vrijdag 26 februari 2010

Jeff Gabel




artreview.com : But do you love failure?

Jeff Gabel : No, but I do thrive on it. Regarding failure as content, there seems to be a strong drive or inclination in me towards exploiting its nature or celebrating it, and it's one of my most comfortable subjects to work with. As for the reason, it's internal, which means that I probably can't see or comprehend it as clearly as others around me can, so I'll leave it at that, it's an internal thing. Regarding failure as art process, it is easier for me to be a little objective. It comes from my temperament's gross inability to condition itself to wide open-endedness or situations which involve turning chaos, even mild disorder, into clarity.
source:
artreview

click img. to play

1 reacties:

thomas stolperer zei

Here's the text that's written on the wood-panel diptych drawing:

Small slidable plastic tiles with pictures of more or less unhappy actual people who work in moderate- or lower-levels of the art-business industry printed on them and fitted into a square device as a grid with one tile-space left free so they can be moved around one at a time like those puzzles where you have to arrange the tiles into a sequence, except that here there is no discernable potential sequence, although you could create or imagine one, for example, assuming that you can tolerate the high subjectivity and the problems it causes when ranking things in numbers greater than 4 or 5, the tiles could be ordered according to degree of unhappiness, but that’s not the point, because it’s an artwork made by a self-declared yet in reality not at all asexually minded artist who, fully aware that this work here is a gimmick that consists of commonly-known and negative references to the art system mixed with concepts like “nostalgic toy/game” and “easily graspable mechanical apparatus and aesthetic scheme”, spends a large part of his time imagining how the essence of his main art, almost completely unrelated to the tile-puzzle, will and should someday be judged as the perfect combination of reference to particular modes possible in art (like writing, creation of form, humor, mental conception, personal use of media, juxtaposition) with the actual application of these modes, a combination magnified by his ability to maintain it across such a vast range of modes that someday a full article about him in Artforum or a write-up for his retrospective, which would include work from undergard school all the way up to an ongoing, at the present time yet unknown work, should close with the line: “From the sublime to the tactile to the conceptual to the real to the intuitive, he works purposefully yet instinctively up to the points where these and all other artistic properties reach a natural or historical equilibrium point, and stops there without temptation to cross that point, beyond which they would become aesthetic commodities and self-responsive building-blocks to an artwork rather than elements of art, and the result for the viewer is an introduction to new dimensions and the realignment of the fronts of beauty and expression.”

 
Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 2.5 License.