A "Performative" Aspect is Invoked with Empty "Stages" for the Artist.
Comments?
Journal on New York gallery and museum exhibitions. With contributions from New School students in the class, The Art of Viewing Art, John Zinsser, instructor.
A "Performative" Aspect is Invoked with Empty "Stages" for the Artist.
Comments?
artofviewingart 
Okay, here is my thing about the Josh Smith exhibit. First off, I don’t know his previous work so maybe there is more history to him than what we spoke about in class on Thursday. However, I was kind of taken aback by how much everyone just laughed at him and couldn’t possibly waste their time discussing him.
In my opinion, yes, his work seems a little childish. Obviously, he likes to work with the theme of death–dead fish, dead leaves, dead skeletons, dead stop signs, etc. I also don’t think his artistic analysis of death seems very developed. We never see any emotional aspect of death, merely it’s passive recurrence.
It’s the stage section of this exhibit that intrigues me the most, which is apparently how he got started. Does he truly identify with a black and white scroll of his name on an empty stage? In which case, that is pretty pathetic. Or, is it a satire of his own rise to artistic stardom? If it is a commentary on his “empty stage” success in the contemporary art scene, how is that invention and less relevant than, for example, John Beech’s utilitarian re-invention of the 60s and 70s minimalism art scene?
I also don’t love the exhibit, but I found it intriguing at a certain level. Anyone have any thoughts, concerns, comments?
John, As someone with stage experience, this is a useful metaphor for you to attach to artists and their manner of working.
Also, I appreciate a more generous response to Josh Smith’s work, which is, too often, glibly dismissed. (New York Phenomenon: To be a victim of one’s own success.)