9

Fluid Poetry There & Again at Kibbee

Written By Karen Tauches on May 22, 2012 in Reviews

Rich Gere, Architects and Archetypes, 2012, ink and watercolor, 9 x 14 inches. Image courtesy the artist.

Making marks is the play at the core of drawing and printmaking. Although Rich Gere’s exhibit Here & Now; There & Again at Kibbee Gallery is not particularly ground breaking in the scope of contemporary art today, its clean classicism and deft two-dimensional maneuvers of texture, spots, and calligraphic streaks are neatly presented, gracing the rooms with an air of lighthearted doodling.

Of course, if you read the artist statement, you may expect a whole lot more. Here it is: “Rich Gere continues an exploration of order and chaos. Inspired by nature’s decay and rebirth, the uncertainty of plans and structures and the constant urge to build, organize, and control—the current works are an exploration of our connectivity to the planet and our desires to explain the unknown. The constant redefining of our purpose and need for ever-present meaning in our lives. These works are a step toward connecting the threads between temporal and ethereal worlds; a look into ourselves, while looking outward at the vast workings of time and space.” Wow, that’s a pretty ambitious load. Is Gere being facetious? Or does he really intend to express all of this?

Rich Gere, Listening to Children, 2011, ink and watercolor, 22 x 30 inches. Image courtesy the artist.

I don‘t mean to harp on it, but sometimes artists just shouldn’t include written statements. This is a perfect case in point. What if—on purpose—no official paragraph-in-the-binder were available? Viewers would be left with only the titles upon which to ponder the work, and this in turn might skew the experience in a more mysterious, perhaps even Buddhic direction. Gere’s titles run the gamut with a random existentialism: All the Tea in China, Quick and Whispers, v = M = |r˚| = |dr/dt|, and Listening to Children. Such abstract verbal morsels should stand alone like the “fluid poetry” of his ink on paper.

Rich Gere, Quick and Whiskers, 2011, ink and watercolor, 22 x 30 inches. Image courtesy the artist.

Basically, all the works on paper are variations on a similar, centralized, black-ink scribble atop elegant layers of subtle color and surface qualities. Conservative use of aqua, light pink, cream, and purple phase in and out behind the dominant, black abstract characters. The works are very practical in size and price, sensitively framed so as to appreciate the deckled edges. I wish Gere had made at least one really large unframed work, so that repeated emblem—his curious language of ink imprints—could become aggressively graphic, more emotional and uncontained. If indeed his artist statement is sincere, he is enrapt by the fateful physicality of hand or machine on surface. But at the current scale, the potential power of these works and the process that created them are fairly restrained. What would happen if Gere had painted or printed one massive gestural jumble over the mantle and directly on the wall to really rock the boat of this orderly salon? What if he were a bit less faithful to the tropes of professionalism? We are all practicing art out here in the distant outposts of international contemporary norms. Kibbee Gallery is a perfect out-of-the-way place to pull a few bold moves and take some chances. Alas, with only a few extra touches, this show could have been so much more.

Rich Gere, Small Craft Advisory, 2012, ink and watercolor, 8 x 10 inches. Image courtesy the artist.

And this brings me to my final point: locally, we need to give more attention to the art of curation. Typically, the Ponce Crush galleries depend on artists to curate their own work. But not every artist is adept at the overall presentation of concept and layout. Many local artists are not even aware of the deeper design decisions that can be made to bump up the impact of an exhibition. Too often, the nuances of how the work is laid out, lighted, edited down, or otherwise considered are never explored. And so, the default is to a rote traditionalism—framed works soberly lined upon walls, etc. In turn, gallerists often think of the work as products on display instead of an opportunity for communication. Understandably, these gallerists often have little time left after all their financial and social responsibilities to spend the effort on curation. I think there is a real chance for emerging curators to step in and make our shows better, especially along Ponce!

Rich Gere’s Here & Now; There & Again exhibition will remain up at Kibbee Gallery through Saturday, May 26, 2012. The gallery is open Thursdays through Saturdays from 2 to 6PM.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Print
  • Digg
  • StumbleUpon
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Twitter
  • Google Bookmarks

Category: Reviews |
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

  • Forest McMullin

    I rarely comment in forums like Burnaway, but the above review of Rich Gere’s show “There and Again” at Kibbee Gallery by Karen Tauches has left me irate. Let me approach it piece by piece.
     
    Tauches begins by quoting Gere’s introductory statement and asks, “Is Gere being facetious? Or does he really intend to express all of this?” She goes on to question his wisdom in including such serious thoughts. There is nothing in his statement or in what we see on the wall to suggest facetiousness and she misses the obvious connection to the work. When Gere opens by describing the work as “an exploration of order and chaos” he makes clear the conceptual bond between the bold black brush strokes in the foreground of many of the pieces, with the subtle washes underneath. That interplay is one of the things that gives the work movement and complexity.
     
    Further, to refer to Gere’s elegant brush work as “scribbles” displays an extraordinary lack of understanding of the way many abstract artists  function and Gere succeeds. The freedom, fluidity, and grace of Gere’s pieces should not be insulted with such a dismissal.
     
    Tauches goes on to ask a series of “what if” questions. I find these completely out of place in serious art criticism. Her questions are as pointless as asking, “What if Rich Gere were a different person?” or me asking, “What if Karen Tauches were a different critic?” Such questions are appropriate in the classroom, perhaps, but not in a review.
     
    Finally, she ends with a blanket critique of the Ponce Crush galleries.  If this is the way she feels, she should write a separate piece and not muddy up her already confused review.
     
    I think Rich Gere’s work is strong, original, and meaningful. I strongly disagree with Karen Tauches assessment and, judging by the number of red dots under his pieces, the public agrees with me.

  • Marcia Vaitsman

    “Understandably, these gallerists often have little time left after all
    their financial and social responsibilities to spend the effort on
    curation.”  Kibbee sold several of Gere’s pieces in the first opening hour… Galleries are good if they can represent artists well – therefore help them to survive as artists. The lack of other spaces for curatorial works and experimental practices leads us to expect that galleries must have these 2 different functions, which is too much to ask of a commercial place. Some large galleries (in other places of the universe) can afford to have 2 functions, what does not mean they do both well.

    It is difficult to talk about ‘contemporary art today’ as it would be an only one-thing – looking at fragmentation of aesthetic interests, economics of art, internationalization of the need of contemporary art, speed of information, socialization of art teaching, applied arts as art (such as Spectacle at CAC-Cincinnati now) – therefore impossible to grasp what is happening everywhere right now.  That is why I got really surprised by the expectation of a body of work to be “ground breaking in the scope of contemporary art today”, as if this only rank would really exist. One could argue that anything created today that is not made of light or bits, or does not have speed,  is not contemporary enough. The grandiose dimensions that art has acquired that generate a fantastic vertigo when we try to define, classify or rank it, slowly come to be topic of some curator’s talks and have already been written about several times. For sure million-dollar-budget works such as Kapoor or Eliasson will always give us the feeling that this rank exists and that it is what we have to call ground breaking… (the massive investment of capital into a single piece?)

    It is with a lot of joy that I see print-makers working with free gestures and movements, slowly moving away from the plates and perfectly equal reproductions and then moving back in again. This movement is necessary.

    Specifically about this show: I enjoyed seeing traces of risk, lightness, contradictions (and things that I don’t know the names…) that I am always looking for and normally find in works of female artists. Lately, I rarely engage with the male imagery – that is why I wanted so badly to have these works. I thank you for posting the image of “Architects and Archetypes”, this is the
    piece we purchased at the opening (and one more) – we are very happy with this choice…

  • Themichaelmunoz

    damn skippy… what art doesn’t that artist statement describe?

    it’s thick, but I’ve read thicker.

  • bbg

    critics…..stfu…..artists….don’t listen…just do what you do….so there……

  • Anonymous

    The fact she didn’t like it is ok we get that part.
    The fact she couldn’t make an appointment with the gallery to discuss lighting…and had to call the gallery out is tacky. 

  • Rhythmwalker

    I’m forced to agree with Tauches’ contention, “sometimes artists shouldn’t include written statements,” because people rarely read them, even would-be-reviewers. The cut-and-pasted paragraph in this article is from a general press release sent a few months ago and not the gallery statement currently on display with the work. As I edited the pieces to form the body of work presented in the show, the statement was written to address the specific issues the work explores. I don’t mean to harp on it, but nor did Tauches take the time to get all the artwork titles correct.

  • Robin Bernat

    I think it’s important to keep in mind that, while there may be qualitative variety in the shows we see here in Atlanta, art criticism is highly subjective and any review says as much about the work being reviewed as it does about the reviewer and that person’s goals. Karen is an artist, a curator and a writer and, as such, she brings a lot to bear in her evaluations of shows.

    Generally, she has three complaints:
    - that artists are issuing grandiose statements about their work and the work, as she sees it, doesn’t seem to match the artist’s claims.
    - that galleries should pay more attention to curating.
    - that a kind of “group think” phenomenon is happening around the Ponce galleries.

    I think these are all valid points– but, of course, that’s my subjective opinion. But this review prompts other questions:  I often wonder how reviews are assigned! How are shows selected? Who decides who should write about what?

    Maybe someone with a greater affinity for printmaking might have extolled the virtues of craftsmanship in his show or the influence of Antoni Tapies in Gere’s rich blacks and graceful gestures and the very hard-to-achieve feeling of spontaneity in printmaking. Is large scale really a requirement? Kibbee Gallery is, after all, a kind of intimate space — it’s a house!

    There’s just so much fodder for contention…..

    Speaking from my own experience, I want to believe that I take great care in the curating of shows at {Poem88}. I want to believe that I’m doing a good job pushing each artist to deliver their best work and, likewise, I try to showcase it appropriately.

    But in the nearly two years that {Poem88} has been in operation, we have received two reviews from this publication.

    Somehow, I think this says something about Burnaway, speaking subjectively, of course.

  • Jerry Cullum

    Just for the record, Karen…I finally saw the show on the closing night and was delighted by the delicate allusions to Chinese and Japanese calligraphy…which you chose not to mention in your review. I can’t see how it is possible to review the show without addressing Gere’s explicit reference to his dialogue with the art of calligraphy, which is, of course, a spontaneous matter of gesture with a brush that forms an interesting dialectic with the sort of activity that goes into the making of a print. I found the particular gestural motions to be unusually apropos to the goals Gere outlined in his statement onsite (I didn’t read the one in the press release). All in all, it was one of the more eminently satisfying bodies of work I’ve seen this season. We can debate whether or not its choice of dialogue between Asian aesthetics and traditions of printmaking was a wise one, though I would say that the emotionally engaging results suggest that it was.

    By the way, would somebody tell me what the context of the equation in that title is? I am suddenly aware of how many years it has been since my college surveys in physics, and none at all in whatever subdiscipline that formula comes from.

  • Constancelewis

    Did you look as much as possible, straight at the art you were assigned to see, Karen Tauches? These kinds of half-assed offerings simply don’t promote professionalism in the Atlanta art community. Sad and counterproductive.