(art) Americains in Paris

Thursday night, I saw some open studios: Americains in Paris around La Bastille (www.legeniedelabastille.net). My friend from NN, Michele King, is exhibiting her work as part of the event, but Jennifer and I saw about 4 other open studios. To use Mido’s words, I will call the art, in general, “dramatically bad”. That said, I particularly enjoyed seeing people’s studio spaces and the internal city of Paris – there is something really magical about the private and semi-private spaces of a big city, and we saw areas with creeping vines, bike sheds filled with bikes, random commercial spaces in odd shapes, rickety staircases and polished ones. I am hoping to see some more this afternoon if there ends up being time. However, about the art we saw, there are a few people’s work I would like to talk about (bc I only want to say good things). There are more than 33 open studios, each exhibiting at least one artist, so I also want to be clear that I am not judging the entire event.

The photographs of a French photographer whose name I can’t seem to find, were very interesting, and not just bc they were serving Champagne at his opening. His bio, which we skimmed, talked about photographing monuments (which he had done), and Jennifer was moved by the way he had managed to take pictures of Paris without the work seeming cliché (something she wrestles with). I particularly liked on of the Eiffel Tower (where he overlaid the tower against people sitting on the grass, presumably near the tower, and under its shadow, in bright greens, yellows and pinks) and another of, I think, the Grand Palace. Jennifer pointed out an interesting abstraction of the Eiffel Tower’s details, where the ornate details were not so much displayed but visible. Like the Golden Gate Bridge, I think sometimes these large monuments are best viewed in detail despite their scale (and I don’t mean that in an acid trip sort of way). All the photo abstractions used bright colors, and multiple exposures which worked well and probably matched people’s couches bc they were selling as we drank our free Champagne.

Ari Solomon has taken some interesting pictures in what looks like China with his panoramic wide lense. However, I couldn’t help but wonder if there is more to the work than what can be viewed thru that wide lense. It seemed almost like a crutch for him. I wonder if he was the guy in the corner picking his teeth at the exhibition.

The only other non-friend artist worth mentioning was Cheryl Finfrock of SF, whose strange animals made me wish for a chicken abstraction.

At Michele’s studio (where she is being hosted, with another American artist, by a young Parisienne artist), she has moved from large (or at least, human-sized) pieces to smaller squares (in 2 sizes) which she abstractly arranged on a large white wall. She was concerned that people weren’t wild about them, but I thought they were an interesting departure from her usual work. I wonder is this experiment will cause a shift for her.

They also worked nicely with Sonia Burel’s work (her local host; Muriel suggested her father may be a famous artist based on her name) who depicts places with multicolored squares. I was very fond of Sonia’s work after I spend some time with it – she uses color amazingly. (They are oil.) She has a breathtaking live-work space that we believe is provided by her parents. I spoke with her mother briefly and she mentioned that Sonia’s work had been selling well, but lately sales have slowed, possibly bc she is making larger pieces now (confidence?).

The other American sharing their space was Cheri Reif Naselli, who does strictly conceptual work about verbal abuse in an attempt to process her marriage (which ended 6 years ago). Her work involves gut-wrapped around Barbie dolls and twisted sweaters. It reminded me of Judy’s fiber are, and Jennifer of Lucian Freud, neither of whom Cheri knew. She also had tapes of conversations with her husband that she would share with anyone interested. Jennifer listened to them.

I found the gut aspect of the work interesting, and the idea of wrapping, containing oneself, esp since it reminded me of Judy’s work who didn’t have language. But in all honesty, I have no interest in conceptual art. Issues are important, don’t get me wrong, but my simple brain doesn’t process a relationship between the aesthetic and the intellectual. Tell me stories with meaning, but make them nice and sweet and simple or complicated, but don’t wrap me in your messages. They are your responsibility. This is why people like Joan Didion write essays: they provide a direct and clear why to communicate a message.

That said, you can have a specific idea in mind and still create art based in the visual experience. But to me, the 2 have to go hand in hand. I guess I hope to explore these ideas more when I am living in my own space in SF starting soon. The other lesson of the studios we visited was that, with exceptions, I can do that. Art isn’t something restricted to others who give themselves license. I can make art and once it’s finished, I can exhibit it. I am good enough.