1) Student Art Shows: A Review
The last three student shows have exhibited some high and low points as well as some consistent themes. I’ll be looking at the first Fall 2010 show as well as the two previous shows presented at the end of the Fall 2009 Semester and the Spring 2010 show.
In comparison to the earlier shows the most recent exhibition is notably more interesting and the work appears to be more polished and thoughtful. Since my own concentration is Digital Art, I’m also keen to see how well the digital works are created and received. I particularly liked Ryan Pattie’s video collage. In comparison to the altered video presented upstairs at the Spring 2010 show (a kind of odd landscape/travelogue), Ryan’s work was much more interesting and provocative. A kind of dreamscape – he had elements of suspense, narrative and self-exploration which managed to capture the attention of the audience. As opposed to previous senior video exhibitions, the majority of viewers seemed to stay for the entire video, rather than simply popping in and quickly exiting.
I was intrigued that some students seemed to have taken more risks in their works such as Selena’s performance art piece and the melting sculpture. Selena’s piece seemed to receive mixed reviews from the viewing audience. Many people thought the front portion of her piece was too slow and perhaps boring, but the audience seemed intrigued by the final portion. I applaud her willingness to present a work which is atypical for the usual student choices. Many students in this most recent show also seemed to be experimenting with creating larger scale works, such as Ethan Metherd’s wall collage. I certainly thought the scale was interesting, but I wondered if the de-saturated colors were actually what he had anticipated. His work suffered from where it was situated in the gallery. There was simply no way to step back from the work and view it in its entirety.
The paper airplane machine sculpture suffered from a typical fault of many student works. It was a good idea, but simply didn’t function to actually produce paper airplanes without the assistance of the artist. This always seems sad and unfortunate to me. The student has had a good idea, but was not able to devote the time or energy to actually complete the work. Indeed, this seems like a lesson to take to heart for students preparing for their own student show – take the necessary time to test out your ideas and allow time to correct flaws or malfunctions.
As usual, the lowest points of this show as well as the previous shows were the artist statements. These are always truly terrible and seem to consistently subtract from the works displayed. Filled with “artspeak”, these statements do little to illuminate either the works or the artists. For the average non-artist, non-art historian viewer these statements are no doubt a turnoff. The statements are stilted, filled with obscure terminology and generally sound like excerpts from pompous, self-important art journals. As an art major, I certainly recognize the value of understanding how your own work shares similarities with previous artists and artistic movements. However, I fail to see the value in confusing the viewer or simply making the viewer feel stupid or uninformed. I do not see value in this kind of obscure “inside the art world” exercise. I think it would be far better to have students construct artist statements that actually help the viewer enjoy or understand the work and leave the demonstration of art vocabulary and artistic lineage to a separate research paper turned into the instructor.
2) Ted Leonhardt vs. Katherine & Michael McCoy
Ted Leonhardt’s presentation at Rocky Mountain college of Art and Design was notably disappointing and stands in stark contrast to the McCoy’s presentations a month earlier, also at RMCAD.
Mr. Leonhardt was described as a well-known successful designer, who now consults to other design firms. At the least I expected to hear about his experiences with clients and to see at least a few of his more successful design projects. Instead, Mr. Leonhardt focused almost exclusively on autobiographical tidbits, such as how the first firm he created came to an abrupt end when he had an affair with one of his employees which resulted in the end of his marriage as well as the division of that firm into two separate companies. While I do not doubt the veracity of his story, I do doubt his judgment in making this story a central component of his presentation. It simply seems to be in bad taste and basically uninteresting to an audience which expected something about design. The rest of his talk was taken up with business charts showing the financial success of his firm and his description of the revenue point at which he was able to sell the firm to a buyer. Again, I did not find this very interesting and the audience seemed only vaguely intrigued. For most designers, the goal of growing your firm to a size and type where it will be attractive to a buyer seems unrealistic. Indeed, most designers who are entering the field in the present climate understand that huge financial success in this area is unlikely. In the final portion of the evening, the audience was directed to break into small groups and discuss pre-determined question posed by Mr. Leonhardt. That portion was mostly a waste of time. In summary, it seems that Mr. Leonhardt is certainly enchanted with his own success, but has little to offer to aspiring designers.
In contrast to Mr. Leonhardt, the McCoy’s made a very different impression on their audience. Although they are close to Mr. Leonhardt’s age with long careers in design, both of the McCoy’s are still very enthusiastic and interested in current trends and innovations. Given their notable careers in design, they could have simply chosen to rest on their laurels and talk about prior success. Instead they remain active in both teaching and learning in the design field.
In describing Katherine McCoy’s AIGA award on the AIGA website, the author notes, “Katherine and Michael spend the rest of the year in the mountains of Colorado, in what, from afar, looks like semi-retirement. But up close the image shifts completely: in their totally wired encampment they continue their projects and their research. Even the teaching doesn’t really stop — this year Katherine and Michael have launched “High Ground,” a series of studio charette workshops open to professional designers in their studios. Katherine has often advised younger designers that they must regard the design of their own careers as a project itself, and that they must choose their paths carefully. Even in that remote location, the path that Katherine has taken, and continues to take, integrating life and art and design and work, resonates in the work of so many others from coast to coast. It is for work accomplished, but an exemplary process still in progress, that this AlGA Gold Medal seems most appropriate”.
Thus I think the McCoy’s present as much more interesting role models for those entering the design field. They are still intrigued to find design solutions and not afraid to experiment with new ideas
