Archive for the ‘Events’ Category

A Stereoscopic Evening

January 13 2012

post by Rachel Pastan

As we come in, Jenna offers us a basket of 3-D glasses: red, yellow, or black. Ingrid chooses black, which matches her outfit. Standing at the podium she announces, “Greg wants his glasses back after the event!” Greg is Greg Dinkins, the co-founder of the New York Stereoscopic Society. He’s at ICA tonight to give a presentation about Max Margulis, a musician, writer, teacher, and a founder of Blue Note records; a hanger-out at the legendary Cedar Tavern with the hard-drinking New York School artists; and a stereo photographer.

Audience with glasses on

Photo: William Hidalgo

I have worn 3-D glasses before, but only for easy thrills at the movies. I have never really looked through them, and it takes some getting used to. At first the images shift and blur as my eyes settle in. What Greg has to say is as interesting as what he’s showing us. In the fifties, Max Margulis made 3-D portraits of his artist friends in their studios and photographed New York street scenes. One story about Margulis involves his friendship with Willem de Kooning. When the photographer first knew the painter, de Kooning was so poor he didn’t own an overcoat. In winter, Max would come over and lend him his coat so de Kooning could go out, then wait around the apartment for him to bring it back.

Once I get used to the glasses, it really is amazing how deep the images go. You can see how far back the divan is in one room, just where the easel sits, how a column defines the space. The column in particular seems so definitively placed that I succumb to the illusion, moving my head in vain to try to see around it. In another image, two people play duets at a piano that seems to stretch backward forever. In a third, de Kooning, wearing a blue shirt, poses in front of a portrait he painted of Margulis himself: a portrait of de Kooning with a portrait of Max. In the background, a bunch of paintings lean casually against a wall. “Think of all the museums they’re hanging in now,” Greg says. The Museum of Modern Art, for instance, which is currently presenting an enormous de Kooning retrospective. The curators working on that show used the Margulis images as an aid to their research. One stereophotograph shows the the monumental painting “Excavation” partly done, offering insight into the painter’s process and materials. The researchers asked Greg to blow up parts of the images to give them a closer look.

Margulis portrait of deDooning

Stereoscopic portrait of Willem de Kooning by Max Margulis, March 22, 1950. The painting behind de Kooning is his 1944 portrait of Margulis.

I like the glimpses into the artist’s studios, those mystical springs of inspiration with their battered furniture and empty bottles, their serious-faced men (they’re almost always men) looking potent and inscrutable. But even better, for my money, are the scenes of New York street life. The distance elongates like taffy, pulling you in. On Delancy Street on the Lower East Side, on the Succot holiday, a peddler cart bright with yellow citrus looms in the foreground, while the shoeshine boys and the old Jews with beards recede through space down the long street.

Greg says, “There’s a common phrase about 3-D photography—coming at you.” Comin’ attya. “I like to think, instead, that the images take me there.”

In one store window, vicious-looking squirrels pose, a taxidermist’s comment on city life, perhaps. In another, we gaze through the façade of an abandoned storefront at the giant hole in the ground that will become Lincoln Center. New York as it was—and in its becoming what it is—comes alive for us tonight in this Philadelphia auditorium. A face pressed to a window seems be peering back not only into space but also time, the illusion of seeing into the third dimension creating the sense of seeing into the fourth.

In a few images, you can see a flicker of Max’s reflection in the glass. A lingering ghost, documenting a place receding steadily into the past.

* * *
To sign up for Miranda’s mailing list, email rpastan@ica.upenn.edu.

Sag-Mania: Stefan Sagmeister and the Pursuit of Happiness

December 16 2011

post by Rachel Pastan

As I descend from the ICA offices to the lobby, I can hear the buzz of voices as the elevator passes the second floor—the Sagmeister buzz. Designer Stefan Sagmeister is giving a lecture at 6:30, and 300 people have signed up to hear him. Designers, font inventors, art educators, enthusiasts: for an hour they have been checking in, getting their hands stamped, and hurrying upstairs to claim a seat. There are far too many people to fit in ICA’s auditorium. Luckily the upstairs shows closed on Sunday. We rushed deinstallation and set up rows of chairs and benches in the same gallery where ICA will present The Happy Show, a new installation by Sagmeister himself, in April.

Sagmeister, a still from The Happy Film

Sagmeister in a still from The Happy Film, 2011. Courtesy of Sagmeister Inc.

Before the lecture starts, I ask the women sitting behind me why they’re here. “It’s Stefan Sagmeister!” they explain.

“What do you like about him?”

“He breaks all the rules,” one of them says.

Kenny Goldsmith, a conceptual poet who (in collaboration with ICA) is teaching a whole class on Sagmeister at Penn this year, comes by in his kilt and magenta sweater to say hello. I tell him I’m looking for an angle for the piece I want to write on Sagmeister.

“The man himself is the angle,” Kenny says.

“Why’s that?”

“Design is the last thing on this mind.”

“What’s on his mind?”

“Film, performance, body art, language.” This afternoon, introducing Stefan at a lunchtime conversation with former ICA Director Claudia Gould at Kelly Writers House, Kenny said of the class, “We’ve studied everything from the Helvetica typeface to body art to the psychopharmacological exploits of the Romantic poets onwards…Sagmeister is a pedagogic dream.” A little later he added, “He’s an iconoclast, a boundary breaker, which makes him a perfect match for ICA.”

Kenny Goldsmith

Photo: © Cameron Wittig, Walker Art Center

The Happy Show will certainly break boundaries, as Stefan’s lecture does tonight. Part personal narrative, part history of the psychological study of happiness (both positive psychology and cognitive therapy were, it turns out, invented here at Penn), Sagmeister showcases his own work only, it seems, incidentally. He does, of course, use good design to communicate his message. The guy makes great slides.

For ten years Sagmeister has been exploring happiness. Maxims, taken from his diaries (“Trying to look good limits my life,” “Obsessions make my life worse and my work better,” and so on) spelled out in spectacular, innovative, and often interactive typography will form the basis of the ICA show. In one interactive video installation, the words appear as spider webs, fragmented by the body of the viewer stepping in front of them, and then reforming. In another, a visitor can pedal a stationary bike to power lights that spell out alternating phrases. A magnetized wall that organizes iron filings into letters is a work in progress. It may or may not make the show.

Credits for The Happy Film

Photo: Jenna Weiss

The exhibition will also feature parts of The Happy Film, a personal project that follows Sagmeister as he explores three categories of mental intervention that may or may not affect happiness: meditation, cognitive therapy (the film crew is in the sessions with him, but he says he forgets about them after a few minutes), and finally drugs.

Sagmeister claims his work won’t affect people’s happiness: “It would be foolish to expect that the film will make anyone happier any more than watching a Jane Fonda workout video would make you skinnier.”

Still, there’s this. Toward the beginning of the lecture, Sagmeister asks the audience to raise their hands to show how happy they are. The lowest level is 0 (“I feel like shit”) and the highest is 10 (“I love life”). At the end of the lecture, he asks for another show of hands. This time, there are a lot more 8s and 10s.

Happiness chart

Photo: Jenna Weiss

After the applause, I ask some listeners (more designers) if they’re disappointed Sagmeister didn’t talk more about design tonight. They’re not. All the other designers lecture about design, they tell me. They are happy to hear about happiness instead.

* * *

The Happy Show opens at ICA on April 4.

To sign up for Miranda’s mailing list, email rpastan@ica.upenn.edu.

The Transfiguration of Bill Walton’s Studio

December 9 2011

post by Rachel Pastan

If you walked into ICA last Sunday afternoon and went up to the second floor, you would have seen a small crowd around the installation Bill Walton’s Studio. Completing the exhibition together, people shared remembrances of the late sculptor and printmaker who touched so many in the Philadelphia art community over the last half-century. Others talked about their feelings about Bill’s work and the studio on view.

The group

Photo: Jenna Weiss

Artist Paul Swenbeck, for example, who has been busy working on an exhibition of his own, described his envy of the “calm and zen” in Bill’s studio. Molly Dougherty, executive director of the Philadelphia Art Alliance, told how, at a difficult time in her life, Bill issued an invitation: “There’s a class going on in West Philadelphia—Argentine Tango. Are you in?”

Some people who spoke, like the young woman going off to apprentice with a woodworker in Maine, hadn’t known Bill at all, but what lingered of him here touched them too. Samantha Sharf, a Penn senior who worked on the exhibition, talked about what a strong sense of the man she’d acquired through his space. A young man who had used his grandfather’s tools to build a guitar made a connection to that experience; he had never known his grandfather, but his closeness to him grew through using the tools.

In return for their words, each speaker got to choose a piece of the installation to take home: a drill bit, a painted block of wood, an old red chair. Paul Swenbeck, for example, took home a log. Sam Sharf took home a tiny skeleton key.

Curator Richard Torchia quoted Brancusi: “Things are not difficult to make; what is difficult is putting ourselves in the state of mind to make them.” Then he added, “I think standing here makes anyone who isn’t an artist want to be an artist.” Richard took a jar of pencils.

Photo: Jenna Weiss

Pretty much the only things people couldn’t take were the artworks themselves—not that it was always easy to tell what was art and what wasn’t. As exhibition curator Ingrid Schaffner said, pointing to the workbench, “One of those c-clamps is a work of art, and the others are just c-clamps…There’s some Duchampian terrain to navigate here.” Later, Ingrid took a jar of sticks.

Painter Jane Irish, one of the conduits who made the exhibition possible, told how one time Bill, who was her neighbor, came into her studio when Jane was working on a drawing involving a shower of gold. Having trouble getting the drawing right, she’d made a model for herself: “I took a silver lampshade and I put plaster on it, and I poured my penny jar over it so that the pennies stuck in the plaster. And Bill said, ‘That’s the best thing you’ve ever made!’” Jane took some palette knives.

A young artist just setting up his own first studio spoke. A friend of a fishing buddy of Bill’s spoke. A colleague at Moore College of Art to whom Bill taught letterpress told how she and Bill traded sculptures: “I look at his piece every morning when I have breakfast,” she said. Bill’s first Philadelphia gallerist spoke, as did his last.

Bill’s daughter told us how she used to play on and around the big artworks her dad had in the yard, sliding down them, or having the dog jump through them. She also used to go into his studio and move things around: “That would make him so mad!” A little later, when someone extolled the economical quality of Bill’s work, she spoke up again: “It’s nice you used that word, ‘economical.’ We called it cheap.” Everybody laughed.

Artist Sarah McEneaney brought her dog. “Bill loved Trixie, and she loved him,” she said. Bill’s last home was in the building above Sarah’s office, and Trixie used to go upstairs to nap in the room near him. “She still goes up, there,” Sarah said, though the room is empty.

Photo: Jenna Weiss

We hope visitors to ICA exhibitions always go home with something they didn’t have when they came in—an idea, an image, an inspiration. This wasn’t so different, really, just that this time those inspirations were condensed into things. For a few hours that afternoon everyone in the room played their part, and the moment that had been suspended because of the exhibition—the moment for the dispersal of Bill’s material possessions—took place at last. It was a strange alchemy, words building up a picture of the man even as the objects he had touched and made were taken up by other hands.

The many artists in the room mostly took away talismans that were also useful: a jar of brushes, a wood plane, a T-square, a ball peen hammer. Tools that will keep on doing work, only in someone else’s studio now.

* * *

To sign up for Miranda’s mailing list, email rpastan@ica.upenn.edu.

From the Archive: Agnes Martin reconsidered

November 18 2011

post by Rachel Pastan

“I’m interested in how art and writing have relationships with each other,” Becky Hunter says.

Oh! I think. Me, too.

Agnes Martin, Untitled

It’s a sunny Sunday afternoon on the ICA mezzanine, and Becky is talking about Agnes Martin, a painter whose first museum retrospective was held at ICA in 1973.

Becky is a young art critic, book reviewer, and fiction writer who moved to Philadelphia from London not long ago. Her presentation is part of ICA’s new Excursus series, a platform for more intimate programming than you’ll find on Wednesday nights in our auditorium: a conversation over a cup of tea, a pop-up bookstore, a dramatic reading, or a game of chess with a Wharton Esherick chess set.

Becky leading discussion

Another aspect of Excursus is that it engages ICA’s archive. Becky spent time in the archive researching Agnes Martin, and part of what she’s doing today—as we sit around the table passing images of her paintings from hand to hand—is bringing to us what she unearthed there. Also she is telling a personal story about her own engagement with the artist, whose work she once knew only through two paintings hung in the Tate: bright white, plain grid paintings—some of the only work of Martin’s on permanent view in Britain. Because it was so hard to see the work, Becky, like many people, found herself engaging with Martin largely through her writings. These, often aphoristic and contemplative, concern her spiritual quest. Her lectures, such as “An Untroubled Mind” and “On The Perfection Underlying Life” helped cement some of the myth that grew up around the artist, who abandoned a budding New York career in 1967, driving around the country in a camp van until she found herself in New Mexico. There in the desert she built an adobe house in which to live and work alone.

Holding photo of Agnes

The stories of artists that come down to us are irresistible: The shepherd boy Giotto, discovered drawing in the fields by 13th century master Cimabue; Van Gogh never selling anything; Andy Warhol going home from the blaze of his silver Factory to the quiet house he shared with his mother. The narrative of the artist as hermit, the artist alone in nature, the artist repudiating worldly success is compellingly romantic. Wouldn’t it be wonderful to live like that, alone with the Muse and silence, maybe a dog? Is it perhaps the integrity of renunciation that brings acclaim in the long run? Oh, how pretty to think so.

Becky told us that the prevailing view of Martin’s often stark paintings is to see them as controlled, passive, modest: quintessentially a woman’s work. But, as Becky spent more time with the work, she began to develop different ideas. This happened in 2009 when she took a trip to Edinburgh to see Agnes Martin: Artists Rooms. When she got to the museum, having had a fight with someone just before getting aboard the train, Becky was in a bad mood. Contrary to her expectations, the paintings—darker and grayer than the ones she had seen at the Tate—seemed to reflect her state of mind. “All the paintings seemed to me to have an element of anxiety or aggression,” she said. “There was a real tension between these thick, horizontal gesso brushstrokes and these vertical spaces.”

Was what she had seen real? Or was she so steeped in her own mood that she saw the paintings through that scrim? What to make of an experience of Martin’s work so at odds with the conventional wisdom, so antithetical to the myth of the zen-like desert denizen from whose lips koans calmly dropped?

It was this question that led Becky to ICA’s archive. Were there writings to be unearthed that would support her alternative view? Would she find some objective truth to back up her instincts and feelings?

When she got to this point in her presentation, Becky stopped to ask us—the audience—what we thought. Was research born of an emotional response valid? What an unexpected, brave, truly intimate moment this was: offering her approach up to us to judge!

Group at table

This is what I think: we all have personal, emotional responses to art, and this is good—it’s indispensable. I want an art critic or scholar who has an open mind and an open heart, one aware of her own prejudices so that she will not be in thrall to them, not one who approaches art or artists blind to her own preconceptions, or with the intellect only.

And anyway, are there fixed answers when it comes to questions like these about Martin? In her research, Becky found an essay she believes is by Frank Kolbert in which he discusses Martin’s grid as a “two-dimensional prison.” Becky spoke to a woman who knew the painter at the end of her life and asserted that her use of line was an attempt to hold onto control. Are the paintings prisons, or are they airy meditations? Are they exercises in self-discipline, or are they Taoist paths?

Or—more plausibly—do they partake of both modes, and likely many more besides? Doesn’t Martin’s work—doesn’t any art—take its energy from contradiction, from the complexity that allows for multiple interpretations? From the submerged, intricate, fragmented tumult of a whole life.

* * *

Image credits: Agnes Martin, “Untitled #1,” 1989, acrylic and graphite on linen, 72″ x 72″ (182.9 cm x 182.9 cm). Photo by: G. R. Christmas / Courtesy The Pace Gallery.

Excursus event photos by Tiala Glabau.

To sign up for Miranda’s mailing list, email rpastan@ica.upenn.edu.

A Space to Inspire Them: Art at Work

November 11 2011

post by Rachel Pastan

“I want to make sure they’re in a space that inspires,” Laura Alber says, gesturing around the new Williams-Sonoma, Inc. IT building in San Francisco. She’s talking about her colleagues who work in the building, the walls of which have recently been hung with works of art by contemporary artists: Walead Beshty, Shannon Ebner, Tamar Halpern, and others. Laura, who graduated from Penn in 1990, is President and CEO of Williams-Sonoma, Inc., and she is hosting a tour of the new collection for local alumni, ICA staff, and friends.

Laura Alber, in black, chatting with guests

Before we look at the art, though, she tells a story. Having purchased a building known as the Ice House for the company’s new headquarters—a very pricey piece of real estate—Howard Lester, Laura’s predecessor at Williams-Sonoma, Inc., proceeded to fill the place with mid-century art. Appalled at the expense, Laura questioned his decision. Wouldn’t the money spent on art be better used in other ways?

In response, Mr. Lester had his own question: “How would you like to work in a building in a basement with no windows?”

And so Laura’s mind began to change.

I like this story for a lot of reasons. For one thing, it’s rare for someone to pinpoint an a-ha moment in their lives—a specific occurrence that opened their mind to something new. For another, the story relates to a longstanding conversation I’ve had with myself about where art belongs.

For the most part, art is either in the home, where it is a rich part of the daily life for a very few people, or it’s in a museum in the good company of others of its kind (and available for visits by many strangers) but without any daily domestic intimacy to animate it. Then there are in-between spaces like public buildings and parks: in a City Hall, for example, or on a University Green.

None of these places, however, is where most of us spend most of our waking hours. Rather, we spend them at work: in offices, factories, stores, classrooms, and cubicles—many, many cubicles—with safety notices or family snapshots the only things hanging. One of the things I love about working at ICA is that there is art on the walls even upstairs in the offices. Behind me, in my own cubicle, hangs a poster from a 1968 Christo exhibition, and in front of me over the partition I can see a beautiful print, Sarah McEneaney’s self-portrait of the artist (and ICA board member) in her bathtub. I have never worked anywhere else where this was true, and chances are you don’t work someplace like this either.

But why not? Isn’t the office arguably the place that needs art the most? Isn’t art good for morale, productivity, imagination? Shouldn’t hanging it be a good investment for a business—an investment in the mental well-being of its employees, a kind of health plan for the soul?

At our tour Jimmy Castelucci, a Williams-Sonoma, Inc. associate, tours us through the collection. “The art in this building was inspired by innovation and technology,” he says. He points out the Roland Flexners in the lobby, explaining how they were made by the artist putting India ink and soap in a straw and blowing bubbles that burst against the paper. He shows us the Walead Beshty photographic print made in a process precipitated by what happened to a roll of film going through an x-ray machine shortly after 9/11. He takes us upstairs, past the cubicles and the white boards, past Huddle Room 2A and Conference Room 2B.

What do the people who sit in these cubicles and scribble on these white boards think of this art? Does it grow more meaningful to them over time? More invisible? Might the guy at this desk here look right past all of it for months, and then one day—a difficult afternoon, perhaps, tangled in intractable computer code—look up and really see the Cornelia Parker piece of wires spun from bullets? Might it make some difference?

Some of the Penn alumns at the Williams-Sonoma tour

* * *

To sign up for Miranda’s mailing list, email rpastan@ica.upenn.edu.

Painters in a phone booth on a lonely road

October 27 2011

post by Rachel Pastan

So many people showed up at ICA’s Salon, Approaching Imagery, that we had to rearrange the chairs. It was a good kind of problem to have. The Salon, which was partly inspired by the presence of Charline von Heyl’s extraordinary paintings in ICA’s first-floor gallery, brought together three painters—Scott Olson, R.H. Quaytman, and Philadelphia’s own Dona Nelson—to discuss their own work and, more generally, current issues in painting and abstraction.

Charline von Heyl painting

Charline von Heyl, It's Vot's Behind Me That I Am (Krazy Kat), 2010, acrylic, oil on linen and canvas, 82 x 72 inches. Private collection, New York; courtesy of Friedrich Petzel Gallery, New York.

To begin her presentation, Dona Nelson showed a movie clip. It was a chase scene from John Cassavetes’s The Killing of a Chinese Bookie, very dark and shadowy and hard to make out. After the chase, the protagonist has a long phone conversation in a lighted telephone booth in the middle of nowhere. “I can’t give you anything but love, baby,” he says to the person on the other end.

“I think Cassevetes films are very applicable to Charline von Heyl,” Nelson said. For one thing, they have a convoluted narrative. For another, they are riveting without being exactly entertaining. And finally, “You can never really identify the emotions, but they’re nonetheless very emotional.”

Later, during the discussion, R.H. Quaytman picked up the theme. “It’s interesting that you chose the Cassevetes clip,” she said. “If you’re a painter, you’re kind of in the broken-down car at night, and everyone is going past you.”

The Salon

Photo: William Hidalgo

It was wonderful to hear these painters—these passionate inheritors of a mantle older than history—discuss what they love and what they want to do. Scott Olson works with rabbit-skin glue and marble dust and vegetable pigment. He showed us an image of the industrial landscape outside his window, and another image of the Michigan woods covered snow, to give us a sense of the world he lives in that influences the art he makes. R.H. Quaytman, who declared her love for vitrines, conceives of each exhibition as a book. “I make a lot of rules,” she said. “But they don’t always help.” Dona Nelson likes to paint outside. “Sometimes I leave the paintings out overnight. Who knows what will happen to them? I try not to protect them.”

Best was when they asked each other questions. “How do you make decisions about what to cover up?” Dona Nelson asked Scott Olson. “What do you think that impulse of covering up is?” This from a woman who often uses both sides of her canvases, who seems as though she wants to open up everything.

“Shame,” R.H. Quaytman suggested.

“I try not to decide,” Scott Olson offered.

Then the audience, many of whom were painters themselves, joined in. In that warm room crowded with people who had come to think about painting, it was impossible to believe that making this kind of art was like being alone on a dark highway. For one night at least, all the cars stopped outside the phone booth, and everyone in them got out: “I can’t give you anything but love, baby!”

Who needs more than that?

Still from Chinese Bookie film

Still from Cassavetes, The Killing of a Chinese Bookie, 1976

* * *

The next ICA Salon, Art in Transit, will be held on Wednesday, November 2 at 6:30.

To sign up for Miranda’s mailing list, email rpastan@ica.upenn.edu.

What Is Contemporary? Pick your own metaphor

September 30 2011

post by Rachel Pastan

Ingrid Schaffner, ICA’s Senior Curator, started her fifth annual “What Is Contemporary?” lecture where she left off last year: talking about money. Or, as she more poetically put it: “purchase, patronage, price point.” She showed an image of Stephanie by Maurizio Cattelan—a sculpture that recently sold at auction for $2,434,500—then offered us a cheaper alternative. Charley, “a radical art work masquerading as a magazine,” is also a creation of Maurizio Cattelan (and friends) and available for only 16 Euro. “There are lots of ways to be in the art world,” Ingrid proclaimed expansively, which seemed a good way to launch the wide-ranging, hold-onto-your-hat talk she then embarked on, a talk that sometimes felt like a roller coaster but was in fact more like a butterfly lighting down briefly on a hundred flowers, each one more fragrant than the next.

Or, occasionally, just smellier.

Ingrid talking

Photo: William Hidalgo

This is the third version of this annual lecture I’ve heard, and I wish I’d been around for the first two. One of the pleasures of hearing the talk is noting how it evolves and grows while staying essentially itself—like a Christmas Cactus that blooms only on that holiday, or an old friend you meet for dinner once a year.

Ingrid seemed a little anxious about the fact that her talk would cover old ground as well as new. She quoted Gertrude Stein (courtesy of poet Tom Devaney), the Empress of Echoes, who is supposed to have remarked, “There is no such thing as repetition, only emphasis.” And indeed, the pieces Ingrid mentioned this year for the third (or maybe it was the fifth) time seemed more interesting and resonant this year than ever: Robert Smithson’s Spiral Jetty shimmering under water in a recent photograph; Mierle Laderman Ukeles’s Hartford Wash, in which the artist spent hours on her knees scrubbing the steps of the Wadsworth Atheneum; and James Turrell’s aching Skyspaces that, as Ingrid says, “use light to sculpt space.”

I’m tempted to emulate the style of the lecture in this blog post, offering a kind of found poem of titles and subjects. Ingrid divides her lecture into themes, and the names of the themes alone are hypnotic: terrain, systems, reference, history, evocation, flesh…

Instead, I’m going to consider the structure and function of the lecture itself, jumping right to the end to consider a remark Ingrid made in closing, when she invited us to “think of this talk as a Leatherman—or Leatherwoman—to open the work up. Use it if it’s useful, or throw it away.”

Driving home in the car in the dark, I wondered what she meant exactly. What is it about categorization that’s useful? How does a survey like this open work up?

Banana wall

Stefan Sagmeister, Richard The, & Joe Shouldice for Deitch Projects, 2008

In the category of alchemy, for example, she mentioned the following artists and works: Joseph Beuys and his Fat Chair, Karla Black and her Venice Biennale installation made of make up, Stefan Sagmeister (whose show at ICA opens in April) and his self-affirmation written in bananas of different ripenesses, Bill Walton (whose show at ICA is open now) and his studio—“that wonderful machine for transforming materials into art,” and of course James Turrell. I knew of most of these artists and artworks before listening to the lecture, but something about the way she yoked them together made me see something at the core of them that was new to me. Instead of considering Turrell’s Skyspaces, for example—as I have before—and thinking only, That’s wonderful, but why?—I thought, Ah, they’re related to these other works, they belong somewhere. They have a center of gravity. I felt I had a road in.

Bill Walton's Studio

Bill Walton's Studio, Philadelphia, 2011. Photo: Karen Mauch

Of course, any good work of art, like a major city, has lots of roads in. Ingrid could shift works from one category to another each year if she wanted to; for all I know, she does. The point isn’t to pin art down like a butterfly in a collector’s case, but rather to offer the mind a shaft of light along which to swim up through the air and meet the butterfly.

Shaft of light, road, Leatherman: you can pick your own metaphor. All I know is that, speeding home down the highway that night, I felt that the next time I encountered a new, strange, enigmatic work of art, I’d be better able to open myself to it and make it at home.

* * *
If you have a metaphor for how you get connected to art, we’d love it if you shared it in the comments below.

To sign up for Miranda’s mailing list, email rpastan@upenn.edu.

Re:Activism: Not a game at all

September 22 2011

post by Rachel Pastan

Erin hands out the red-white-and-blue bandanas left over from a Slaughterhouse Five event. “They’ll help distinguish you as part of the group,” she says, which is true, but I don’t think any of us are crazy about wearing them. When the real game is played in October, players will get T-shirts. But it’s only July now, and this is only a dry run, so bandanas it is.

The ReActivism Team

There are six of us at the Kelly Writers House this afternoon, test driving the game Re:Activism, which ICA, Kelly Writers House, and Penn’s Urban Studies Program have collaborated to bring to Penn as part of the Year of Games. Re:Activism, which was created by Colleen Macklin and PET Lab, has been played in New York, Minneapolis, and other cities. It asks teams of students armed with a map, a backpack of supplies, a smart phone, and their own creativity to reactivate histories of social activism and political protest from colonial times to the recent past.

This is what I wrote last spring in the grant application to the Provost’s Arts Fund that is largely supporting the project: “Part lesson in social history, part political engagement, and part performance art, Re:Activism encourages active participation, collaboration, and creativity.” But as I stand outside Kelly Writers House on this July afternoon, I realize I don’t really have any clear idea what that means—or what I’m in for. Of the six of us, I’m the oldest by a good twenty years, but that doesn’t mean I’m taking a leadership role here. Basically, my feeling is, I’m along for the ride.

At 2:45 we’re at the Betsy Ross House in Old City, our first stop. Thomson holds up the phone we’re using to send and receive the text messages. “I think Protest Central just gave us a call,” he says.

It’s a warm, sunny day, and the reenactors at the Betsy Ross House, dressed in breeches and long skirts, eye us curiously as Thomson unzips the red backpack. He takes out poster board, markers, a clipboard, a camera, and lays them out on the cobblestones around the fountain. We are reenactors too, in our own way, our mission to connect the issues of the past to those of today. The American flag, for instance, famously (if perhaps apocryphally) attributed to Betsy Ross: what has it meant to Americans down through the years? What does it mean to us now?

Anna-Lara drawing

In 1971—according to our game materials—Vietnam Veterans Against the War staged a protest right here at Betsy Ross House. One of our Re:Activism challenges for this spot involves drawing a sign that addresses complicated responses to the flag. Another is to engage passers-by and ask them about the ’71 protest. It’s interesting to see how our little group divides itself: who wants to draw, who wants to talk. Anna-Lara is soon kneeling on the sidewalk with poster board and marker. Thomson chats to a woman with a cane and a bright turquoise necklace. She doesn’t have much to say. At first we’re not sure if we’re doing this right—whatever it is we’re meant to be doing—but then a man and woman walking down Arch Street stop to watch us. The man says he’s a veteran, and he’s curious about what we’re doing. We explain as best we can, and I ask him, “What do you think the connection is between the Veterans Against the War and the Betsy Ross House?” It’s a question I’m still puzzling over myself.

“Well,” he says, “maybe because the veterans were the ones to use the flag—cutting it up and burning it.”

“And what do you think about that?”

“I’m very patriotic,” he says. “I support the flag. But I also support the rights it represents.”

It’s not much, but suddenly I feel that I’ve begun to get it. When have I ever talked with a veteran about the flag? When have I asked a stranger on the street—a fellow citizen—anything significant at all? The game is making that happen. In that way, it’s not a game at all.

Flag sign

After this, the challenges get easier, or maybe it’s that we’re getting the hang of it. By the time we reach Independence Hall an hour later, I have lost all self-consciousness about our red-white-and-blue bandanas, our eccentric activities, our obsessive picture-taking (we have to document what we do in order to get credit in the game). Everyone down here is dressed oddly, everyone is in groups, and all the groups are taking pictures. Horse-drawn carriages rattle past, and the air smells of manure. We’re getting tired, but at the next site we kneel on the sidewalk to chalk a message about gay rights. We don’t even have to stop people; they stop us to ask us what we’re doing. They want to take our picture.

Jenna chats with a group of kids who kneel to sign their names to the proposal she’s chalked. “Do you know what Stonewall was?” she asks.

When we’re done at this site, we leave the chalk. It’s not in the instructions, but it’s good to think about people coming by, reading what we’ve written, maybe adding their names to ours. It’s good to think that, like the activists whose trails we’re following today, we too may leave traces on the city for others to find. At least until it rains.

* * *

To sign up for Re:Activism, click here.

To sign up for Miranda’s mailing list, email rpastan@upenn.edu.

PechaKucha(ish) Night: The Love of Doing

July 29 2011

post by Rachel Pastan

“This is going to be casual,” Kate says, referring to PechaKucha(ish) Night at ICA. Some of the artists in Kate’s current show, One is the loneliest number, along with some other artists, designers, and musicians, are here to present us their work, super fast. PechaKucha, a Japanese invention, is kind of like bonsai for lectures. The idea is that you show 20 slides for 20 seconds each. It’s not easy to stay within the time limit, but we have a buzzer if they run over.

Getting ready for PechaKucha(ish) Night

Waiting for dark. Photo: Jenna Weiss

Kate goes first, showing slides of and talking about her ideas for her show, which presents the work of collaborative duos. She explains that PechkKucha(ish) night is the brainchild of Megawords, a collaboration between Anthony Smyrski and Dan Murphy that makes zines, inhabits storefronts, and broadcasts a radio show. As one of the duos represented in One is the loneliest number, they have been programming events at ICA this spring and summer. “We are actually part of the Megawords project right now!” Kate says, and then the buzzer goes off.

After Kate, as the light fades from the sky out on ICA’s terrace, a diverse procession of artists and designers take the microphones, waving the remote like a magic wand at the computer projector. In the spirit of PechaKucha, I will evoke each one briefly, bonsai fashion.

Julien Bismuth and Lucas Ajemian: “I want to talk to you a little about efficiency…What we look at as inefficiency is sort of the point of making art.”

Gary Fogelson and Phil Lubliner: An idea for a new alert system for the U.S. to replace the current color coding. When everything’s okay, play the Beach Boys’ “Don’t Worry Baby.” When things are bad, play The Animals’ “We Gotta Get Out of This Place.”

Matt Suib and Nadia Hironaka: “We work in time-based media.” They showed gorgeous clips from their videos and might have been the only ones who didn’t get the buzzer!

Matt and Nadia

Matt and Nadia. Photo: Jenna Weiss

Megawords: There’s a piano in the People’s Museum in St. Louis you can carve your name in.

The Dufala Brothers: “We make exaggerated tools that are completely useless.” (I love the old-fashioned typewriter with keys the size of sunflower seeds.)

Rebekah and Sara Maysles (the Maysles sisters): They went away to an island alone together for four months to work on their book of interviews, collaged illustrations, and other archival material related to Grey Gardens, the cult film made by their father and uncle (the Maysles brothers). Also, they cook together.

Big Brad and Rachel (who deejayed the evening’s music): “We’re not crazy radical revolutionaries, but we’re ready for the revolution!”

A cardboard tank by the Dufala Brothers

Slide of project by Dufala brothers. Photo: Jenna Weiss

A last minute addition was John Taylor, a local carpenter who collaborates with his dad. John designed and built the chairs (he calls them love seats) currently on ICA’s mezzanine, as part of Megawords’ programming of that space. “Do things for the love of doing them,” he said. “I just wanted to remind everyone that that’s what’s important.”

Something about tonight’s event reveals how much these artists and designers do love what they’re doing. Sometimes, when you’re in a gallery standing in the implacable, finished presence of the made, you can forget about the maker. But listening to these collaborators joke with each other and interrupt each other—seeing the easy rhythm between them—reminds you that making things is something real people really do. It makes you want to look around for a project, and someone to share it with.

* * *

To sign up for Miranda’s mailing list, email rpastan@upenn.edu.

Secret Cinema at ICA: “Summer Means Fun!”

July 22 2011

post by Rachel Pastan

It’s four in the afternoon, and Jacob and Paul are painting the huge projection screen out on ICA’s terrace. “You want some Aunt Polly’s fence action?” Paul asks, offering me a roller.

I don’t, but I always like seeing what’s happening in and around the building on a Wednesday afternoon, as the staff gets ready for the coming evening’s Whenever Wednesday progam. The big sandwich board is set up outside the front door, and people go up and down in the elevator toting tubs and tables, while downstairs in the back of the lobby microphone stands, video cameras, and computer carts emerge from locked closets like flocks of black birds. There’s a different kind of energy at ICA on Wednesdays, as though people are getting ready for a party. Which in a way we are.

Tonight ICA is hosting Secret Cinema, a program founded and run by Jay Schwartz, in which he screens pieces of his extensive collection of obscure films and other “celluloid treasures.” Jay began Secret Cinema in 1992 “after sensing a need to expose new audiences to neglected films of all kinds,” he writes on the Secret Cinema website. “As the media conglomerates abandon chemical-mechanical technologies in favor of direct electronic distribution schemes and ‘virtual’ realities, it will be up to the cineastes and collectors to keep real movie screens lit, and to introduce new audiences to the joys of the collective film experience. That is the real mission of the Secret Cinema.”

Photo: William Hidalgo

The theme of tonight’s screening is “Summer Means Fun!” Summer also means thunderstorms, and a big one threatens to blow in at dusk, just as set up is running full tilt out on the terrace. For a few minutes, with the tree tops whipping and waving, it looks as though the program will have to move indoors to the auditorium; but then the clouds blow away again, and everyone sighs with relief and crosses their fingers.

By nine o’clock close to a hundred people have shown up. Some are Secret Cinema regulars, some are ICA regulars, and some are newcomers to both groups. The first film we see is Swim Parade (1949), a ten minute documentary short by Robert Youngson featuring visions of Coney Island bathing beauties from 1917. “You could see debutantes there, but you couldn’t see much of them,” the narrator deadpans, and then lots of other women in scanty(ish) swimming costumes appear for a few moments, representing the various decades of the first half of the twentieth century. Mostly what we see throughout the film are women, though we do get a glimpse of Johnny Weissmuller in his pre-Tarzan days, in a one-piece bathing suit that covers much of his powerful chest. After some shots of extraordinary high dives, the narrator sums up portentously (with perhaps just a hint of camp?): “Dreams and desires, fads and fashions, you’ll find them all on the Swim Parade!”

The next short—heart-wrenchingly sweet—contains a different kind of camp. It chronicles the adventures of mid-century New York City school children taken out to the New Jersey countryside to experience nature. The vision of girls in dungarees making beds in the open air and boys brushing out the fur of stolid mules would be hokey if it weren’t so utterly sincere. That’s the feeling I get from many of these films: a flickering glimpse into a lost world where young women swim in heavy bloomers, city children learn to cook eggs on hot rocks, and cowboys twirl ropes and lasso calves like, like…something out of a movie!

View of audience with sky behind

Photo: William Hidalgo

After a while the wind picks up again, and Jay walks around checking the speaker poles for stability and staring worriedly at the sky. But we’re lucky: the weather holds, and the films delight. In “Helter Swelter” (1950) there’s even a sing-a-long, and we all join in, following the bouncing ball. “In the good old summertime,” we sing, half out of tune, under the dim, twinkling city stars. And for a moment, under the spell of celluloid, even this twenty-first century crowd is suddenly washed clean of cynicism, enjoying pleasures so old fashioned they almost seem new.

* * *

The second Secret Cinema screening at ICA, coming up on Wednesday, July 27 at 9:00, will feature short films about art and artists.

To sign up for Miranda’s mailing list, email rpastan@upenn.edu.