Thoughts on sculpture in general and work by Michelle Lopez and Ester Partegàs, with an aside on Vincent Fecteau (the Alex Honnold of sculpture? - maybe).
This is so interesting, considering our debate yesterday. I love the works here that you panned and relate to them completely.
Ester Partegàs's "Two Moons" is immediately evocative, conjuring up the delicacies of home life, the fantasies of nightlife, and the brokenness of all of those intimacies in our current life now.
I don't have as fast of a read on "knead, penetrate, let go (cat spaceship donut)" but I liked it as well: the textures of the pummous stone (?), the strange office tape, the tiny stickers. This combination is satisfying, even if it doesn't communicate a single clear story as fast.
I appreciate you saying you're comparing these works to Bruce Nauman’s, "whose “self” is always constructed"...And also I think this reveals an important point about how art standards consider masculinity / public life is a worthy subject where as feminitiy and the domestic are still thought of as throw aways and unworthy of deep analysis - ESPECIALLY when they have references to mothering and children.
Thanks again for the note. Perhaps influencing my own take is that these things aren't quite as readily gendered in my own domestic life; I've been doing my own laundry since I was in middle school, and I do most of my family's laundry now, so those baskets, while they might speak of home, they don't speak of "femininity" to me (more just work, labor, etc.). And given that Partegàs is using them as forms, not as objects, the associations are even more attenuated. I also do the dishes in our house (you might get the sense; I'm a bit fastidious), so the sponges and scourers are kind of "my" stuff. If I find Partegàs's works less compelling, I think it's because I find a confusion of singnication in them, and don't take them as emblems of one or the other side of this masculine/feminine divide, any more than I would the desk chair or bricks or other items that appear in her work.
Of course not. But I’m interested in “how” these things try to mean or come to mean what they do. I’m not coming to a conclusion about what they do or must mean and then judging that.
i'm saying what they mean subjectively. not objectively. i think you are claiming more objectivity than me which...I think you already know what i'd say about that.
also i'd love to learn more about this statement: that you're interested in how these things come to mean what they do. from what lens are you exploring this curiosity? is it around how the art market gets formed? I'm interested in that too! but I wouldn't say the market defines the work's meaning.
sidenote: did you see the news about hilma af klint's estate wanting to keep her works available only in the context of a spiritual community -- and to remove the commerce opportunities from her work? thought that was interesting!!!
I didn't, but I can understand that. They were made in and for a spiritual context. Looks like they count museums as a spiritual community! But really, I don't know anything about the estate. Though I bet there's an interesting story there.
This is so interesting, considering our debate yesterday. I love the works here that you panned and relate to them completely.
Ester Partegàs's "Two Moons" is immediately evocative, conjuring up the delicacies of home life, the fantasies of nightlife, and the brokenness of all of those intimacies in our current life now.
I don't have as fast of a read on "knead, penetrate, let go (cat spaceship donut)" but I liked it as well: the textures of the pummous stone (?), the strange office tape, the tiny stickers. This combination is satisfying, even if it doesn't communicate a single clear story as fast.
I appreciate you saying you're comparing these works to Bruce Nauman’s, "whose “self” is always constructed"...And also I think this reveals an important point about how art standards consider masculinity / public life is a worthy subject where as feminitiy and the domestic are still thought of as throw aways and unworthy of deep analysis - ESPECIALLY when they have references to mothering and children.
Thanks again for the note. Perhaps influencing my own take is that these things aren't quite as readily gendered in my own domestic life; I've been doing my own laundry since I was in middle school, and I do most of my family's laundry now, so those baskets, while they might speak of home, they don't speak of "femininity" to me (more just work, labor, etc.). And given that Partegàs is using them as forms, not as objects, the associations are even more attenuated. I also do the dishes in our house (you might get the sense; I'm a bit fastidious), so the sponges and scourers are kind of "my" stuff. If I find Partegàs's works less compelling, I think it's because I find a confusion of singnication in them, and don't take them as emblems of one or the other side of this masculine/feminine divide, any more than I would the desk chair or bricks or other items that appear in her work.
hm. but one doesn't have to have direct experience to have empathy for the experience, does one?
Of course not. But I’m interested in “how” these things try to mean or come to mean what they do. I’m not coming to a conclusion about what they do or must mean and then judging that.
i'm saying what they mean subjectively. not objectively. i think you are claiming more objectivity than me which...I think you already know what i'd say about that.
also i'd love to learn more about this statement: that you're interested in how these things come to mean what they do. from what lens are you exploring this curiosity? is it around how the art market gets formed? I'm interested in that too! but I wouldn't say the market defines the work's meaning.
sidenote: did you see the news about hilma af klint's estate wanting to keep her works available only in the context of a spiritual community -- and to remove the commerce opportunities from her work? thought that was interesting!!!
I didn't, but I can understand that. They were made in and for a spiritual context. Looks like they count museums as a spiritual community! But really, I don't know anything about the estate. Though I bet there's an interesting story there.