The difference between you and me
The Ian Potter Museum of Art
University of Melbourne, August 2005
What a disappointing no thrills exhibition. It’s not so much the works in the show but the way they've been killed that’s the problem. Motohiko Odani’s video work Rompers, a post-nature/neo-genome rollick, might have created a lively ambience but is so tamely installed with the sound down ever so low. Lothar Hempel’s works look strangely unrelated to each other and rather than having a friction between the different use of materials they are flat and inactive. The Baselitz painting, borrowed from an Australian collection, seems to be the means by which to include the famous European artist. It’s David Noonan, Tracey Moffatt and Richard Larter’s works that add some verve to the show. And Larter’s works, in particular, are so good you want rub yourself on them. One goes to a show like this with every expectation it’s going to be good, especially given the gallery has been closed for maintenance for nearly two years. This show takes no risks and changes nothing.
Jacqueline Riva
University of Melbourne, August 2005
What a disappointing no thrills exhibition. It’s not so much the works in the show but the way they've been killed that’s the problem. Motohiko Odani’s video work Rompers, a post-nature/neo-genome rollick, might have created a lively ambience but is so tamely installed with the sound down ever so low. Lothar Hempel’s works look strangely unrelated to each other and rather than having a friction between the different use of materials they are flat and inactive. The Baselitz painting, borrowed from an Australian collection, seems to be the means by which to include the famous European artist. It’s David Noonan, Tracey Moffatt and Richard Larter’s works that add some verve to the show. And Larter’s works, in particular, are so good you want rub yourself on them. One goes to a show like this with every expectation it’s going to be good, especially given the gallery has been closed for maintenance for nearly two years. This show takes no risks and changes nothing.
Jacqueline Riva
posted by speech at
1:25 PM
5 Comments:
In this return to painting it looks like no one ever left. The museum appears to be defending an old type of formalism. But why?
One theory puts it that this old style of formalism is on its way back in style in Australia, and has been back in style in Europe since about 2002.
do you think this urge for formalism is the same in both places? For the same reasons?
I think there are a multitude of different reasons in both places. Some of which overlap. Some of which are to do with art trends, others existing on a broader sociopolitical level.
Oops, I guess everyone thinks I've run away from those comments. I haven't but I do have to admit that the lazy curating I was referring to would seem to have subsided in recent years. Scanning over the websites of various institutions inclined to do curated shows, I did not find evidence of the phenomena I was speaking of amongst shows from the last year and a half. So.. I'm willing to take that back. I still think that Bala's curatorial approach is refreshing, a little crazy and I'm just not seeing this formalist problem. Why is the 'painting's back', 'painting's dead' issue so big? We all know that lots of people keep painting. It's fun putting paint on stuff and it looks good. There's money and status in it. Why does this issue continue to be discussed? It also applies to the current Primavera which makes some claims about the return of painting.
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home