Monday, February 10, 2014
ISA GENZKEN @ MOMA
Please post your thoughts about the Isa Genzken show here in the comments! Think about how this show relates to or informs your understanding of the Boris Groys essay we read, and please talk about at least one work in particular that we saw. Below is also a link to the NYTimes review of the show, which may be helpful to bounce some of your own ideas off of and to help you recall certain works in particular.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
As contemporary art and its treatment of museum space, I found the Isa Genzken show, to explore, client conversations in the empty spaces through the use of mirrors, as a way to engage the viewer and corresponding visitors.
ReplyDeleteThe mirrors, I noticed in the social facade series of pieces, especially in the reflection of another visitor, as I was exploring the work.
In addition, some of the mirrors give an altered image, and thus explore an altered sense of self in social context. The small squares reflect beauty, as well as distortion. Some mirrors zoom in on self and engage the viewer to focus on the self, in a context of uniqueness. Some works have no view at the eye level, perhaps alluding to a total masking of self in a societal context, and views only in periphery or through bounded lenses.
Some views are multiple enjoying one's sense of being, at different levels.
What struck me most about the Isa Genzken show was the sense of vertigo it constantly induced and related discomfort. This could in part be because of the eye-level display of many of the sculptures. It could also be because of the vertical orientation of some of the works (here I’m thinking of the towers she made as interpretations of people she knew or “Car Park”). In order to look at some of the details of these tall works, I had to get up close to them, but this also caused the work to rise above me, and out of my field of vision. It became a struggle to deal with these architectural sculptures holistically. Perhaps this is indicative of the context that the exhibition is taking place in, or, as the author of the article we read would put it, “the flow” that it is occurring in. Midtown Manhattan is certainly capable of inspiring the same sort of neck strain that Genzken’s architecturally inspired works do.
ReplyDeleteOverall, I had a hard time at the Isa Genzken exhibit. I will say that I liked the first and second rooms, her early work was interesting and I felt it had a style and a vision. However, the experience was ruined for me by the latter half of the show. Honestly, I wouldn't call myself a fan of contemporary art in the general sense - this being said, like all things, there are some exceptions.
ReplyDeleteI found the last room almost pretentious in nature. I was almost offended by the 9/11 structure, there was something about it that made me very uneasy, which may have been the point, but I don't enjoy artwork that makes me uneasy.
I liked the second room the most, of the work she did in the 80's/90's. Her architectural pieces were so interesting and geometrical they were mesmerizing to look at.
I know Genzken has a vision all her own, but I didn't necessarily share it towards the more recent decades of her work.
I approached Genzken’s exhibition through the lens of Groy’s idea that the “total art event involves everybody and everything.” The cement sculptures on pedestals plays with the idea of what it means for an object to be exhibited in a museum space. The blocks sit head-level, so one has to look up at the object while observing the negative space formed by the metal bars beneath it. This transforms the simple and ordinary cement blocks into works of art that interact with the viewer in the specified space of the museum. Another work I found interesting was the hanging assemblages of metal scraps. These hanging pieces are not random, as their orientation cast a shadows of a human figure onto the wall. The artwork turns into some kind of an event, depending on the light hitting the object, its context of proximity to a wall, and the viewer’s perception of a shadow that resembles a human figure.
ReplyDeleteWhat I appreciate most about the show is how encompassing it is. Coming into the exhibition, I knew almost nothing about Genzken’s work, but I left with a reasonable understanding of her development as an artist. I suppose the point of a 6th floor MoMA retrospective is to be in depth and comprehensive; nevertheless, I enjoyed how certain elements of this show afforded me a glimpse of not only the artist's work but of the artist herself as a person. Specifically, I enjoyed the scrapbook reprints that contained snapshots, receipts, and other small trinkets (a normal person probably would have discarded these) that Isa had compiled and glued into books during her stays in NY. Flipping through these pages was like going through her diary; it felt intensely personal, as if I was watching her life in the city unfold right before my eyes. From these scrapbooks, I watched her love affair with NY develop, and it became much more apparent why the city was and continues to be such an inspiration for her work.
ReplyDeleteGoing to the MoMA show, I had no previous knowledge of Genzken's work, which is why I felt that the set up of the show was very informative for me. It allowed me to not only see a large amount of her work, but I got to see the different stages that she went through as an artist as well. As a viewer, I got to see how Genzken's personal style developed and how she came into her own. Regardless of my personal fondness of her work, it was nonetheless a very informative retrospective for allowing me to see the growth of an artist as well as her influence on how the show was organized.
ReplyDeleteI especially enjoy retrospective shows because, as many of you already stated, it allows the viewer to witness the development and growth of the artist, giving the viewer a better sense of the artist's viewpoint or message. I enjoyed Genzken's earlier work, for I found it simple and beautiful, and her pieces were filled with character and uniqueness. I couldn't help but laugh when I saw the cement blocks with antennas in them as an imitation of television sets, because the cement blocks looked like living creatures. The piece said so much with something so little. However, as the exhibition progressed, I found Genzken's work repetitive and uncreative, reaching for the bizarre or avant-garde, losing the simple ingenuity her earlier works possessed.
ReplyDeleteThis made me think of the Groy's NYT article, where he writes, "We can thus say that the traditional art system is based on desynchronizing the time of the individual, material human existence from the time of its cultural representation." Genzken's later works were colorful, over the top, and ostentatious, mimicking a lot of the art we see posted every day on the internet. They immediately grab the viewer's attention, but the art doesn't need require much time to be reflected on because the message is so conspicuous. This type of art speaks a lot to our "A.D.D. Generation." So perhaps if Genzken's later art is viewed again in the far future, it will be an artifact that accurately displays a piece of this age's culture, but for now, I honestly find it quite boring, blending in with the rest of today's flamboyant, easily accessible art.
I know it is pretty late to talk about the Isa Gensken show but since I didn't do it before I will post my comment now. I think it was very interesting to see how she combined art and architecture in so different ways. I enjoyed the first tree rooms very much and I got lost a little bit I'n the others.
ReplyDeleteAs far as I understood she talked about architecture in three different ways: by making sculptures with architecture materials such as concrete and metal reinforcement and also by making sculptures that look like architecture pieces using non architectural materials like resin. She also talked about architecture by building models, some of them with very interesting concepts. And finally she used architecture to reinforce sculpture like the one sculpture that was hanging from the ceiling and that casted shadows that looked like human figures.
I thought it was refreshing to see an artist that is so versitile and that make her work non reconcile like most of the artists. However I think it is very difficult to go trough so many faces and succeed in all of them.
For me the most interesting part was to see the sculptures from the second room, I think they spoke for themselves, they had great unity and were strong pieces with a very interesting concept. But being an architect I may not have an objective point of view!