Work by Colin Pressler, Daniel Baeza, Emily Eddy, Hanna Elliot, Hiba Ali, Lyndsey Marko, Morgan Elder, and Olivia Coran.
Alcatraz Chicago is located at 1000 N. Halsted St. Reception Saturday, 6-11pm.
Work by Karen Reimer.
Gallery 400 is located at 400 S. Peoria St. Show begins Friday. PLEASE NOTE: Opening reception will be held on 9/14.
Work by Melina Ausikaitis and Michael Kloss.
NEW CAPITAL is located at 3114 W. Carroll. Reception Saturday, 6:30-10pm.
Work by Gregory Bae, Josh Rios, Ruslana Lichtzier, and Ilie Paun Capriel.
ACRE Exhibitions is located at 1913 W. 17th St. Reception Saturday, 6-9pm
Work by McKeever Donovan, Susanne Doremus, Ron Ewert, Richard Galling, Antonia Gurkovska, Oliver Henry, Sofia Leiby, Josh Reames and Ezara Spangl.
Peregrineprogram is located at 500 W. Cermak Rd., #727. Reception Sunday, 4-7 pm.
Last week I wrote at length about image overload vis-à-vis a portrait of Dave Winfield I drew when I was a teenager. The point wasn’t merely to note that the information age has altered how artists parse the world, though it has, but to get at this notion about how wisdom and magic co-exist on a sliding scale; that wisdom might be seen as the accumulation of information, while magic, conversely, arises in the vacuum of concrete information.
I continued to bounce the idea around as I got sucked into M. Night Shyamalan’s “The Village” last weekend. (Spoiler alert: perfunctory twist-ending soon to be disclosed.) In the film, a group of town Elders convinces the villagers that supernatural lurk in the surrounding forest. To bring the point home Liam Neeson dons a monster costume haunts the woods, and in the process cements psychic control over the town. Toward the end of the film a young woman is instructed by the Elders to brave the forest in order to retrieve needed medical supplies. The drama ramps up as she scrambles anxiously through the woods, until she reaches a wall, where on the other side a park ranger waits in a modern 4 x 4 vehicle. And, gotcha! Well, got me at least.
It’s a clever misdirection. But more than being a cute cinematic trick, “The Village” happens to be an apt metaphor for my two basic philosophies about the relationship between wisdom and magic: 1) a fundamentalist philosophy in which information leads to wisdom and 2) a relativist philosophy that conserves information in the service of fantasy and magic.
The Fundamentalist believes truth and information shall set one free; the more information transferred, the closer one is to truth.
The Relativist holds that truth and information should be dispensed discriminately, but the right information, at the right time, in the right doses, approximates truth.
Some notable fundamentalists (based on my own interpretation, of course):
Jean Paul Sartre
Mr. Ramsay from Virginia Woolf’s “To the Lighthouse”
Judd Nelson’s parents in the “The Breakfast Club”
Some notable relativists:
Liam Neeson as Town Elder in “The Village”
Colonel Nathan R. Jessup from “A Few Good Men”
The headmaster in “Dead Poet’s Society”
Mrs. Ramsay from Virginia Woolf’s “To the Lighthouse”
Guy Pearce in “Memento”
Molly Ringwald’s parents in “The Breakfast Club”
Several weeks ago, while I was communing with my wholesome Lake Wobegon-esque in-laws—fishing off piers, roasting s’mores in fire pits, telling wholesome jokes lifted from Laffy Taffy wrappers—I caused a stir by dropping the t-bomb: I told a story about a transvestite around the children.
Children are curious, and the questions came fast.
“What’s a twans fest eye?”
“Are you a transfestite?”
My aunt gave me the head-tilt and hushed voice tsk tsk. She said it barbeque-style: slow and low.
“That’s a F-O-R-B-I-D-D-E-N word!”
Having a few beers in me, I dug in.
“Is it the word, the concept, or the act that’s taboo?”
“All of the above, they’re just too young to be saying the word.”
“So it’s the word itself with the magical powers?”
“So you wouldn’t mind if I taught them about transvestite culture, as long as I didn’t use any banned words?”
“C’mon Shane. We just think it’s mature content that they shouldn’t be exposed to at this age. That’s all.
“He knows he’s a boy, and that his sister is a girl. What’s so extra mature about the notion of ambiguity?”
I plowed forward like a fullback.
“So if the cultural aspects are off limits, could I talk about transgender as a biological issue?”
I could see the adults were getting frustrated so I let go of the throttle.
Ambiguous gender was an unsavory topic limited to adults. End of discussion.
My adult company were information relativists and believed information should be withheld from children in order to carve out a proper fantasy. For the safety and well being of society, they choose to put unspeakable monsters in the woods and keep the transvestites in the cities.
I normally fall on the “truth-shall-set you-free” side of things, but as I continued to chew on the idea of image overload and of the state of magic, I reran a vision of my young nephew walking outside the cabin with his fishing pole and a cup of night crawlers, muttering “trans-fest-eye” under his breath. He put on his life vest, sat on the edge of the pier and fished patiently until he caught a tiny small-mouth bass. He ran back into the cabin ecstatically, recklessly swinging the fish and demanding that it to be on the evening’s dinner menu. Before we could dislodge the hook, someone was slyly on the way to the market to buy enough fish to feed 17 people. Even right now, my nephew thinks his 4-inch fish somehow produced 10-times its edible flesh. We all sat at a long communal picnic table that night praising his catch and smacking our chops as if it was the best fish anyone had every consumed. Each family member fought to lay it on thicker than the next until my nephew was intoxicated and dizzy with fake praise.
The image was almost too Norman Rockwell to trust, too Mayberry to believe my memory of it was reliable. Saccharine-sweet with an aftertaste of something fishy. Or was it fishy with an aftertaste of saccharine? It was something like reality, anyway. But a reality created through control.
Funny, “a reality created through control”—that’s not a bad definition of art.
A wise man once said that a map of something that is exactly the same size and detail of what it is mapping ceases being a map. It’s true; sometimes having all the information in the world isn’t as redeeming or as useful as having a little bit of it well edited.
The ultimate question then is: when one goes seeking truth, does one try to grasp reality all at once, or does he start with a map?
This week: Amanda and Susan Sollins talk to Marina Abramovic and then Tom Sanford and Amanda talk to Brent Birnbaum at NADA 2011 (the first two minutes are a bit noisy, it goes away).
Curated by GURL DON’T BE DUMB, with work by Whitney Bradshaw, Hani Eid, Tony Favarula, Jackie Furtado, Alysia Kaplan, Cole Don Kelley, Eileen Mueller, Julie Oh, Corkey Sinks, and Jamie Steele.
Iceberg Projects is located at 7714 N. Sheridan Rd. Reception Sunday, 6-9pm.
Work by Jason Robert.
Museum of Contemporary Art is located at 220 E. Chicago Ave. Begins Saturday.
Work by Brad Johns and Megan Powell.
slow is located at 2153 W 21st St. Reception Saturday, 6-9pm.
At my house there is an unhealthy obsession with forgeries, all kinds of forgeries. I can trace this back to our interest in Han van Meegeren, the famous Vermeer forger. Although there had been much written about van Meegeren, it was in 2008 when two books came out and a long series of articles by Errol Morris appeared in The New York Times that our interest intensified. Concurrent with Morris’s story was a photo quiz where they’d show you an original Vermeer and a van Meegeren and ask you to pick the one you prefer, then an art historian told you why the Vermeer was better. (Sadly, I can’t find the link to this.) Without exception, I picked van Meegeren. This tells me a couple of things. First, I’d better brush up on my art history. Second, maybe I don’t really like Vermeer. Lastly, perhaps I have bad taste. But I still have this question, why are we so interested in forgeries?
Often books and articles about forgeries center on the idea of money, being ripped off, and the dollars lost. Simply put, money is just a signifier of value—a way to apply something tangible (money) to the intangibility of genius and beauty (art). The excellent book, The Billionaire’s Vinegar by Benjamin Wallace, tells the story of Hardy Rodenstock and a case of “lost” bottles of wine that purportedly belonged to Thomas Jefferson. He fooled everyone. Wine critics. Auction houses. Everyone. One of these “lost Jefferson bottles” sold for $156,000. Why was that? Because this specific wine was just thing to serve with Saturday night’s porterhouse? No, because the purchaser wanted to be close to something grander than himself. In this case Thomas Jefferson. He was filthy rich and wanted to own a piece of history. He wanted to open that bottle and consume Jefferson in a transubstantitive way. And who can blame him?
Back in episode 164 of Bad at Sports, Joanna McKenzie and I reviewed Lee Israel’s memoir Can You Ever Forgive Me?. Israel was a well-respected biographer before booze and a series of bad decisions turned her into a forger of letters. While it was amusing to read about her escapades and how great she was at forging the words Dorothy Parker and Lillian Hellman, I found it upsetting to discover that her forgeries had made it into academic studies and are cited in authoritative texts. At that point it no longer seemed funny, like she’d pulled one over on snotty memorabilia collectors, she’d pulled one over on researchers and those with an honest desire to know more. She pulled one over on us.
There have been quite a few dust-ups in the last decade when people got so upset at authors who were later discovered to have inflated their memoirs. Remember James Frey’s Million Little Pieces? Augusten Burroughs’ Running with Scissors? Even more recently the This American Life retraction of Mike Daisey’s episode on Foxconn? These events spawned surprisingly smart public discussion on the nature of authenticity and the meaning of truth. Birthed from the whole imbroglio was a new word, “truthiness.” I mean we already had “verisimilitude,” but somehow truthiness was just so much more truthful.
There’s a line in Orson Welles’ film about art forger Elmyr de Hory, F is for Fake (1973), where de Hory says “if you hang them in a museum, in the collection, and they hang long enough, then they become real.” Once we move beyond the financial ramifications of fraud, who is hurt by a forged painting, a counterfeit bottle of wine, a couple fabricated letters, or a memoir made a little more exciting? Perhaps de Hory hit the nail on the head, that the fraudulent will eventually become real. Maybe what is so fascinating and so frightening is that a good forger is a good liar. A good forger can fool even the most educated people in their field. And if we can’t trust what we read, or what we drink, or what we see in the museum, then who can we trust?