I Done Been Panned

Hey check it out! The Boston Globe reviewed the DeCordova show on Friday, and none too flatteringly. The title of the review is "DeCordova's 'Ape' is an entertaining bestiary, little more", which tips you off about the tone of the piece. Something about "entertaining bestiary" sounds naughty this review does not make me feel sexy.

Here's a link to the review.

Luckily the sting of a bad review has been soothed by other activities. Today in the studio we dressed up the shop vac. Please, if you've one merciful bone in your body, click on the image to link to ZeFrank and get to know his video blog. He is genius. Also it was his idea to dress up vaccuums.

In general, the reviewer's criticism of the show is that it isn't challenging, doesn't push many boundaries. I can't say I disagree. This reviewer seems to have some similar concerns to mine about the nuetralizing effect of museum shows, and seems to also have a chicken up his pants about the way the majority of the work included in the show is representational... a very literal take on "Animals in Art". There is some art, and it has animals in it. But what of them, and why? The reviewer, in many more words, seems to primarily be asking if the DeCordova has told us anything we don't already know. He bemoans a lack of surprise.

For the most part this is an inherent risk of having any themed show. Part of the surprise in most of the DeCordova pieces lies in their using animal subjects where animal subjects would not be expected.The potential to be startled by a piece of art is vastly reduced when the very title of the show tells you what the content is gonna be.

Anyway, the reviewer goes on to say:
"Most of the show's works are made by relatively unadventurous representational means. Josie Morway's large oil paintings of birds copied from ornithology books ... are competently made but far from startlingly original."

This is just a picture of a chicken feeling slightly crowded in Shelburne Vermont.
I'm not by any means trying to say that the Globe's art critic is some sort of corn pecker.

Well, shit. I HATE unadventurous representational means.

I admit to a few barbs of resentment at the "copied from books" part.

I mean, I don’t just Copy from books, I also Copy from Flickr photos that I steal from the internaught, and I Copy from magazines, and last week I got really close to these wierdly aggressive, fast chickens and I dropped to my knees and took a bunch of digital photos intending to Copy from THOSE but the chickens were too wily and they veered around, and in the pics the bloomer-like parts of their legs-- their chickenpants-- look all blurry. Pppppbbbbbbbbtttt.

Simply another chicken. For what? Chickenbutt.

But seriously.
I feel a tad slighted and the word "copied" is awful dismissive, but I think that any time you hear yourself or your work summed up in a single sentence you're bound to feel that way. Whether or not this beantowner's specific criticism is important, it does seem to have some validity due, for one thing, to the fact that I agree with it.

Cock, Cock, Cock, Speed Hen.

I definitely often feel less than adventurous and less than satisfied with my work. The quest to change this is rapidly becoming my primary focus in life, and will perhaps soon even displace such endeavors as Reversing The Nutritional Holocaust Being Perpetrated Upon Today's Children and Sovling the Problem With Chafing. Please be forewarned that the next several messages with inevitably be about adventurousness, boldness, and bravery, startling originality and innovation.

While I write them I will be hanging upside down from the slimmest branch of a tall tree and trying to think like dynamite. Making plans to mix my mediums and run full speed into walls.

I don't know. Just trying to use criticism constructively here.