Dude Weather Subscribe to Secrets Minneapolis / St. Paul

The Thousandth Word

Multipurpose

Share

Exhibitions discussed in this article:

Information Sickness and Time Fever by Molly Roth
At Thomas Barry Fine Arts through July 3rd

Roger Roger by Traci Tullius, and Meander, including work by Andrea Selese Carlson, Angela Zammarelli, Bethany Kalk, Brian Jorgenson, Caleb Coppock, Chad Rutter, Dan Tesene, Emily Smith, Erika Ritzel, Isa Gagarin, Joe Sinness, Markus Merkle, Mitchell Dose, Molly Roth, Robin Cotton, Ryan Macintyre, Sally Grayson, and Shepherd Alligood
At the Soap Factory through July 6th


The Multipurpose Statement

It is by now customary that single-artist shows come conjoined with texts like the one that accompanies Molly Roth's Information Sickness and Time Fever, at Thomas Barry Fine Arts. Striking a tone between the breathless and the merely descriptive, and often loaded with jargon, these multipurpose documents serve as a press release, advertisement, and curatorial explication in one. They argue for the significance of the work, and they often obviate the individual spectator's response, (or the critic's, for that matter).

Perhaps such a text, useful before and after the exhibition should be kept out of the gallery space, where it can interfere with the work. In the case of Roth's work, postcards peppered throughout the space assure us that it is "labor-intensive." We're told she works in "tiny bows," and currently her medium is "newspaper." Approaching the work will also reveal these things.


Could this text, that so carefully anticipates the correct response, be intended to alienate? After all, we're told that the work involves "the post-modern depressed subject." And if there is one thing that such a subject knows, it's that everything has already been said, read and interpreted.




But don't let anyone tell you that Roth's work isn't intriguing. Giant cursive words are mirrored across their midlines to create insect-like shapes. The resulting encryption leaves one final task, even for a subject thus interpolated. I won't spoil it for you by translating. What depressed this subject about the exhibit is that the work — one that suggests the crazed empowerment of creating a single bold and lasting word from the cultural detritus of millions of words that are instantly obsolete — was limited by its multipurpose document. The potential of discovery was, to a large degree foreclosed.


The Multipurpose Room

Before I tell you of my trials on the way to see the current exhibition at the Soap Factory, I'll say that you should hurry down to the show, if not to see the interesting failure of a collective work that is Meander, then to immerse yourself in Traci Tullius's majestically melancholic video installation work, Roger Roger.

I made time to see the exhibition on the Friday after its opening. But when I arrived at the gallery, workers setting up for a weekend wedding informed me that the gallery was closed. Upon asking when it would reopen, I was told, "Sunday."

The collapse of the interstate has left access to the gallery an endeavor. Second street is buried under rubble. North of Hennepin, Main street is closed indefinitely. Traffic clogs the remaining routes most days and evenings. Not to be denied again, but wanting to see the work before the gallery's Monday-Wednesday weekend, I phoned the number on the website during gallery hours and reached a recording. There was no mention of the closure, nor the resumption of regular hours. Discouraged, I elected not to waste another trip but left a message. I received a call the next day informing me that it had been open Sunday and would be open again on Thursday during regular hours.

Thursday, I ducked in briefly on my way to a meeting to confirm that a special trip on Saturday would be warranted. But when I returned, an unannounced arts and crafts sale was filling the entire gallery. DJs had set up in the center of one of the galleries and were playing dance music for the attendant shoppers. The throb of commerce obliterated the layered audio track that accompanies Tullius's work. A video advertisement for the Sound Unseen film festival had been installed so near to Tullius's piece that it appeared to be a part of it. "I'm pretty sure that wasn't there before," I said to my companion. A fourth visit confirmed this.

I finally managed to have the experience with Tullius's work that it deserves. In the cool and vacant gallery, six large video screens are hung like sheets on washing lines. Video projections show performances and private moments. Yet everything is shot through with the profound loneliness of place — a vacant venue, a deserted car dealership, and a weather-beaten farmhouse. In most of the videos, the lens observes a private moment, attended by no one but the camera. Contrasted to this, family videos evoke the homey nostalgia of filial companionship and harmony. Tullius has an eye for the evocative moment, and she understands that as a video artist, her effort should be focused on selection and subtraction. In the black space at the end of one loop, one can see another screen reflected, suggesting the idle mind's movement to memory and repetition.


The Soap Factory is an unconventional art space, and it owes some of its success to its cross pollination — hosting craft events, film screenings and a haunted house to generate the revenue that keeps its doors open. But it's worth questioning whether a gallery that is effectively closed during two weekends of a six-week run is really fulfilling its obligation to the featured artists. If nothing else, The Soap Factory needs to be honest about when it is open for art viewing and when it is open for other functions, or closed altogether, so that viewers serious about seeing the art on display don't get discouraged.

The second work on display at The Soap Factory, Meander, is a collective work by artists too numerous to list in the text of this article. It's a mishmash of roughly hewn sculpture, drawing and painting laid directly on the unfinished timbers of the gallery, where it seems likely to be eaten by a passing swarm of silverfish. Most of the works are unsigned. Some are identifiable to those familiar with an artist's idioms and thematic concerns. With its varied light, its unfinished aesthetic, and its wide-open rooms, The Soap Factory can overwhelm all but the most focused and brilliant exhibition. Fellow writer Andy Sturdevant has noted that Meander is explicitly an attempt to deal with this problem. Its partial success is a testament to the specificity of the space.

The urge to blanket such a work with the some textual analysis, some manifesto of hive mind pluralism conjoined with a fictional unity must be almost irresistible. More on group shows next time, but I'm grateful in this case for a silence that bravely foregrounds the in-itselfness of the diffuse, collective work. The exhibition ultimately lives or dies by its own merit on the gallery floor, dependent on the eyes and ideas of the individual viewers as much as on those of the artists and curators who have placed it there. Its rugged, rangy self-sufficience is an extreme example of art unhelped and unhindered by self-analysis.


4 Reader Comments

Susannah Schouweiler (not verified)01:08pm
Jun 17
Thanks for the nuanced take on this, Collier. I've been wondering about these shows, and your point on the intrusiveness of in-gallery write-ups has got me thinking about the usefulness (or not) of such things--at what point does providing helpful supplementary information and context for an artist's work become a distraction to the viewer's own experience of the pieces on display? I have to admit, I appreciate a certain amount of guidance and context when seeing work by an artist who is new to me; but, you've got me thinking about the placement and delivery of such explanations. Feels like apology, PR, when it's placed next to work in the gallery, doesn't it?
Charles Matson Lume (not verified)08:12pm
Jun 18
In 1977 Robert Irwin had a show at the Whitney. After the show was hung the museum put up the usual signage/info about the artist, art, etc. Throughout the duration of exhibition, Irwin paid someone to remove the sign(s) each time the museum put it back up. What was Irwin up to? I think he was giving the viewer freedom to discover the art on its, and the viewer's, terms. I appreciate Irwin's approach and his sense of trust in the viewer. Thanks Collier for your thoughtful insights into this issue. Bravo!
jend (not verified)09:34am
Jun 22
Thanks, Collier. I appreciate your comments about in-gallery-write-ups. As an artist, it has always been my least favorite part about putting together an exhibition. When people enter the gallery they often go straight for the written words and then look at the artwork through the filter of my own inarticulate, forced writing. Cringe! I wonder if my paintings are failing to communicate. I wish they could speak for themselves but People Want Words.
Brennan (not verified)02:44am
Jul 1
Dear Mr. White, In the same spirit that you have challenged your readers to reconsider the over-expository gallery didactic, I wish to volley a challenge back at you: to focus your critical attention more precisely towards the actual content of the artwork your blog essays claim to critique and less upon your own personal frustrations with gallery scheduling errors and wordy didactics. I feel it is the primary duty and responsibility of art critics everywhere to thoughtfully and comprehensively examine the work of the artists they publicly discuss, and I strongly feel that your entry "Multipurpose" fails in carrying out this responsibility. I wholeheartedly agree that gallery write-ups can strip away the nuance and magic of the artwork they discuss. However, in using the majority of your discussion of Molly Roth's show to focus on this single aspect instead of comprehensively examining the actual substance of the work on display, you give the impression that this type of excessive exposition is specific to Ms. Roth's work and not a chronic obligation imposed by the gallery institution. I believe Ms. Roth's 'multi-purpose document' is merely one of the many unfortunate hoops she must jump through in order to show her work publicly and potentially sell it, possibly financially fueling further artistic endeavors. Precisely the same type of document is required of the innumerable other artists displaying in for-profit galleries in this country and around the world; this is a problem endemic to the longstanding (and destructive) traditions of the gallery institution and is in little or no way the responsibility of the artist who is merely trying to find a way to financially gain from the artwork he/she toils to create. If you agree with me in arguing this distracting 'multi-purpose document' is the fault of a larger system, why end your critique there? There are countless other ways that the gallery setting distracts the viewer from having a sincere and emotive encounter with the art on display. Why not discuss how manicured, white walls and buffed wood floors impose many creativity-crushing spatial limitations? Why not also point the finger at the exhaustive wine-and-cheese opening parties that are less celebrative than they are pretentious? Why not expose how these superficial masquerades are successful in creating a breed of elitism that is simply offensive in the context of creativity? Respectfully, I believe your focus on this single aspect of Molly Roth's show is an unsuccessful attempt to shirk your responsibility of thoroughly and critically examining the actual work produced by this artist. In the same way you feel her mandatory multi-purpose document 'alienates' the viewer from the content of the artwork, I feel your fixation with this detail has alienated you from the attempt to initiate a truly thoughtful, in-depth discussion of her physical work. In your essay, I see three paragraphs criticizing the long-winded gallery write-up and merely three sentences mentioning (but not thoroughly entering) the content of her work. If you are going to publicly discuss the artwork of an artist (especially when your tone of critique suggests a negative reaction to that work), I feel it is your duty to provide an honest and thorough investigation of that artwork. Otherwise, your thoughts come across as half-hearted and half-assed. I know this is most likely not your intention, but it is unfortunately (for me, at least) the impression you leave your reader. I had similar qualms with the second half of your essay in which you discuss the Meander show. Again, I see a full three paragraphs of frustrated objections to the Soap Factory's answering machine, craft-sale and the 35W bridge collapse but you do not expend half that much text illuminating the abundant artwork on display in that show. If you are to introduce the show as an 'interesting failure,' then I feel you best use your word count in service to that argument (fully forming it with passion and sincerity) and not necessarily in service of your own personal grievances with gallery management. Again, unbalanced attention to these details causes another alienation, that of alienating yourself and your reader from any in-depth discussion or critique of the actual art on hand. I strongly believe the true positive potential that art criticism has in the world is to challenge viewers, artists and critics alike to engage sincerely, deeply and judiciously with artwork. I don't feel your essay accomplished that potential. If you are to publicly discuss artwork that is often the product of sincere and thoughtful engagement on the part of the artist, then I feel you owe it to the artist whose work you view to engage with that work sincerely and comprehensively. Your subsequent essays should reflect such an active engagement. This engagement should not manifest as a ratio of three paragraphs of complaint to every three sentences of tangible critique. The message you send is that grieving over gallery-hours and traffic patterns trumps the idea of meticulous and heartfelt evaluation of artwork. To make clear, I agree with how you challenge the Soap Factory's accountability to its artists and keeping its scheduling errors in check, as well as keeping commercial galleries on their toes regarding the didactics they place on their walls, I feel these types of concerns have a well-deserved place within art critique. However, those kind of concerns should be proportionally less to critical discussion of the physical artwork and should not act as a diversion from your responsibility to think intensely and genuinely about what is it art makes you feel/think/imagine. I thank you for reading this and I hope you understand that my arguments are in the same constructive-natured spirit of the challenges you present to Molly Roth, the Thomas Barry Gallery and the Soap Factory. If you disagree with or challenge any of my arguments here, then I encourage you to hold me accountable in the same way I have tried to hold you. Sincerely, Brennan

Blogs

Sports

Baseball:
Warning Track Power by Alex Halsted
Sports:
On the Ball by Britt Robson

Society

Weather:
Dude Weather by Jimmy Gaines

A&E

Fiction:
Write Now! by Terry Faust

Retired

Hockey:
Spazz Dad by Todd Smith
Style:
Hook & Eye
Misc:
Is This News?
Fiction:
Yo, Ivanhoe by Brad Zellar
Food:
Consider the Egg by Stephanie March
Wine:
Beyond the Cask
Food:
Food Fight!
Media:
To the Slaughter
Misc:
Outrage by Staff
Food:
Chef's Table
Guest Commentary:
Just Passing Through
Humor:
Spazz Dad by Todd Smith
Cars:
Road Rake by Chris Birt
Commentary:
Read Menace by Tom Bartel
Society:
The Adventures of Melinda by Melinda Jacobs
Politics:
Defenestrator by Rich Goldsmith
Food:
Breaking Bread by Jeremy Iggers & Ann Bauer
Books:
Cracking Spines by Max Ross
Music:
Hear, Hear by Staff
Art:
The Vicious Circle by 6 Critics
Secrets:
Secrets of the Day by Kate Iverson
Theater:
Seen in the City by Staff
Film:
Talk About Talkies by Staff