Sunday, October 19, 2008

10/20 GALLERY REVIEW 6: BIG ORBIT

This week’s assignment is Big Orbit Gallery and, again, I’m surprised to find there is, yet, another gallery that’s hidden in my own backyard. This time, when I say “in my own backyard” I really do mean it because my mom has lived two streets down from Big Orbit for the past 12 years and neither of us knew it was there, so, the shock that it is that close to home (even though, technically it’s my moms’ home) was well, kind of embarrassing. To top it off, Big Orbit isn’t new; it’s been in existence for over a decade. 


The charming old world building that houses the gallery is located on very inconspicuous side street on the Queens City’s historic west side and, in addition to the art gallery, affords space for art studios, as well as, some private apartments. Parking is free and is a combination of both on and off street, as available. 


Although, I thought signage for the gallery was quite adequate, finding the actual entrance to the gallery itself was a little tricky as it’s tucked away in a dark and spooky corner that could really use some curb appeal. Given the natural beauty of the architectural gem I was a bit disappointed at what seemed to be cold, dank state of disrepair patrons must face when they finally do find the main doors that lead to the exhibition. Most of us know that, regardless of the arena, presentation is everything and, I’m sorry to say that I don’t think this gallery is taking full advantage of the eye appeal their edifice has to offer.

David Mitchell, a graduate of NYU, is a multi-talented artist skilled drawing, sculpture, video, photography and installation work. In this exhibit Mitchell showcases his skills by melding these seemingly unrelated mediums and states his inspiration, “In our cars at night, the dotted lines pass through our peripherals like some cryptic code, headlights dance across a blanket of black, and the horizon is emptied of all discern. We drive and we dream. We move at superhuman speeds. We pass through the night in dream machines. The machines are a part of us, a physiological appurtenance, and in them we become recluses.”

I read Mitchell’s inspiration statement before and after viewing the exhibit and it did provide some insight into where he was going with it. I totally agree that we become totally self-absorbed in all sorts of things we shouldn’t while driving. Our automobiles’ not only transport us physically but they also transport all the other parts of our being as well. Our minds are transported someplace else, our ears are transported someplace else, and really scary, our hands and mouths are transported someplace else. It as if the world needs official designated drivers whose job is simply to be completely present while operating a motor vehicle so the rest of us can talk on our cells, drink our latte’s, shave our beards, put on our make-up, do our hair, get dressed, cry, sleep and whatever else we all be guilty of doing while driving at one time or another. So, the inspiration for the exhibit is appropriate for modern day culture but, did the piece convey it?

The exhibit comprised of two cars, two taxidermy deer, three channels of projected video, multiple channels of audio, and MIDI controlled lighting, all operating on a 10 minute synced loop is entitled Red Hearts/ Black Tongues. As I stood in the midst of these elements it became very clear they would form one major interactive exhibit to include the viewer in the artwork. I’m not sure what role I, the viewer, played aside from that of witness but, I can say that the experience was unlike any I’ve encountered.

Unlike the Op Art Revisited exhibit at the Albright where the interaction was limited to the visual tricks of kinetic optical illusion, this exhibition included physical interaction. My ears listened to the sounds emanating through the speakers, my body felt the floors pulsate, and my eyes watched the scene unfold both on the projection screen and in front of me. Although, I wasn’t moved by the piece in a way one would typically be, I thought the fact that the exhibit was literally all around me was very cool and put a fun spin on art which isn’t easy. It was unique, a bit scary, and made its’ point about losing ourselves in these “dream machines”.

Sunday, October 5, 2008

10/06 GALLERY REVIEW 5: HALLWALLS

My oldest son and I hit Hallwalls this weekend. As we made our way into the repurposed church structure and found a cozy well lit gallery space we were faced with the work of Buffalo artist Rodney Taylor. The portable walls most of his work is displayed on creates a U-shaped space that embraces visitors as they walk into the exhibition. 


The atmosphere on this side of the room felt “safe” which allowed us to succumb to the pieces that were beckoning us to take a closer look, and, we did. My first draw was Taylor’s use of color and texture. There is something about the unique ‘hand” a person leaves behind when they are intimately involved in a project. It serves, more often than not, as an invisible signature, a fingerprint of its creator. The piece, thus, becomes proof that a living, breathing human being gave life to it. This “life” is evidenced in the selection on display. In addition, as pointed out by my son, Taylor laces his work with a bit of mystery by incorporating faint gestures of the human form around the naked tree he uses as the central figure. Color, texture, nakedness, mystery, life. What exactly is he trying to tell us? Collectively, these elements come together and evoke an overall feeling of impermanence and I can’t help but sense that Taylor is, by way of his tree, urging us to take this closer look before it all fades away.

Around the corner and behind the Taylor display is the work of artist Andrew Reyes. Reyes collection is quite different than Taylor’s. To point out the “obvious” Taylors’ work is pai
nted while Reyes’ is either photographed or sculpted using everyday objects. Regardless of the medium, Reyes pieces didn’t resonate with me at all. I wasn’t moved by anything I encountered on that end of the exhibition. I asked myself why? Was it his command of the camera or the superimposition of images? No, the images are crisp and deliberate. Was it the content of the photographs themselves? No, there’s a dog, a flower, a car, and so on, and so on. So, what exactly is it that I just didn’t get? I think it was the seeming disconnection of the images themselves. I was looking for the story of the common thread and I wasn’t getting it. I wanted obvious relationship and there appeared to be none. In fact, the images appeared to be as disconnected as they could get because their connection was so blatantly obvious I couldn’t see it. 


Unfortunately, when I did see it (the obviousness of the everyday)…I still wasn’t moved. Reyes attempt to convey a visual interpretation of such an abstract subject left me wanting. I can appreciate the existence of the ordinary as it makes the extraordinary possible, however, I found myself drowning in a sea of indifference.