Grad Student Exhibit Review

Caution: Don’t Lose the Message
Art is one of those things that everyone has a distinctly unique approach to, which has never been as clear as when walking into the latest grad student display in the art museum here on campus. Among the varied mediums of art displayed were the installations, paintings, multimedia video, ceramics, and sketches. For one reason or another, one of the simplest displays became this reviewer’s favorite.
By Brad Dinsmore, the piece is named Nervous Rabbit. At first glance, there sits an enthusiastic ceramic cat named Cat with Flowers, anxiously presenting flowers to its audience. Whether the cat is funny or cute is irrelevant to the true observer. What is particularly engaging about this piece is that on the floor, just peeking around the corner of the pedestal, sits a ceramic rabbit with flowers of his own, politely and cautiously offering them to the audience. The two in tandem intrigue me because there is more to it than at that first glance. In fact, the rabbit seems to be the significant one that would be noticed if only someone would look closer. The rabbit is so subtle that most people probably overlook it entirely and leave thinking they have seen everything to see, which is a mistake. There is always more to see. In that way, the rabbit represents the true nature of art; by peeking around the corner, the rabbit offers the audience more than just flowers and more than what is seen at a superficial glance.
As a whole, the exhibit is disconnected, which is understandable because they are several artists with their own visions. In some ways, the artists’ ideas converge. For example, Dinsmore’s People and Proverbs intersects with Dustin Price’s Untitled pillow tree installation in the center of the room. Both pieces demonstrate a theme of acquired knowledge and wisdom. Dinsmore features phrases we often hear in daily life and common sayings that have become empty thanks to exhaustion; Price’s tree emphasizes peace and perhaps a new approach to ideas in general, treating them with gentle respect. When the pieces in this exhibit work together, they are much more impactful than on their own.
Some of the pieces on display such as Sailor, the video featuring barriers, tunnels, and doors, are pleasantly ambiguous while achieving a level of coherency. Others, such as the installation in the corner with lights, a cut-out cow, and paper chains, make me think that the modern artist is a professional marijuana smoker who needs to legitimize his or her hobby by making money to buy more marijuana. It is clear that modern art is not for everyone or the faint of heart (or lungs). Usually I can find a reason to respect an artist, but the installation in the corner (of which I unfortunately neglected to record the name) weakens my resolve to respect art that I do not understand. As far as collective messages go, I could not find one hidden in the layers of installations. Individual pieces had more clearly discernable purposes, but the collective exhibit was not orchestrated to be so articulate.
Art these days seems to be less about representing what is and has been as provoking the audience to think about abstract ideas. Sometimes, however, it appears that in attempting to reach that upper echelon the messages are lost completely.

The Met!

Among the exhibits we visited was the hall of medieval art. One of the major themes was of course pious humility. Most pieces featured the Madonna. This makes sense because at the time, most everything in the world was explained in terms of religious perspective and was defined be relationship to God. Therefore, it also makes sense that people of the time would feature the Madonna on their walls, entryways, and fireplaces. If religion was the most important aspect of their lives, and it certainly played a large part, it is only natural that the likeness of Jesus and His mother be prominent in their daily lives.
Another of the exhibits that we had time to visit was the American wing. Mostly in this section were furniture (which looked comfortable and appealing after running around New York all day) and portraits. Something that I thought a lot about while walking through the exhibit was why these two forms of art might be so prominent in early American culture as opposed to something like clay working or architecture or statues like one might find in Europe. My answer to myself is primarily that people create art with the supplies to which they have access. Based on the fact that the nation was merely trying to establish itself, consider the idea that people are also trying to establish a social hierarchy, and one way of doing that is by possessing art pieces. Coming to a new continent, while not completely equalizing, certainly leveled the playing field a bit. At the same time, people needed furniture. Maybe the two needs collided, and suddenly having ornamental furniture filled that purpose. That is not to say that having elaborate furniture did not fill that purpose before, but it possibly became the primary means to identify someone’s status within those high-flying circles.
Finally, we ended our tour of the museum with the suits of armor. There is little to say about them except that it is surprising how much ornament and effort was put into something that had a lot of potential to be beaten in.
Overall, I wish we had had more time to spend in the Met. As it was, we only got to spend a few measly hours. One could certainly spend days exploring without seeing everything.

Heidi Chronicles

There's certainly a lot one can say about the Heidi Chronicles, and a lot of things have been said in class about it. I did like the set (which I thought looked more symbolically like a hangman game than a picture frame), and I liked the omnipresent music and how it lightly complemented the mood of the scene without being so blatant that it was overbearing. Even so, I cannot honestly say that I am a fan of the play as a whole.

I thought it was without direction, discernible theme, or overall message. I know the ending is somewhat ambiguous, probably on purpose, but it frustrates me that the final scene does not put a capstone on the play like it should. If either the rest of the play or the ending was opaque, I would be fine with it, but it wasn't. I spent the entire time reading/watching it wondering exactly what the author was trying to tell me about... something... as a woman. Perhaps I was just not in the right mood to be exposed to the story.

Possible "morals of the story":
1. Feminists can't be happy.
2. You can't have it all as a woman.
3. Heidi expected too much too fast from her life as a feminist.
4. Feminism is more about the right to choose your path than "having it all".
5. Don't make the same mistakes that Heidi did, being too preoccupied with her status as a woman and forgetting to live her life according to what she actually wanted.
6. The depth of womanhood knows few bounds, but the bounds are delineated by men.
7. Wasserstein only wants "equal time and consideration" for women.

I know that in whatever people read or see, they bring different backgrounds to it and therefore get something different out of it--individual differences in the audience can change the art piece that is interpreted. Therefore, I suppose there might not be any way to agree on what the message of the play was, but mostly it just depressed me.

Note: It's certainly interesting that in the painting she mentions, The Beheading of Holofernes, the woman committing the act is named Judith. Coincidence?