OCR Text |
Show Ten O'Clock Whistle by David Tleisher u Works on Paper," bat does it really work as art?... Maybe I just don't appreciate good art. Or, maybe I can't recognize good art when I see it. Or, maybe there ain't no good -art to see. Allow me to backtrack a minute. I visited the Kimball Art Center this week and saw the most recent art exhibit hanging all over the walls in the main gallery. The exhibit is entitled, "Works on Paper: American Art 1945-1975." While I was brousing 'through the gallery, looking intensely at the exhibit, I couldn't'help but think if what I was seeing was really good art or lousy art or even if it was art at all. The fact of the matter is, I simply could not understand much of what I was seeing. Let me give you an example, I saw this one thing hanging on the wall that was entitled, "Study for Vela." Do you know what this is? Somebody, I won't mention the artist's name, took a crayon and did scribbly-gook all over a piece of paper. And that's it. It's even hanging on the wall at the Art Center. I used to scribble with crayons when I was an elementary school student, but it never hung in an art center. Am I being too simplistic? Maybe this crayon thing took. years to finish and is' a work of rrionumental importance, BuTl stiff think it resembles my work when I was in elementary school. I had no problem understanding "Laura Kaye," a drawing done in pencil This is what is commonly known in the trade as "a nude". Laura Kaye, staring straight ahead, is just standing around in her birthday suit. There's nothing particularly magnetic about Laura, except for her eyes which are ominous, dark and penetrating. If you happen to be' colorblind, you'll have a difficult time appreciating "Gray Instrumentation 1," a portfolio of 12 silkscreen prints spreading across the entire south wall in the gallery. The artist, Josef Albers (1888-1976), has achieved the remarkable feat of drawing twelve squares, varying in size, ; using the same color, gray. This artistic expedition might be ; interesting, however, after you've seen the first five prints, the rest tend to be a tad boring. And after you finally get to the last print, you sort of wish you were colorblind. ! ) : Jackson Pollock, a major artist, is represented in the Main Gallery with something entitled, "Number 3". This work is done in ink. and it has a strange resemblance to the movie, Apocalpse Now. and the recent race riots in Miami. Of course, on the other hand, it could be a reflection of society as Pollock interpreted it. If. numbers 1 and 2 are not any better than "Number 3". then I wouldn't consider buying any of them. And then there's "Studies with .Reflections and Echoes," a pencil drawing done in 1967. This thing borders on being quite lewd, so I won't elaborate on its contents. You'll just have to go to the Art Center to see it for yourself . Leave the kids at home. I can't even begin to describe "Composition-Attic Series?," an ink drawing done by another major artist, Willem De Kooning. Black lines, dots and circles "(your basic scribbly-gook) is saturated all over the paper. The title makes sense. It had to be drawn in an attic; Lord knows it couldn't be drawn in the living room or any place else where people could see it. I guess it could have been done in the bathroom: "Composition-Bathroom Series." A 1945 work entitled, "Untitled," is really a mess. This was done in wash and pencil by Arshile Gorky (1904-1948). I'm not exactly clear on what wash and pencil mean, but I would guess the artist drew something using a pencil, then washed it off after deciding he didn't like it too much, drew something else, didn't like that either and washed it off, then closed his eyes and drew whatever came to mind and just left it. He must have been awfully tired after this artistic ordeal because he didn't even take the time to give it a title I'll bet Gorky had a double scotch and soda after "Untitled" was finished. One of my favorite works on display is a little number called, "Curve: Radius of 10' " The artist, again using the popular pencil, drew a diagpnal line across the paper; but, if you look closely, you can see that he erased part of the line. The viewer is . supposed to ask, "What does that mean? Why is part of the line erased?" I think I know why part of the line was erased. This artist had the same problem as Arshile Gorky: he didn't like what he saw, but instead of washing it off, he-erased it off. At ---least one artist had the stamina to give his work a title. Beauty lies in the eyes of the beholder. Or does it? It could be that you're ugly, or the art work is ugly, or that you're beautiful, and the art work is beautiful. Or, all of the aboye , J::-:"r""-As 1 walk of Main Street, I hear the Ten O'Clock Whistle. |