In one of Columbia College Chicago’s newest exhibitions, If Artists Ran the Media, participating artists attempt to respond to the many unfair, partial, and under qualified news sources that our generation is bombarded with today. With pieces ranging from topics like the War on Terror to models in the media, the exhibition attempts to open viewers' eyes to the horrifying truths that we face today.
While the exhibition as a whole was respectable; I was not truly convinced. The atmosphere itself did not set the best tone for an exhibition whose goal is to challenge your mind. The multi-media artwork hung on dark drown walls, giving the room a careless feeling with no real overall appeal to draw any sort of an audience in. On the chance that someone were to enter the gallery, the main text is placed on a center pillar – showing no distinct start or end to the show. If your decision to turn right or left to begin your venture is affected at all by you being able to concentrate – then you may as well stay in place – because the static of the college’s student radio station will be buzzing annoyingly in the background.
When finally focusing on the artwork, I found the themes as choppy and distracting from one another as the room itself. Though there were some powerful pieces such as Eric Nowaki’s, spray paint on masking tape “Any Day Now”, and Mark Nelson’s “Liberty Tree”, a beautifully disturbing painting; there were some that were not ready to be hung on gallery walls, and others that completely contradicted the exhibition’s intent.
Jasper Jones’ “The Truth Filter” was both true, and misleading; much like the media he was responding to. When hearing title of the work, it is safe to assume that the artist’s intent is to filter out biases, and to show only truth. The video montage paired with audio clips of words by George W. Bush fully opposes that notion. The audio files are clearly cut and edited to manipulate the words that you hear President Bush saying. Though his original motives may still be questionable, Mr. Jones is using his own biases and ‘filters’ to impose his beliefs on an audience.
The art displayed in the exhibition was interesting, sparked a lot of thought, posed a myriad of questions and transmitted their individual intents and responses to them. Overall, however, the exhibition did not deliver the content that it claimed it would. Do I agree that the media outlets exposed today are somewhat slanted, yes. But instead of showing that biased and unfair media is immoral and against all ethical codes, the art inferred that those media outlets’ partial and unfair depiction of the news was damaging to our culture; but here’s ours. Artists’ inspirations and creativity spark from their individual experiences, morals, opinions, and self-identities; the idea of an objective piece of art is an oxy-moron in itself, and If Artists Ran the Media failed to convince me otherwise.
“If Artists Ran the Media” is on display from December 03, 2008 through February 20, 2009 at Columbia Colleges Chicago’s C33 Gallery located at 33 East Congress, Chicago, IL. Gallery hours are Monday to Thursday 9am – 7pm and Friday 9am – 5pm. Visit their website for more information.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI enjoyed the critic of the space in which the art was presented, it gives a feel of the art in a physical context. I am wont to go to see the gallery again, to note the subilties and their effect on my subconscious.
ReplyDeleteGreat attention to the space and atmosphere of the exhibit, if I had not visited it, I still feel like I have a feel of the area. Could use a stronger opening, needs something catchy, instead just stating "Columbia College's new exibit." Overall I like how you state your clear opinion, feelings, and thoughts going through your mind. Good ending with also stating your opinion of what the exibit accomplished personally to you. Also the information at the end is helpfull for people who are interested to visit the exibit, and sweet you included a link! Good Job
ReplyDeleteI believe that the picture you put onto this blog clearly defined what you were trying to get the reader to envision while reading your blog. Not only could I imagine what the space looked like, I also was able to hear the contradicting voice of Bush, while just looking at the video. The vocabulary usage was very diverse, but very clear.
ReplyDeleteOne thing I would consider is to have a stronger opening.
Jessica,
ReplyDeleteI really appreciate how you have commented on your entire experience at the show -- mentioning that the "room had a careless feeling" and remembering the static on the college radio in the background.
The tone of your review is consistent throughout the entire piece, and I didn't trip over any unclear language.
Your closing is very strong -- you've stated why the show's stance didn't completely convince you, and you've also stated WHY.
As far as "things to work on" go, I would maybe suggest varying the structure of some of your sentences. Instead of starting with "when", "while", use something a bit...catchier. (?)
Your review was very nice!
I can add my voice to the chorus of approval for what you've done in this piece--especially the couple of folks who noticed the way you included the gallery space in your considerations. I particularly like the way you are willing to praise certain works and consider the larger implications of the show, but still call the concept into question. It's a very reasonable tone.
ReplyDeleteLike the other commentators, too, I feel like something's a little off in the opening--not that it isn't strong, but that it is a little inconsistent with the rest of the piece. You seem to set out in one direction but ultimately go another.