Omer Fast at the IMA

Omer Fast, The Casting, 2007. Four channel video installation; 14 minutes.
Carmen & Mark Holeman Contemporary Fund, Henry F. and Katherine DeBoest Memorial Fund.
Installation view from 2008 Whitney Biennial, via James Wagner

I'm not sure if it's been on display at the IMA before or not (I'm pretty sure this is the first time), but after stumbling across The Casting, a four channel video installation by Omer Fast today, it instantly became one of my favorite pieces in the contemporary collection.

Not all of Fast's work has completely resonated with me but this piece is flawless in it's execution. Fast has intertwined two stories by the same person he interviewed in Texas as he was about to go out on his second tour of duty in Iraq. The subject tells of a brief romantic encounter he had with a psychotic young red head in Germany and how he accidentally shot an Iraqi civilian on his first tour. Certainly an overt commentary on America's participation in the war at the time this was created (2007), but Fast has made this piece highly personal. A war that is taking place thousands of miles away, with drone airplanes and laser guided missiles, is made all the more real and tangible by seemlessly coupling it with a story we can all relate.

I missed this piece at the Whitney last year, I'm glad I'll be able to make multiple trips to spend some q.t. with it now that it's in our backyard. Thanks IMA.

Backlash against the conceptual

Damien Hirst with White Roses and Butterflies, 2008, The Wallace Collection. Photograph: Katie Collins/PA

I don't care whether or not Damian Hirst can paint. His dozens of studio assistants churning out spin painting after medicine cabinet after taxidermied animal doesn't bother me at all. I like the concepts, I like the aesthetics (ok the millionth dot painting was silly) but I don't care if the final product came via his hand or his direction. If you keep up with all the contemporary art news you might think I am the only one that feels this way.

Hirst's most recent exhibition, which just opened at the Wallace Collection in London, is comprised only of paintings in which the artist got rid of all assistants and created everything with his own hand. By all accounts the paintings are awful. I have not seen the show in person but the fact that BBC has a page on their website dedicated to linking all of the bad reviews is a pretty strong indication. My guess is the show is not as bad as all the naysayers are putting in print. Hirst has for years been the critics favorite person to hate, but I think it's a pretty strong assumption that painting is not his forte.

Enter Denis Dutton. This weekend his article Has Conceptual Art Jumped the Shark Tank? was published in the New York Times. Basically he is equating contemporary conceptual art to the cartoons in the New Yorker. He asserts that Hirst's inability to paint will cause future art historians to consider him irrelevant and that those who have purchased his work (along with his contemporary Jeff Koons) must be baffoons (my words).

What I don't understand is why the public (or at least the critics) need to draw this imaginary line in the sand where on one side is everything beautiful and created by an artist and is labeled 'art' and on the other side is everything else that we label 'junk'. In my lifetime art has been about blurring boundaries, mixing the aesthetic with the conceptual, and the functional with the beautiful. Do I care if my favorite photographer can't draw? No. Do I think any less of my favorite sculptor if they can't do an interesting piece with the medium of video? No. And would it bother me at all if my favorite conceptual artist can't paint? I bet you can guess the answer.

Damien Hirst, Pharmacy, 1992, installation view at Cohen Gallery, NY.

Anne Chu

Anne Chu, Court Lady, 1997; oil, casein on wood, unpainted plywood

Forgive the bad iPhone photo but I had no idea this Anne Chu was at the IMA until yesterday. It's in the Asian galleries, not contemporary. Thought some of you might want to know.

*** UPDATE: I just found out this piece has been installed in the Asian collection for 4 years. Apparently I need to spend some time exploring things not on the 3rd floor.

Is there a trend here?

Yesterday over at On the Cusp, Scott reported about an artist who guerrilla-style installed a piece at the IMA and apparently has done so at 12 other institutions across the country. Well, yesterday's Seattle Times reports a similar story only this time the artist installed his papier-mache sculptures outside at the Gas Works Sculpture Gardens and states that it has been "gifted to the citizens of Seattle in the spirit of awakening."

I mentioned in the comments section of Scott's post that I was somewhat torn on how I felt about this. I have always been in favor of the guerrilla exhibit. I feel if no one is going to give you a break than you need to make the break yourself. I often take inspiration from Maurizio Cattelan who once stole the contents of a neighboring gallery the night before the opening of his own exhibition and claimed it as his own. The key is - and here's the trick - you've got to know how to pull it off. Both the stunt at the IMA and in the Seattle sculpture park are pretty tired and played out. In both cases I figure no harm, no foul. But the reason we love contemporary art is the creativity and ingenuity when the art is at it's best. I'd quite frankly would like to see a little more of that around town.

Disclaimer: I am not condoning any guerilla exhibitions at the IMA or any other fine institution in town or any other sort of vandalism. As I said above, that idea is tired. But may our fine city be your canvas.

The IMA's most imporatant acquisition

When the Indianapolis Museum of Art is mentioned in the same breath as it's museum peers across the country or around the globe, the topic of conversation is most likely about the physical size of the collection or the current state of the endowment. With a few exceptions (Josefowitz collection, etc), rarely is there mention of an iconic work. We have no La Grande Jatte, no Demoiselles, no Michael Jackson and Bubbles. Other than the ubiquitous Robert Indiana Love sculpture does anything else immediately come to mind? Certainly we all have favorites but are there masterpieces?

Miller House, Columbus, IN designed by Eero Saarinen. Photo via IMA website.

Everything changed when the IMA acquired The Miller Home in Columbus. Let this be our Guernica. Even during the reduced pricing caused by a recession it is becoming increasingly more difficult for any institution to acquire a significant work, painting or otherwise, that is why this priceless gem is even more special. The only downfall is with the obvious limitations of architecture, it's 45 minutes away from the museum and surrounded by neighbors who I am sure hate all the gawkers (myself included) that try and sneak peaks at the famed home. The challenge for the IMA will be making this home accessible while respecting the wishes of neighbors. The best part of the IMA is having 10 extra minutes and dropping in to visit Sandback or Cezanne. Sadly that won't be possible with 'our' Saarinen, but the ultimate success of this acquisition will ultimately depend on how well the IMA handles this balancing act.