Just got back from the dialog. Here is my two bit. It was super interesting to see the progression of work by an artist over a 30 year period. Alex Mathews really has explored various mediums, while remaining true to sculpture through-out. As far as a critique of his work goes (pardon my impertinence) I think his early works are super interesting. Somewhere along the way it got a bit hazy. I do like his wood work including some of the reliefs with painting on them...but simply don't get hie 'male torso' series as also the drawings of various intellectual celebs. Btw, I particularly like the works that he did while in Germany for 2 semesters in the 80's.
Regarding the idea of the Critic talking about the work. I really thought Santosh was in all earnestness, but still the language, jargon and postulations of that field that he used leave me befuddled and baffled. Santosh spoke almost like present day art-critical writings...heavy and wordy and impossible to make sense of. Of course in so saying, I am asking for a lot of trouble potential, but hey...this is my honest take. I remember a time when I simply couldn't understand Martha J's writing...but off late I completely understand her. Perhaps she has set the precedent - write in a language that can be understood by the challenged artist as well as the public at large.
3 comments:
hey, it will be good! Tell santosh, I said hi to him in Bangalore :-)
yes, why cant critics talk simply? nirali? i get lost in the jargon too, and I dont think its necessary. the first image looks like he was very influenced by Egon Schiele.
hmmm yea i think there might have been some of that...but he's mainly a sculptor
Post a Comment