a rut. The committee is expected to announce its decision within a few days.

Tuesday, January 2, 2007

I've got a little (wish) list

Below are a few of my most fervent wishes (and the reasons why) for the coming year.


Imagine if you'd just seen this part. . .

1) How about just paying for what you get at the ART?

Veterans of this theater know that their shows only heat up in the last 15 minutes. So how about a "15-minute" subscription? Tickets would be a fraction of full price, but would only allow you to see the last fifteen minutes of the production (i.e., the good part). Since many audience members leave at intermission (if you're lucky, and management is feeling confident, there is an intermission), there should be plenty of empty seats available.



Is this really a keeper?

2) Could the contemporary art become just temporary?

The ICA has begun its much-ballyhooed permanent collection precisely the wrong way - by showcasing only artists it has shown before. This cuts out such reigning visual masters as Richter, Freud and Marden, as well as more controversial conceptual stars like Barney and Koons; oddly, the best artists at the ICA are only on view in their current show, "Super Vision," but not their permanent collection, which showcases such minor lights as Laylah Ali and Taylor Davis. True, there is some first-rate work in the permanent collection, from Paul Chan, Philip-Lorca diCorcia, and Boris Mikhailov, as well as a solid, if basically picturesque, piece from Cornelia Parker and some okay pix from Nan Goldin. But the museum has essentially set its sights too low; the wall text accompanying the collection even mentions the high cost of collecting as a factor in its choices. The implication seems to be that these works are from artists the ICA has launched whose prices haven't gone up too much - a pretty lame M.O. if you ask me. Save your pennies for something worth saving, please.



And suddenly the ICA looks fantastic . . .

3) Can we make the "new MFA" just go away?

Okay, it's possible, according to Stephen Hawking (and he's really smart). Malcolm Rogers could disappear into a wormhole, and pop out into some alternative universe where museums are already seen as amusement parks. And he could take the plans for the Foster addition with him, where it could house an indoor roller coaster. We'd want to keep the $400 million donated to build the damn thing in this universe, of course - we could use it to cure cancer. Or AIDS. Or egomania.



Faster, Carmen, kill, kill!

4) Somebody make sure Jorma Elo takes his Ritalin this spring!

Hyperactivity ruined last year's "Carmen" - please, Boston Ballet, don't let it happen again!



Yeah, right, we'll believe you when we see you!

5) And nobody in New York or L.A. hire Victor Garber, okay?

The Broadway types that Nicky Martin tries to lure to the Huntington have so often proven unreliable (Andrea Martin, Brooks Ashmanskas), that we don't really believe they're coming anymore until the curtain actually rises. Victor Garber is scheduled to lead Coward's Present Laughter (itself a replacement for Streamers) at the end of the Huntington's season. Garber's perfect for the role - the question is, will he make it?



6) If we say Schoenberg's better than Beethoven, will you stop?

Not that the ongoing Schoenberg/Beethoven bitch slapdown at the BSO would ever lead one to that conclusion - instead, the series is proving (surprise!) exactly the opposite. But maybe if audiences continue to cheer wildly (as they did at Moses and Aaron, even though some players admitted privately they couldn't always follow the beat), Levine will declare victory (I've changed music history, now gimme a Snickers!) and end this huge waste of his organization's resources.