A medley of talks…

In two movements.

It seems that it was Sewanee’s gallery afternoon as while I was opening in the Nabit Gallery, there was also an opening in the more prestigious – but oh so dark and and dreary – University Gallery. I knew it was more prestigious as they had hot dishes – butternut squash dip, mini quiche - to nosh on while looking at the work while over in the Nabit there were chips, and Oreos.

We both where to give a talk about our work and once again I realise that my fate is doomed to places like the WGAS.

I went first as my opening was first. I didn’t stick to what I was going to say as I forgot it and didn’t really know who was coming to the talk. I also found it strange to go into ao darkened room to show slides when the actual work was on the walls.

I was also clueless as to why I had done what I did – not true simply couldn’t put my reasoning into any rational order.

Started with the usual, that I am not an artist for the word art and all it derivations are about as useful as the word “the” it says nothing it is used mainly by those who are too insecure to actually think about what they are doing.

I also pointed to the sign made saying that these were photographic works. They are photographs not photographic works and harangued the sign maker. Again stated that if one has to go just this side of noun verbs to justify things don’t bother.

Then stated that I liked the medium because it was so weak, how shockingly bad it was to convey anything but what was exactly in the photograph, that it like language needed a bunch of them strung together to get any sort of idea from them and even then it is usually wrong.

Went to the large image and used someone’s comment earlier on how bleak the places looked where to me they were rife with life. Also mentioned on how one student seeing the wall o’snaps only saw the ones dealing with sex.

People immediately gravitated to that wall.

I then open the floor up to questions and when there weren’t any I started answering the ones that were brought up the night before in Shenanigan’s – ah if any school wants to engender debate have a bar either on campus or close by.

Then the questions started – the size the randomness what was the difference between the triptychs and the more loosely linked snaps. I mentioned that this arrangement was valid for what I was thinking when I put it up but if I had to do it again other arrangements would most probably happen.

Iconography questioned, specifics shown. Abuse hurled. Polite clapping. Wine poured. Oreos downed – they go well with white wine - and we headed to the second movement.

These images were digital works, there was a screen and a laptop blocking some of the works on the wall in preparation for the talk. The work looked like someone had vomited Photoshop using 80’s iconography – but wanting it to be art made them on ripped canvas.

The lights lowered. She got up, thanked more people than there are credits on a Hollywood movie, and started the talk with endless anecdotes about her life, constantly referring to her hubbie in the front row. She then proceeded to show us all the images that were in the show – case me had missed them on the wall.

The key words were thrown in – iconography, meaning, - but never show in specifics. We got to know the names of all her pets and that they keep lizards I the house in winter. The talk orbited the work at about the same distance Pluto orbits the Sun.

The highlight came after a lab like hinting at her knowledge of things digital but showing us how she put together an image, layers and all, her thought process and what the image meant which when finished took up about one tenth of the actual piece.

Students seemed unimpressed.

In the end relieved as a decade ago this type of talk would have been given by a photographer – cameras would have been brought up, film debated, zone system hinted at ignoring what the images were about completely. It was nice to see that this had moved on to things digital.