Dear Unapologist

Shady criticism about Kansas City's art scene from an unapologetic bitch who has no business answering any of these questions. Dear Unapologist, Yours truly, An art critic just like everybody else

[dearunapologist]

On Translating An Artist Statement 1

If you found Gallucci's writing to be filled with buzzwords, then you probably would enjoy Caleb Taylor's artist statement. Could you translate it?

Here is Taylor's artist statement. 

Translation: 

I am aware of my actions and the ways we mentally and physically engage with our surroundings. When I turn these engagements with our surroundings into visual art, it informs my art practice and further creates its own abstract marks/strokes, visual cues, etc. My paintings and collages look at how our body is a part of our idea of man-made spaces. Something touchable and non-representational, this work is informed by architecture, properties of the body, and my observations of movements.

I like to look at the complicated relationship between the body and its surroundings through visual elements such as color, materials, and size. My art practice is guided by formal visual elements that use minimal and expressive forms to understand different ways to physically control. Through processes based on planning and feelings, I understand the facts of painting and the possibilities of making images.

I have found the things that my eyes can see are created by reducing visual information down to something I can understand. Because of this, it forces me to question the importance of what is invisible but still is present. I look to find hidden images in an attempt to create a sense of depth for the viewer and myself. This process of painting over things creates a relationship: the layer that covers and the layers being covered. The end result has some layers underneath peaking out. These paintings and collages create nonexistent places where the ways of seeing are also part of the art.

Conclusion:

He really likes to see, think about seeing, and think about how seeing affects what we do. He thinks his artwork's content is more than just the work he creates but also the viewer's way of looking at it. He writes as if he is an objective scientist who paints like an abstract expressionist to discover the secrets of seeing. Pretty pompous shit if you ask me.

[dearunapologist]

On 50/50

Are you excited for 50/50 to open?

I cannot be any more excited to see a new alternative space opening up for emerging to mid-career local and national artists. Cambria Potter and Hannah Lodwick--such a great duo by the way--have worked very hard on obtaining a Rocket Grant and meeting their goal on Kickstarter to fund 50/50. They definitely deserve it, and KC is already proud of them.

My only worry is that I do not want to see it get muddled with too many big named KC artists, like Peregrine Honig, who are already deeply embedded in many galleries, artist talks, and programming around the city on a routine basis. 50/50 has such a great opportunity to nurture and showcase already talented but greatly under represented artists in the area. I will just have to wait and see.

(Just another month and a half until their grand opening!)

[dearunapologist]

On Buzzwords Hindering Art

What do you think of Madeline Gallucci's work?

Simply, Gallucci's work is very pretty.

The colors and patterns are what viewers could stare at--even want to stare at--for an extended period of time without any discernible change in the viewer's way of thinking afterwards. With similar techniques, colors, forms, and movement as Eric Sall's work (see Peacebone) or Nate Fors' work (see rule of denial or sour wormholes), Gallucci takes these same trendy elements and multiplies them. Titles like Oil Slick I or Confectionary help to further showcase these frivolous qualities, so Gallucci was smart there.

What I have a problem with is what she says about it. There is the long-been-discussed argument about whether or not one should read artist statements or listen to what the artist has to say about his or her work. I do not care to argue about that here, but I would like to note when an artist does present us with this information in the form of their website, interviews, wall didactics, or exhibition pamphlets then all is fair game in the interpretation of their work.

Using buzzwords like "anomalies", "ambiguity", "mundane", "physicality", and "transformative", Gallucci ends up trying to heighten the conceptual side of her work but falling flat. "The physicality of drawing, painting, and collage emphasizes the curious nature of my findings, which eventually leads to a transformative vocabulary of these encounters." The inherent fact that any artist is making work about a topic describes the curious nature of their findings. 

What's wrong with making something pretty for pretty's sake without defending it with conceptualized writing or artspeak? It gets pretty tiresome when artists try to sound like a romantic genius by latching onto typical subjects like the mundane or the everyday. One would think by now the mundane would no longer be mundane.