1/29/06 "Mountains Clouds Turbulence Coastlines"
"Mountains Clouds Turbulence Coastlines" by Dolores Wilbur
Friday, Jan. 28
performed at Wedge Gallery
Turns out this group (Wholesale Chicago, thought not listed as that in the festival literature) were guest artists (as I discovered later), so it makes sense that they stood out. Really interesting visual images. I liked the piece, though not without qualification.
Performance area was one section of the Wedge bounded by steel pillars. Projection screen stretched across full width of back (20'?). Downstage (right by my feet) were: a chair left of center; three big stainless steel bowl, one filled with orange string, one with nails, sand, and other metal bits, one empty (I think) or had in it three hand grenades painted different colors; down left center: a little plastic white picket fence lying flat; three used artillery shells (12-18" high); some other objects I don't remember. Orange strings ran at various angles through the air above the space; one string, running past audience down left had a safety pin on it. The piece involved two male performers in orange jumpsuits with false heads and shoulders rising above their own (unseen) heads. They were tall (over 8 '?) and moved slowly for the most part: stunning figures, haunting faces. (see two photos below and also at: http://www.artnet.com/Magazine/features/cassidy/cassidy6-30-05.asp#4)
They entered the space and performed against a video consisting of different images--the two I remember were a child's face (looked Palestinian) and a sequence in which a heart was butchered. There was an audio track which was, I think, separate from the video: at one point a child's voice reading what sounded like instructions on preparing for a suicide mission (?). The figures didn't speak.
The performers executed several actions: sifting through sand & nails (preparing bomb?), rolling grenades around in hands with increasing agitation, trying to untangle clumps of string, holding each other, rocking in chair, hitting various poses. At one point late in the piece one of the heads was ripped off and the figure held it in his hands for the rest of the performance. At another moment, one figure was prone on his back and the other unzipped his jumpsuit revealing his actual face below the dummy (but realistic) face. Disturbing. At another point, one figure stood on a small box while the other turned in place, both with bits of orange string extended from their hands: The connection with Abu Ghrave photos was obvious. At the end, a bagpiper entered from behind the audience and led them out.
The visual composition and images were stunning but at one point I felt the performance drag: shorter would have been stronger. I was impressed but somehow not excited by the piece (maybe I shouldn't have been); disturbed, yes, but what I found most disturbing was that at one point (Abu Ghrave) I felt offended. I thought, "Here is an artist using real--and very obvious, which was maybe part of the problem--visual images from something horrific to make her art object," and it felt wrong to me. Opportunistic and kind of tawdry. But why that reaction? Obviously, art should create an experience that is a response to the world, to what is going on. Good politically engaged art is what we need. I think it was the fact that it was used to make the piece aesthetically "interesting" that bothered me. How is that different from Picasso's "Guernica"?
Objections aside (or included): It was good work. Pretentious, sure, but interesting and moving and disturbing, too. Glad I saw it. To bad it wasn't someone local, as I had thought.
Friday, Jan. 28
performed at Wedge Gallery
Turns out this group (Wholesale Chicago, thought not listed as that in the festival literature) were guest artists (as I discovered later), so it makes sense that they stood out. Really interesting visual images. I liked the piece, though not without qualification.
Performance area was one section of the Wedge bounded by steel pillars. Projection screen stretched across full width of back (20'?). Downstage (right by my feet) were: a chair left of center; three big stainless steel bowl, one filled with orange string, one with nails, sand, and other metal bits, one empty (I think) or had in it three hand grenades painted different colors; down left center: a little plastic white picket fence lying flat; three used artillery shells (12-18" high); some other objects I don't remember. Orange strings ran at various angles through the air above the space; one string, running past audience down left had a safety pin on it. The piece involved two male performers in orange jumpsuits with false heads and shoulders rising above their own (unseen) heads. They were tall (over 8 '?) and moved slowly for the most part: stunning figures, haunting faces. (see two photos below and also at: http://www.artnet.com/Magazine/features/cassidy/cassidy6-30-05.asp#4)
They entered the space and performed against a video consisting of different images--the two I remember were a child's face (looked Palestinian) and a sequence in which a heart was butchered. There was an audio track which was, I think, separate from the video: at one point a child's voice reading what sounded like instructions on preparing for a suicide mission (?). The figures didn't speak.
The performers executed several actions: sifting through sand & nails (preparing bomb?), rolling grenades around in hands with increasing agitation, trying to untangle clumps of string, holding each other, rocking in chair, hitting various poses. At one point late in the piece one of the heads was ripped off and the figure held it in his hands for the rest of the performance. At another moment, one figure was prone on his back and the other unzipped his jumpsuit revealing his actual face below the dummy (but realistic) face. Disturbing. At another point, one figure stood on a small box while the other turned in place, both with bits of orange string extended from their hands: The connection with Abu Ghrave photos was obvious. At the end, a bagpiper entered from behind the audience and led them out.
The visual composition and images were stunning but at one point I felt the performance drag: shorter would have been stronger. I was impressed but somehow not excited by the piece (maybe I shouldn't have been); disturbed, yes, but what I found most disturbing was that at one point (Abu Ghrave) I felt offended. I thought, "Here is an artist using real--and very obvious, which was maybe part of the problem--visual images from something horrific to make her art object," and it felt wrong to me. Opportunistic and kind of tawdry. But why that reaction? Obviously, art should create an experience that is a response to the world, to what is going on. Good politically engaged art is what we need. I think it was the fact that it was used to make the piece aesthetically "interesting" that bothered me. How is that different from Picasso's "Guernica"?
Objections aside (or included): It was good work. Pretentious, sure, but interesting and moving and disturbing, too. Glad I saw it. To bad it wasn't someone local, as I had thought.
posted by Graham at 5:47 PM
0 comments
