I have never really looked at him before - not in depth anyway - i threw his work into a grouping of post minimalist work that simply focused on color, line etc. And I emphasize the word simply because that is the way that I have, with a small sense of dismissal, viewed anything associated with modernism and minimalism in general.
His work didn't speak to me to the same degree as the work of other artists ... I have definitely had more of a focus in post modernism and have always been more interested in work from the 80s and beyond - plus some of the feminist art of the 70s. Artists whose work is rooted in a strict and formal study of art making still only interests me to a degree. Art made about art is less interesting to me than art made about human beings, psychology, social situations etc.
But now I want to look at him a little for some reason. There is actually a playfulness that I am attracted to now that I sit down and really look at images of his work. I realize in this moment that I need to be more mindful and let an artist's work sit with me a little longer before placing their work into a category and forgetting about it. I am losing out by doing that. There is nuance and intricacies that I am not fully taking in as a result of my rash, always moving and categorizing, way of viewing some art.
From SFMoma - SF Station website:
"Barely perceptible they teeter on the edge of being and nothingness. Richard Tuttle is not a master craftsmen or virtuoso painter. He wills his works into being. His personality can be felt in each one of his pieces......
Tuttle investigates shape, color and line but abandoned the hard-edged geometry of minimalism of the previous generation of artists. The edges of his plywood wall reliefs from the mid-1960s curve and undulate. No attempt is made emulate the perfection of the mass-produced object. You are constantly aware of a human hand at work.....
Much is said about Tuttle's democratic use of materials and no better example of this exists than his shaped canvases from 1967. He dyed canvases, cut and sewed them into geometric shapes and nailed them to the wall. The color is uneven and the fabric is worn, they in no way resemble the perfectly taut, gessoed canvases a painter prepares. Tuttle transgressed the sanctity of the canvas and in the process created these remarkably beautiful abstract banners. Tuttle pushes the limits of what an artwork is without being an ideologue. His works are inquisitive. They ask "what is sculpture," "what is painting," but are not divisive. If the question is "what is art" his work answers with the question, "well, is this art?" Even his most controversial pieces seem non-confrontational. For example, "3rd Rope Piece", 1974, consists of approximately three inches of rope nailed to the wall. It is exhibited at below waist level and literally not-in-your-face. The artist means to challenge an audience's preconceived notions but not without a bit of humor......
In the 1980s Tuttle became known for a group of wall assemblages that are often flirtations with disaster. Made of scavenged bits of wood, wire, cardboard, even bubble wrap they are physically (and aesthetically) a nose hair away from falling apart. These pieces are trashy, primitive, and sometimes sort of ugly. Overall Tuttle doesn't seem to care much for prettiness. His drawings, the foundation of his practice, are not polished like those of Ellsworth Kelly or other artists. They are working drawings. Tuttle eschews the dead end that occurs when an artist accomplishes complete refinement of his craft. Each piece leaves a thread for the artist to follow to the next piece. Each series is pregnant with the possibility of a new body of work.
I've highlighted the words/sentences that grabbed me from the SF MOMA article. And I agree with the blue sentences in viewing Tuttle's work - they allow me to see into his work in a way that I find interesting: I like that his work is curious and inquisitive. This speaks to the child-like part of me that is enacted and strengthened while making my art. It is very much based on a sense of curiosity and searching.
His flirtations with disaster are wonderful to me in that - as I've said before - I do love art about failure - although in my work I'm not sure if I could do ' trashy, primitive, and sometimes sort of ugly'. I think I have at least one tether attached to beauty at all times - even when I react against it- and even if something seemed like it was about to fall apart - i'd have to make it very apparent that it was purposeful because of my attachment to at least some level of craft.
As for the word primitive, I get scared of primitive - maybe its just the word, actually. I associate it with picasso's work based on primitive cultures - and then the colonialist concerns flow in and I can't even go there. Maybe the SF MOMA author really means an enactment of basics when he says primitive - because the one image of this flirting with disaster above does not seem to speak to native cultures in my opinion. Maybe other pieces do though.
I think it was in a wikipedia article on Tuttle that he was described as an artist's artist. I am going to agree with that. Usually an artist's artist is a painting or sculpture or photography TECH geek - in my mind. And Tuttle is way more playful and less technically deep than that - but his work does seem to focus on the joy of art making and that right there - is an artist's artist.
No comments:
Post a Comment