I would like to begin my critique of the MFA/faculty show by briefly discussing the Lynda Craig exhibit in the upper left room of the gallery. I thought it was a wonderful tribute to her art and talent and I am sure it was appreciated by her friends and family, assuming that they saw the show, as well as many artists. I thought everything was beautifully displayed and felt very intimate.
Her art was beautiful, compelling, and complex. From the very large variety of works displayed it was very clear that she was not a one-note artist. It was obvious that she had a very thorough understanding of not only what went on in her head, but how to transcribe it using many different types of media. I was very impressed, in particular, with her skills as a painter which seemed to be her main practice.
What really captured my focus was a pseudo diptych of what I believe to be her grandparents (definitely elderly relatives), particularly the grandmother. It was beautifully painted, sentimental yet descriptive, with concrete strokes that did not at all interrupt the purpose of the image. This makes perfect sense because when an artist paints a somewhat classical portrait it is rare that the artist wants to confuse the viewer with unnecessary tricks.
What I liked most about the show as a whole was that it was an excellent opportunity to see examples of art from both members of the Mason Gross faculty as well as graduate students. It was impressive and reassuring to see the sheer variety of work produced by all of these artists that surround me as a student (this is one of the main reasons why I have learned as much as I have at Mason Gross; the visual arts department is distinguished because of its teachers). There were figurative pieces as well as abstract along with other works that did not lend themselves to classification. It was a good learning experience to see all of those pieces displayed collectively.
One of the downsides of the collectivity was that there were so many individual pieces the presentation of the show seemed cluttered and rushed. It was very difficult to focus on one thing when there was an entirely different and unrelated piece only a short distance away. This contributed to a feeling of disorganization and I do not think this is a quality that any serious art show such as this should have. Such randomness could be appreciated if it was a featured element that brought coherence to the items displayed. It might be suggested that the disconnection from piece to piece was intentional or had a conceptual or visual purpose. If this was the case, the conception did not work nor support the theme of the show. If the random presentation did not represent a conception, then this limited the overall quality of the show. Pulling off a collective show such as this requires much more time and attention to detail than it would appear was given by the executes.
I also found much of the artwork disappointing. There were a handful of pieces that I felt were very strong and worthy of an audience. However, I found many of the pieces in the show to be rather shallow, weak, and unable to stand on their own. Many of the pieces were lacking in substance while others lacked adequate technical skill to support the intended substance. I believe that good art speaks for itself and does not require explanation.
What I found particularly disturbing was the way in which pieces were hung and the physical condition of the gallery. Frankly, the gallery was and is still a mess. The first thing that I noticed upon entering was a big fat pencil line above one of the larger paintings in the main room. This must have been left by whomever did the installation (I really hope it was not the artist).
In addition, there were smudges on the walls, dirty fingerprints, and many black scuffs. The base perimeter around the entire space, including in and out of the smaller rooms, was a sloppy paint job, dusty, dirty and generally untidy. The lights were covered in dust and cobwebs.
In its present condition the gallery is a disgrace and an embarrassment to the Mason Gross School. This is one of the main reasons why I originally decided not to do this assignment. I was concerned that the faculty might take it personally. Since I am now doing this assignment I have decided that it is a matter of intellectual integrity to describe the deplorable condition of the gallery.
In fact, there is a long tradition of displaying artworks of all kinds in gallery spaces that deserves respect. There have been many artists, famous as well as not, who have had their work displayed in venues that support their artistic intentions. As a generation of new artists, we owe it to this tradition of excellence in presentation to offer works with grace, humility, and respect. Besides respect for our predecessors and their work, we also ought to present our own work with dignity. By allowing our art to be displayed in an unsatisfactory manner, we degrade our own work, not to mention that it is disrespectful to the viewer. Viewers deserve strong presentations - not scuffs and scratches and old nail holes. If the weight of this issue is sincerely considered, the Mason Gross gallery should never again be allowed to appear publically in such a condition. It was an abomination and an embarrassment to art itself.
This is one of the pieces about which mixed feelings. As far as the physical painting, I think the point is conveyed. I stared at it for some time and tried to think about the process but I was at a loss. I could not understand what media were used let alone how the artist used them. I enjoyed looking at the three paintings that constitute the work and I thought there were many credible qualities. The first was the juice factor carried by the paint which looked quite delicious. I also thought the use of color was well thought-out. It seemed as though someone who is not in tune with their “inner color detector” would not have noticed the subtleties. I think of myself as a color theorist and noticed many delicate hue and value changes. Overall, I enjoyed the paintings. A confusing factor, however, is the presentation of the pieces. They were placed and leaned upon a pedestal in the center of the room. The pedestal was one of the stock pedestals- not custom designed by the artist in order to enhance the display of their work - and appeared as a last minute decision by the gallery staff. The pedestal was covered in scuffs and scrapes. Why? Some might say that perhaps the artist left these on purpose to give a private studio look. I feel this is a poor excuse for not cleaning the pedestal (it would only take a vinegar bath and some paint). I thought the overall effect looked thrown together as if not considered by the artist or the gallery director. On the off chance this was intentional, my suggestion would be to feature the scratches and scuffs so that they blend themselves into the art, instead of looking like surface damage.
This is another piece that I find unsatisfactory. Visually, it is pretty intense. At face value, it looks like it has a lot to say. It is a political piece that is meant to deliver a message of triumphant liberty. But when I read the blip at the top, I lost respect for it. It did not seem to say much. It sounds as if it was written for a newsletter special by an over-emotional high school student. The writing is very descriptive when it comes to surrounding inspirations and ideas, however the actual content appears shallow. Only toward the end of the poem does the essence emerge and it does not sound sufficiently heart-felt to be effective. “The whirlwind of politics” is not convincing. It is insufficiently specific, and I feel a work with such visual passion would be able to carry more literal detail. Only when the author starts talking about tea-bags and tea pots do I get an inkling as to a specific idea. Those small descriptive moments are necessary to make the theme consistent, decisive, and most importantly, committed. I do not understand how the author could be so beautifully descriptive in imagery, and at the same time not actually describe anything in particular. The balance is quite off and arouses doubt as to the sincerity of the thought. It makes me think the description is of a “been-there-done-that” idea that you could find in almost any emotional teenager’s daily journal.
I think the physical composition is fabulous! It is balanced and gives no trouble in seeing what the artist intended to feature (again, all of this is strictly opinion and I fully accept the possibility that I could be wrong). I also really love the color palette and value its complexity. There is an overall brownness that very clearly conveys desperation and longing for release. I think that the details toward the bottom could use more repetition and a little more space. I do think it has quite a great deal of presence as is, but perhaps it could be larger.
Another problem I have with it is the presentation. It was hung too high, folded and creased, and encased in shiny plastic film. First, why was it hung so much higher than the other pieces? Apparently this was an accident: I heard something about the piece being hung before the others. But given the height and size of the piece itself, it is obvious that the center should be as close to eye level as possible. Otherwise, the text at the top cannot be read and the piece looses momentum. I think it should have been re-installed that the appropriate height. It was distracting and it looked unsophisticated.
Second, the grid-like fold pattern looked shoddy. It did not look like it was supposed to be considered as an element of the piece. Third, the plastic film was very distracting because it was so shiny that you could not see the whole piece at once: either the top or the bottom was covered by a white sheen depending on where you stood in the gallery. I did not have a problem with it being encased or protected, but I don’t think that material was the best choice.
All in all, I think that the piece itself had some very powerful and compelling elements. I do not think that the prose at the top was even close to being satisfactory. The overall presentation (including installation) was poorly done and distracting from the substance that the piece might have. Unfortunately, I will never know the power of this piece because of the inadequate presentation. It just was not good enough and brought the whole show down.
This piece I found to be absolutely exquisite, without any hesitation. The first thing that I noticed was the range of color. It is limited, but to complimentary hues. This gives it an unusually full spectrum effect. This is due to a span from one extreme to the other- in this case blue to orange. In my opinion, those two colors together set a perfect example for warm vs. cool. The pattern in the water is painterly: abstract lines and patches, but descriptive and committed. This clearly was not Mr. Masso’s doing, but he certainly knew how to handle it. The framing is really perfect. I even love the balance of the black frame around the photograph.
After I basked in its beauty, I took a look at the tag. For one, I was glad to read that Tony Masso was the artist behind the lens. Then I read the title- Gulf of Mexico. I was truly stunned to discover that something I found so visually pleasing and rather spiritual had death, destruction, and plain old sadness surrounding it. It pains me now to think about it. Anyway, as a photograph, it is strong with elegance. The idea behind it is powerful and cuts right through to the soul. This was one of my favorites in the show. I would not mind seeing an entire exhibit of photographs like these. I think a show like that would mean a lot to many.
