Maverick #579 Chelsea Notes: 2009 New York Gallery Shows Through the Holidays Maverick #578 Irreverent Object Museum Level Survey at Luhring Augustine Maverick #577 Eric Fischl Is Full of Bull at Mary Boone The Eyes Have It for Marc Quinn Uptown Maverick #576 Inigo Manglano-Ovalle Stands Modernism on Its Head Inverts Mies Glass House at Mass MoCA Maverick #575 Lynda Benglis Retrospective at Dublin's Museum of Modern Art New York Show at Cheim & Read

Small Pleasures The DeCordova Annual 2003 June 16, 2003 Small Pleasures The 2003 DeCordova Annual Exhibition Lincoln, Massachusetts Including: Hannah Barrett, Bruce Bemis, John Bisbee, Morgan Cohen, Dave Cole, Lars-Erik Fisk, Heather Hobler-Keene, Steve Hollinger, Jennifer Maestre, Jane Masters and Laura McPhee Curated by: Rachel Rosenfeld Lafo, Nick Capasso, George Fifield, and Francine Weiss June 7 through August 31 In medieval maps Jerusalem was identified as the epicenter of the universe. Place the point of the compass in the city in which Christ died and then describe a circle around it. Similarly, if one pondered the cartography of the art of the New England region, stick your point in Lincoln, Mass., home of the DeCordova Museum and Sculpture Garden, then start circling. Madly. For this seems to be what its curators, Rachel Rosenfeld Lafo, Nick Capasso, George Fifield, and Francine Weiss do. Circle madly, year after year, since 1989, spinning about like busy worker bees, reporting back to museum director, Paul Master Karnik, to come up with ever more enervating annuals. One applauds the work ethic and dedication but just longs for more insight and risk taking in all of that activity. Over its many years the Annuals have become all too predictable. There are always the small pleasures of perhaps two or three artists worth the effort to make that long winding drive down Trapelo Road, past the lush, posh suburban mansions of the region’s quality folks. The list of artists change but the. curator by committee, sensibility strikes one as déjà vu all over again. One just wished that these curators would take a few chances and get over their hangup so succinctly expressed in their oft-repeated catalogue statements, “All decisions are reached by consensus- all the curators, as well as the director, must agree about the choice of each artist. This process seeks to ensure both breadth of scope (and taste) and a precise focus on excellence.” It’s that word, “excellence,” that so annoys me. What the fuck does that mean. And what does that have to do with art. Further, who is to decide that. What arrogance. Based on what? Just how does one define excellence? Are there rules? Is it bigger than a breadbox or smaller than a thimble? When pressed on this, in various panels and other art world discussions and debates, that comes out as some idea of craft. That the work is well made and is defined by its integrity. Yes, that does describe a lot of contemporary work. The salons of the 19th century were filled with art that fit that category. But, today, nobody gives a damn about that ‘excellent’ work. Other than the general public which always falls for that notion of craft and integrity. There is the familiar ooh and aah factor. Gosh how did he do that. Isn’t that amazing. Wow. Yes, then what. After the snap, crackle and pop, what I look for in a work of art is that more ephemeral and humanistic question of how am I moved and changed. Does it expand my vision or resonate with deep inner emotions. Does a work of art facilitate getting in touch with primal emotion. Is the aesthetic of the piece serene and sublime or raw and earthy. Looking for excellence in art means that I come to the process with my own preconceived set of standards. That mitigates against the idea of impact and discovery. It implies that, yes, this is interesting, and yes I am moved, but I am not quite sure. Let's have a meeting and see if my initial responses survive the test of consensus. Let’s chat and have sandwiches and tea and engage in a lively debate. How terribly civilized. And how would Rousseau’s notion of the Noble Savage survive such scrutiny? Where is the room in such a set of standards for the wild, raw, untamed, revolting and mad work that so often excites and changes us. Applying such academic standards to this year’s salon one attempts to define and interpret just what is meant by excellence. In terms of craft and execution, particularly the use and understanding of media, the techniques of assembly, the execution of these objects, yes they are all excellent. There is a lot here about exotic materials. Jennifer Maestre, for example, makes small scale sculptures painstakingly crafted from many, glued together points and amputated stubs of sharpened colored pencils. John Bisbee works with large nails and spikes, which he bends, into circles and balls or welds into long graduated grids on the floor. David Cole makes sculpted teddy bears of varying scales from a variety of materials including pink insulation material. Beyond an initial fascination with what these artists work with there is little to sustain further interest. Jane Masters has wall papered a corridor with a complex pattern and brightly colored background. It has something to do with a childhood memory of an animated film, The Magic Round. Hannah Barrett is obsessed with presenting images of her gender-conflated family. She is painting over computer generated collages. Sorry, but, sad to say, her parents are freakish and these images have a nightmarish quality in a manner which is more annoying than insightful. I am not anxious to have another exposure to this work. Truth is, I have enough troubles of my own without dwelling on her family issues. Heather Hobler-Keene makes squiggley, cut out, candy colored pinkish painted forms that glob onto a pistachio colored wall. It seems too like what one currently sees in art schools. The photographs of vignettes of India by Laura McPhee, are indeed excellent. Gorgeous color and superb large format prints. But more than that. Beyond the command of her medium the images are compelling and rich. A view of the interior of a movie theater with its rows of ancient mutilated seats is intriguing. There is an image of the front of a brightly-lit, sari shop window. It is the kind of subject that one would encounter in a painting by the super realist Richard Estes. Or, earlier on, a painting by Edward Hopper. While the work seduces with its exotic location and subjects it reveals that the artist has an eye and vision behind the camera. Morgan Cohen uses his camera to make “abstract” images which, when deciphered, become details of a room. The emphasis is not on a recognizable scene or subject but to, “paint,” with the camera. To use film for pure color and light and to find that material rather than create it from scratch. The large ball, seemingly fabricated from elements of a Volswagen Bug, by Lars-Erik Fisk, is really terrific. It is so totally over the top and outrageous. And, of course, drum roll please, exquisitely crafted down to the curved windows and wiper blades. How one would love to have the chance to roll along the highway in such a unique vehicle. We look forward to further encounters with this gifted and clever artist. The most adventurous inclusions in the DeCordova Annuals in recent years have been in the domain of new media. This reflects the influence of George Fifield, an adjunct curator, and founder of the Cyberarts Festival. He has become a national and international presence in his chosen field. Accordingly, his taste and vision extend far beyond the boundaries of the New England States. This is reflected in the selection of the widely respected artist, Bruce Bemis. He has been given a room in which two antique loops of found, black and white film are projected onto a large silver ball and the resultant image is splayed out onto the surrounding walls. The subject is a group of people endless swimming under water. It is intriguing that the artist uses looped film and projectors in an age when aspects of video technology dominate. The antiquated super eight projectors as objects are an integral aspect of the work. That recalled the experience of viewing an installation using double rows of projectors by the late German artist, Dieter Roth, in last year’s documenta. That was vintage work but here Bemis seems to be fascinated by the archaeology of technology. We have saved the best for last. A gallery with the small but exquisite animated objects by Steve Hollinger. They create microcosmic worlds of floating bats, wiggley jelly fish, a tiny mannequin nestled into an open book as a back prop, who bows a miniscule violin. They are rather like animated versions of the assemblages of Varujan Begoshian. Or vitrines in the tradition of Joseph Cornell. You will want to spend intimate time with these fascinating objects. That was difficult, if not impossible, during the crowded opening night. The museum was mobbed with visitors even on a miserable rainy night. It indicates the enormous interest in the museum and its mandate. Truly, they are pursuing a mission statement that we all believe in and support. We only wish that the results of their efforts were more profound. ----- Print-friendly View Copy the link below and paste it into an email, web page or blog to share this article.