Thoughts on Jonathan Muecke: Open Objects
Published by on
Another posting to hear what others thought... Show favorites, the composition as a whole, etc.
Learn more about Shared-Practice, an innovative resource, calendar, and network for the design community
Comments
open objects
a very strong volume gallery exhibit. a great collection of pieces that work totemically on their own plus compositionally/ graphically in the same room (or printed on the same fold-out). objects that are indeed 'open' in function but also 'open' to the way planes defy default or how lines stray from straight. wonderfully weighted pieces and love the exploration of common material and the casually stoic manner the pieces rested, shook (when jonathan pushed the shelf), or leaned in the exhibit.
as much as i liked the boundary around each, i wonder possibly less about the size of gallery and more if some of the pieces drifted towards each other or drifted, as their form and materiality did, towards alternate ways of display. can objects be more 'open' with a hint of suggestion or does one simply need quiet space to interpret objects more openly? muecke's pieces do need room to appreciate the hidden qualities of each, but i'm curious what would happen if these same objects were allowed to confront each other in more (deliberately) messy proximity.
Re:open objects
Thanks for the comment Michael; the question of proximity is a good one. Perhaps in a minimalist gallery atmosphere the pieces felt more sculptural. Deliberate messiness could have been a very interesting way to display Muecke's work. Even the most functionally clear pieces could (sometimes literally) sway between several uses. An example of this would be the Bench piece, which at something like 75% scale and with it's strong yet playful materiality, could live comfortably as an object in a sculptural, outdoor, children's, or every day context.
Re: Jonathan Muecke Open Objects, thoughts on last nights Volume
I really enjoy Muecke's work, and the pieces in this show did not disappoint. To me, the objects feel warm in their materiality (though at first seem colder), but a smaller space could have brought that out better, forcing people to corral into the frame, gather around the glass divider, and etc. A favorite were the carbon fiber epoxy chairs and the glass divider. Had a conversation with T last night about what the value of a wobbly shelf was, which I agree is unclear and undermining, but even so, I am excited by Muecke's semi-industrial, hand drawn sensibility.
Even if the functions/behaviors around the objects are a bit too open at times (haven't made up my mind about this yet), I think there is real accomplishment in how well the materials and scales of objects were negotiated. Each piece is very granular in its detail, in general, not overbuilt, and not cartoon-like.
I was not as convinced of the mirror or the rubber mat--I think they felt less considered and almost undermined the solidness of the other pieces. Also maybe some evidence that doing a solo show is difficult, and there is bound to be unresolved edges.
Thanks Lisa
Lisa, very interesting to hear your impressions of the show and Muecke pieces. I found myself opening up to the work as the night went on. Though I too have my favorites, I did end up spending a lot of time with the pieces I understood less. This speaks volumes to me, as almost all the pieces had a quiet mystery to them. I totally agree with you in regards to this successful collaboration between scale and materiality. 'Mat' only made sense to me when I touched it, it had a surprisingly warm luxurious feel (perhaps from the cast silicone)... this is something that I found in almost all of the pieces (hidden tactile luxuriousness). 'Mirror' was less convincing to me only because of the gap between the two sheets... perhaps that was more an issue of installation then the piece itself? The image of Mirror on Volume Gallery's website has a very different feel: http://wvvolumes.com/galleries/5/works?page=4
I'd love to hear more thoughts!
open objects IN SPACE
I think the question between the space that the objects were inhabiting and the materiality is a significant one. When I went to Art Chicago and NEXT, I felt that the art on display there was just a collection of art objects and it was hard to determine the context the artist was responding to. I think Volume did a really good job of letting the objects speak, but I would like to see it being used for or in different spaces. Like what Michael was saying with how would the objects respond to a messy area? Or what if Volume had a dinner party and placed those objects in the dining room? I think the relationship between objects on display and objects engaged is an interesting approach for galleries. You do not by any means what to damage the work, but its like in architecture when buildings are photographed without people, buildings were designed for people. Although the design should be celebrated, its engagement with people should not be ignored. Design whether it is practical or not, I think is meant to be used and instead of "displaying" work perhaps "demonstrating" could be a more effective approach (this in regards to gallery/museum displays as a whole). Because the materiality was so prevalent they can stand on their own and speak no matter what area they are inhabiting. But then again it depends on the work. With Muecke's work whether you are observing and sometimes sitting or even if it was to be thrown in a more everyday context would be equally exciting because ultimately the forms and materials themselves are so dynamic.
Re:Open objects IN SPACE
Thanks for your post Matthew!