Things have been a little slow around here. I don’t have many pressing news to reblog so here is a roundup of the things I did not post while on vacation.
I Love Typography reflected on the abundence of posts relating to the typography in film titles. I’ve noticed a bunch of sites and even segments in NPR mentioning it. Art of the Title (screen shot above) seems to have a pretty good selection.
PBS will be showing Gary Hustwit’s documentary Helvetica tonight. The film is a documentary that gives the viewer a history and a wide array of opinions on the font. I saw Hustwit premier the film in Chicago last year at the Gene Siskel Film Center. As a fan of typography I really enjoyed the movie and is worth checking out if you have a television.
via PBS Independent Lens
“The Helvetica font was developed by Max Miedinger with EdÃ¼ard Hoffmann in 1957 for the Haas Type Foundry in MÃ¼nchenstein, Switzerland and quickly became an international hit in the graphic arts world. With its clean, smooth lines, it reflected a modern look that many designers were seeking. At a time when many European countries were recovering from the ravages of war, Helvetica presented a way to express newness and modernity. Once it caught on, the typeface began to be used extensively in signage, in package labeling, in poster art, in advertisingâ€”in short, everywhere. Inclusion of the font in home computer systems, such as the Apple Macintosh in 1984, only further cemented its ubiquity.”
A rarely seen collection of Robert Lostutter’s watercolors, dated 1968 – 1973, are on view at Corbett vs. Dempsey. They will be for some a sharp departure in Lostutter’s oeuvre, considering he is far better known for his images of male figure sheathed in masks made of bird feathers.
I had to see this show in order to satisfy my juvenile curiosity about the pre-homoerotic Lostutter, and fantasized that in seeing it I would be able to smartly delineate the transition in his work. I would be able to tell, I supposed, exactly when Lostutter turned his back on the exaggerated form of the emotionally detached female subjects of the earliest work and ushered in the arrival of the fierce, clandestine, and virile male figures that would populate his work forever thereafter.
It turned out not to be so sudden. In many of the works during this time, men and women inhabit the same surreal space, facing off amidst geometric zaps and zig-zags. The bodies share not only the space, but also a similar predilection for corsetry and what looks like highly refined, custom S&M wear. Their bodies are also rendered akin, like personalized sensory homunculi, with each the most crucial sexual elements bulging and ballooning with proportional importance according to the artist. In the ladies, elephantine thighs protrude from giant granny panties tightly clinging to barely concealed pudenda. (That’s right, I said “pudenda”). In the men, sturdy, block-like torsos are supported on huge square asses and trunk-like legs, nipples featured prominently and treated occasionally with garments that further accentuate their central role. Now, this might be where I go too far in acting like I see Lostutter’s transition on paper as a time-line mirror of his transition in real life, but I am pretty sure I can parse in many of the works the way in which the male figures begin to assert their dominance. In 1969 for example, a female figure, shown in profile, sports a dog’s elongated face as a protrusion from the groin area through her skirt. But by 1970, who’s wearing the strap-on dog? Big Daddy, that’s who. (Okay, I’ll quit with that, but it does bear examination if you’re interested in such things.) From that year forward, the fecund, monumental females are encroached upon by men with jutting chins in trench coats, mostly tucked subserviently into the scene- emerging from the edge of the picture or hiding behind curtains and camouflaged by graphic elements. This goes on for a few years until, at the turn of the 1970’s, Lostutter dispenses with the gals altogether and trains his vision on more and more intense psychological renderings of vulnerable bird-men.
While not officially a member of the “Hairy Who?” group of Chicago artists, Lostutter existed on the fringe of all the Imagists’ sub-groups and is often mentioned in the same breath. Like them, he eschewed prevailing trends in New York and focused on a tightly rendered, highly illustrated surrealist vision of the figure in space. His work has been remarkably consistent in its passion for precision over the years, even as his figures have softened and relaxed. In these early works, his expert handling of the watercolor medium is shown off in both broad fields of delicately managed color as well as areas where it is fit within tightly knit abstract elements and illustrative details. These flower petals and energetic zig-zags found in the early works would later metamorphose into the brilliant feathers adorning the artistâ€™s more recent work.
This early body of work will be a welcome respite from the obsessive detail that emerges in the work as the years go by (and as fewer bristles remain on Lostutter’s paintbrush, seemingly). If you find some of the more recent work cloying in it’s florid detail and color, the broads in these early watercolors will give you an opportunity to see a more tortured and terse version of the artist’s fetishistic renderings.
This week: THE AMANDA BROWDER SHOW!
Amanda talks to Nick Lucking and Tim Ivison about www.spcmkr.com and their various projects.
SPCMKR facilitates and documents space exchanges, providing a site through which to organize a gift-economy between users. The web-based component of the project provides an interface for locating and contributing resources, arranging for temporarily inhabiting surplus spaces, and documenting both the exchange and the activities that occur while in residence. SPCMKR is a way in which to proliferate small everyday surpluses, allowing for flexible, friendly opportunities, rather than engaging with government or institutional power structures. SPCMKR should be understood not as a residency to which you apply but rather as a network in which you can contribute and benefit from the exchange of resources.