Curator: Daniel Vuono
Wall Text:
The act of reconciliation can be seen as bringing things together. Reconciliation does not demand progress through joining, but simply that two fields must be mutually acknowledged. The pervasive presence of science and technology in popular culture has been recognized since the heralding of the atomic age. The artists represented have chosen to reconcile science and technology into their own visual systems. Artists are not charged with the duty of reconciling the arts with technology; however they have the unique position to be critical of the union, present it as progressive, or be indifferent. These works investigate different visual systems of art-tech reconciliation and how each exposes different uses of the art-tech relationship.
Object Checklist:
Ron Lambert: “Salicylic” - 10 aspirin branches
Albert Pfarr: “Twins” - 2 ceramic column structures
Shawn Spangler: “Productive Spectator” - steel table, steel shelf, wheel thrown ceramic units, two lights, webcam, computer, projector.
Benjamin Peterson: “I Can Do It Two Ways” - 2 LCD screens.
Exhibition Essay:
Currently academic programs are primarily ruled by the practice of specialization. Academic paths are typically directed towards precise goals with little deviation in variety.[1] Oddly however, Hugh Aldersey-Williams points out, “Leonardo da Vinci was the archetypal designer scientist, the renaissance man whom we unreasonably hold responsible for our contemporary expectation of such a synergy.”[2] Past history shows the existence of influential groups with members from vastly different interests. Groups such as the Lunar Society with chemist Joseph Priestley, steam engine pioneer James Watt, and industrial po
tter Josiah Wedgewood.2 This group fostered a unique relationship where one studied reactions, another studied the output of reactions, and the third used products of reactions to create visual art. While the interdisciplinary movement seems to be growing, there still remains a great divide between artistic and technical fields.[3] Out of this divide can come art that can either support the synergistic relationship of technology and arts, or art that challenges technology by representing it in a critical light.
Wall Text:
The act of reconciliation can be seen as bringing things together. Reconciliation does not demand progress through joining, but simply that two fields must be mutually acknowledged. The pervasive presence of science and technology in popular culture has been recognized since the heralding of the atomic age. The artists represented have chosen to reconcile science and technology into their own visual systems. Artists are not charged with the duty of reconciling the arts with technology; however they have the unique position to be critical of the union, present it as progressive, or be indifferent. These works investigate different visual systems of art-tech reconciliation and how each exposes different uses of the art-tech relationship.
Object Checklist:
Ron Lambert: “Salicylic” - 10 aspirin branches
Albert Pfarr: “Twins” - 2 ceramic column structures
Shawn Spangler: “Productive Spectator” - steel table, steel shelf, wheel thrown ceramic units, two lights, webcam, computer, projector.
Benjamin Peterson: “I Can Do It Two Ways” - 2 LCD screens.
Exhibition Essay:
Currently academic programs are primarily ruled by the practice of specialization. Academic paths are typically directed towards precise goals with little deviation in variety.[1] Oddly however, Hugh Aldersey-Williams points out, “Leonardo da Vinci was the archetypal designer scientist, the renaissance man whom we unreasonably hold responsible for our contemporary expectation of such a synergy.”[2] Past history shows the existence of influential groups with members from vastly different interests. Groups such as the Lunar Society with chemist Joseph Priestley, steam engine pioneer James Watt, and industrial po
tter Josiah Wedgewood.2 This group fostered a unique relationship where one studied reactions, another studied the output of reactions, and the third used products of reactions to create visual art. While the interdisciplinary movement seems to be growing, there still remains a great divide between artistic and technical fields.[3] Out of this divide can come art that can either support the synergistic relationship of technology and arts, or art that challenges technology by representing it in a critical light.The majority of art we encounter is visual. In general, viewing art is much more accessible than viewing the inter-workings of science. Because of this visualization plays a powerful role in science, it allows us to understand abstract phenomena that we can not see. More interestingly much of this scientific visualization is only a metaphor for our understanding but does not describe what is actually happening. Curiously these visualizations are rapidly absorbed into popular culture as symbols of progress through technology. A good example of t
his is the Eames hang-it-all rack that bares resemblance to atomic models. The advent of nuclear technology brought a surge of excitement through culture. The public was exposed to the idea of the atomic level and atomic diagrams. The hang-it-all “was sufficiently distant from the molecular models used in classrooms and laboratories not to emphasize connections with the ‘real’ world of science, let alone the atomic bomb, but to still appear novel and progressive.”[4] Popular icons such as the hang-it-all make science seemingly accessible to everyone, however they are fetishized and one sided in their presentation. It is not necessary for artists to couple science and technology in their art to promote progress. Many artists will chose to use their reconciliation to promote questioning of accepted popular culture practices.
Ron Lambert is a sculptor exploring the idea of the sublime. Lambert is interested in how medical technologies, specifically pharmaceuticals, are accepted in our culture. He presents the idea of the techno-sublime; “This theory involves the realm of technology and medicine as having an overwhelming part of our lives and therefore involving itself in the revised notion of the sublime.”[5] Lambert strives to expose why medical technologies have become part of the sublime. “Petry dishes, stainless steel grids and rows put our minds at ease, giving us comfort that the problem is being solved properly. This sense of comfort allows for a scientific sublime.”5 Lambert’s struggle is exposing the changes and losses of traditions that have occurred through our acceptance of new medical phenomena. This idea of the pharmaceutical sublime is not new and has been explored by novels such as Aldous Huxley’s “Brave New World”, and recently in the pop art world by paintings of Damien Hirst.
Lambert’s work “Salicylic” is a simple organized installation. Across two corners of a white wall hang white branch structures suspended from steel rods. The branches are recognizable as willow branches but are evidentially not real willow branches. They dangle downward with gravity appearing fragile and move in slight winds. The space exudes a calmness and sterility that is obviously intentional.
It is not until one reads the title plaque that they realize the willow branches are cast with aspirin. The material choice is the driving catalyst for Lambert’s message. Willow bark contains salicylic acid, the active chemical in aspirin. Historically salicylic acid was derived from willow bark. Lambert’s installation is attempting to expose the idea that this traditional information has become lost in our acceptance of our pill induced relief.
I find specific choices in Lambert’s visual system to be particularly effective. Lambert chose to ignore the trunk structure and display individual branches. I feel he does this intentionally so we recognize “willow branch” and not “tree.” Further the branches are displayed as multiples. Lambert asserts that our culture is already overloaded with multiplicities and suggests “It seems one can either make work visually opposing the idea of the multiple or use it to discuss what could be an aesthetic of our time.”5 I think Lambert is challenging “progress” and showing that there are other effective alternatives. His action seems timely in an age where pharmaceutical advertisement on television is grossly abundant. When asked Lambert admitted that his work is moving away from dealing with science. He felt that to really address science well he needed to actually learn the science.[6] I can respect this viewpoint, and it shows me Lambert understands the power of scientific images in art. While Lambert’s work asserts through his visual display that scientific evolution may not always be progress, other artists reconciling with technology make work that is potentially indifferent in its message and does not criticize technology, or support its progress.
Albert Pfarr is a ceramic artist who creates organized modular systems of construction. Pfarr builds large towering columns with evenly spaced voids for individual modules to slide into. This peg and hole construction allows the pieces to be organized but also have innumerable permutations. The works bare a strong resemblance to molecular or biological growth. The constructions appear as if they are self assembling or receptive to evolution. The scale of the work is very important. The pieces are 8 to 10 feet in height transforming the micro-level to the macro-level. We are not inspecting this world of growth and arrangement but are immersed in it.
The reference to biological sciences is obviously apparent in Pfarr’s work. However, the reference does not appear to be a motivator for a message. The work is indifferent to its subject matter. It does not usher hope and progress of new biological research, it is simply organized in a similar way. The work is also non-threatening. Despite the large scale, the pieces are friendly and able to be interacted with. The simple installation method does not allude to any comment or critique of modern scientific processes. Pfarr’s reconciliation with science and technology creates a visual system that is inspired from things we know, not things we do. He is imitating systems that are naturally occurring instead of making art about stem cell research and genetic engineering. The art remains neutral while still being referential to the microscopic level of the natural world.
Pfarr is entirely aware of the reference and neutrality of his work. As a method of making he strives for systematic methodologies. Pfarr acknowledges the references to biological growth, cells, and particles in his work. He recognizes that he is inspired by how atoms can combine in countless ways and relates it to our human systems of knowledge such as language and symbols which we combine for infinite meanings. However he insists upon the mystery and neutrality of his work by saying, “Still there is always mystery concerning the origins and continuation of life. That is why these pieces remain non-representational.”[7]
Pfarr’s work also explores viewer interaction with visual systems. The viewer has the ability to change and rearrange the work. This engagement allows for a personal dialog between the viewer and the work. The work can begin to mean something different for each viewer as they adopt their own slight feelings of authorship. Artists are further exploring the idea of how view interaction can affect and inform their visual systems. Interactive systems can potentially breathe life into stagnant practices and enrich both the viewers and makers experience.
Stereotypical display of pottery has limited options. Pots are usually looked at on shelves or on pedestals. Obviously artists will want to question this practice and evolve new ways to showcase work. Shawn Spangler is a young potter who employed an interactive environment that makes his work semi self sustaining. Shawn created a visual system that transforms the gallery from a subjective place to an empirical place.
Spangler’s work “Productive Spectator” is exhibited in the dark. An industrial stainless steel shelf and table sit next to one another. The table is empty with two lights pointing towards the center. A video projection appears on a nearby wall. The shelf is filled with small thrown ceramic forms. The viewer is invited to pick and choose from the objects on the shelf and build stackable objects on the steel table. As they play with the forms they are both recorded and projected. Shawn uses the subsequent recordings by choosing user built forms to execute on the wheel as final pieces.
Spangler’s material choices in his display push forward a few issues. The stainless steel setup looks much more likely to be a laboratory than a gallery. The dramatic lighting and recording of the process also elevates the importance of the process. Images of science, including scientific materials has a profound effect on our interpretations. “Beyond the visual, images of science have merely metaphoric power, typically communicating a sense of progressiveness and optimism through objects that adopt them.”2 By placing the pottery in this scientific situation it seems as though the work may be progressing or changing the future of pottery. While this notion may not be accurate or fair, Spangler’s work taps into a dialog about technological progress. We must receive this work with caution. Inspirations stemming from science have no greater importance than any other inspiration from history or other arts. We must recognize that there should not be evolutionary hierarchies and that technological progress can be a skewed narrative.[8]
Spangler’s reconciliation is interesting because whether it was intended or not, the work presents itself as a potentially better system for making pottery; that is if the technological narrative takes precedence. Spangler’s work involved interaction through viewer participation. In this way his use of technology is mediated by the public and he is not himself interfacing the technology. Ben Peterson is another young potter who is challenging the notion of how we make pottery and what impact recent technologies can have. Rather than having a mediated experience Peterson has a direct interaction with the technology he employs.
Peterson’s recent work in progress “I Can Do It Two Ways” involves two practices. The first is a motion tracking computer program that allows him to throw virtual vessels in the air and save the resultant image. The act is performed in front of a projection and the image can be tossed upward in the computer display to the image bank. The second practice involves Peterson throwing these saved forms on the wheel and then throwing them up against a wall and shelf in the studio.Peterson’s reconciliation is different than Spangler’s. While he is recreating pots from images, the images are the product of his own direct interaction with technology. In this sense the translations to clay are wholly his own. Further Peterson’s work has an element that exists only in the ether. The computer software is an exciting way to see potential results without using or wasting any materials. It allows for instant visual feedback of ideas. Peterson’s project is timely in the age of rapid prototyping. His reconciliation proves the flexibility of the potter to embrace new technologies and use them to their benefit. We still must not be misled into thinking Peterson’s approach is a better way to make pottery because of the technological involvement, but we should be excited by the possibilities and their application in many other fields.
All of the artists presented in this exhibition reconciled with technology for different means. However some of the methodology remains related. The sterile nature of Lambert’s and Spangler’s installations references the scientific sublime that Lambert was commenting on. Also, the use of interaction in visual systems was seen in three of the four works. Lambert shows us to be cautious of the technological progressive narrative, while Spangler and Peterson seem to embrace it. Pfarr acknowledges his inspirations from biological science but does so non-representationaly to avoiding the scientific hierarchy dilemma. These reconciliations affirm the power of the art-tech relationship and propose that the artist is indeed in a unique position to choose how to exploit this relationship.
Works Cited
[1] C. P. Snow. “The Two Cultures,” Leonardo 23 No. 2/3 (1990): 169-173
[2] Hugh Aldersey-Williams, Design and the Elastic Mind: Applied Curiosity (New York: Museum of Modern Art, 2008), 47.
[3] Mark Tribe, Directory of Art and Technology Programs (Brown University, 2009, accessed 4 December 2009); available from https://wiki.brown.edu/confluence/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=13017
[4] Pat Kirkham, Charles and Ray Eames: Designers of the Twentieth Century (MIT Press, 2001), 162
[5] Ron Lambert, Masters Thesis, New York State College of Ceramics at Alfred University, 2004
[6] Ron Lambert, email message to author, Nov 30, 2009
[7] Albert Pfarr, About Me (accessed 4 December 2009); available at http://www.albertpfarr.com/About%20Me.html
[8] Christina Cogdell. “Design and the Elastic Mind, Museum of Modern Art (Spring 2008),” Design Issues 25 No. 3 (2009): 92-99
[1] C. P. Snow. “The Two Cultures,” Leonardo 23 No. 2/3 (1990): 169-173
[2] Hugh Aldersey-Williams, Design and the Elastic Mind: Applied Curiosity (New York: Museum of Modern Art, 2008), 47.
[3] Mark Tribe, Directory of Art and Technology Programs (Brown University, 2009, accessed 4 December 2009); available from https://wiki.brown.edu/confluence/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=13017
[4] Pat Kirkham, Charles and Ray Eames: Designers of the Twentieth Century (MIT Press, 2001), 162
[5] Ron Lambert, Masters Thesis, New York State College of Ceramics at Alfred University, 2004
[6] Ron Lambert, email message to author, Nov 30, 2009
[7] Albert Pfarr, About Me (accessed 4 December 2009); available at http://www.albertpfarr.com/About%20Me.html
[8] Christina Cogdell. “Design and the Elastic Mind, Museum of Modern Art (Spring 2008),” Design Issues 25 No. 3 (2009): 92-99
Wikipedia Entires:
Ron Lambert - Salicyclic Acid - Other Uses
Albert Pfarr - Self Replicating Peptides - External Links
Benjamin Peterson - Pottery - Forming - I think Wikipedia denied my adition of virtual forming. I don't want to post a picture on there to prove it though because Petersons work may be a work in progress.
The entry read:
Virtual: Benjamin Peterson has created a motion tracking software applications that allows the throwing and recoding of vessel forms in the air. The images can be saved and later translated into clay by the artist. This shows a coupling of traditional ceramics with new technologies of rapid prototyping.
Artist Websites:
No comments:
Post a Comment