Musings on Gallery Work
Apres Ski is over and the work is ready to be sent back to the artists. In my note back to the artists, I told them what work seemed to attract the most attention. That got me to thinking about "why?" First, a disclaimer. I'm talking about the general public here, not people that are intentionally seeking art out, or that are versed in the world of fiber art.
I think "stuff" reels 'em in. People are fairly used to seeing "quilts"; small quilts aren't such a stretch. Surface design and embellishment are new to most. But the "stuff" can't be random; it should be meaningful to the work. In Maxine Farkas' work she uses all sorts of stuff, but it's not the buy-it-at-Michael's-and-stick-it-on scrapbook variety; it's things she's collected over the years, finds at flea markets. Old keys, old locker numbers, a drafting compass, rusty nails. Stuff that has a history, a past of its own. She also uses beads, but usually matte, and they're used to provide anchor points, rather than strewn all across the surface.
And I think people like intimate. It may be because I can only display smaller pieces, but given the choice between a medium-sized piece (say 36" x 36") and something 8" x 10" or smaller, the viewer is drawn to the small, examines it more closely, and all of a sudden - hopefully - realizes that there's a world of things going on at each layer. One impression from a distance, a different impression from medium-range, and then, upon very close inspection, a whole new piece is seen. Of course you can do the same with a larger piece; once the viewer realizes that there's more to the work, the viewer goes back to the larger piece to see what they might have missed.
Laura Cater-Woods achieves this masterfully - her pieces are wonderful from a distance, but with each step closer you make new discoveries that blended into the view previously. I have a piece of hers hanging over my desk. As you get closer you see the wonderful stitching that adds contours to the landscape, the variety of thread thicknesses to give the piece dimension, the restrained use of beads/stones.
So I guess I'm saying that size is the first draw, you can see an image from a distance and decide whether or not you want to look more closely. If you choose not to, you may be missing some wonderful discoveries. But with small, you're pretty much required to get closer in order to see the work. What *holds* the viewer's attention, once you've drawn them closer, are the layers, the complexities, the depth of the work itself.
I think "stuff" reels 'em in. People are fairly used to seeing "quilts"; small quilts aren't such a stretch. Surface design and embellishment are new to most. But the "stuff" can't be random; it should be meaningful to the work. In Maxine Farkas' work she uses all sorts of stuff, but it's not the buy-it-at-Michael's-and-stick-it-on scrapbook variety; it's things she's collected over the years, finds at flea markets. Old keys, old locker numbers, a drafting compass, rusty nails. Stuff that has a history, a past of its own. She also uses beads, but usually matte, and they're used to provide anchor points, rather than strewn all across the surface.
And I think people like intimate. It may be because I can only display smaller pieces, but given the choice between a medium-sized piece (say 36" x 36") and something 8" x 10" or smaller, the viewer is drawn to the small, examines it more closely, and all of a sudden - hopefully - realizes that there's a world of things going on at each layer. One impression from a distance, a different impression from medium-range, and then, upon very close inspection, a whole new piece is seen. Of course you can do the same with a larger piece; once the viewer realizes that there's more to the work, the viewer goes back to the larger piece to see what they might have missed.
Laura Cater-Woods achieves this masterfully - her pieces are wonderful from a distance, but with each step closer you make new discoveries that blended into the view previously. I have a piece of hers hanging over my desk. As you get closer you see the wonderful stitching that adds contours to the landscape, the variety of thread thicknesses to give the piece dimension, the restrained use of beads/stones.
So I guess I'm saying that size is the first draw, you can see an image from a distance and decide whether or not you want to look more closely. If you choose not to, you may be missing some wonderful discoveries. But with small, you're pretty much required to get closer in order to see the work. What *holds* the viewer's attention, once you've drawn them closer, are the layers, the complexities, the depth of the work itself.
posted by Mary at 8:54 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home