It's always been interesting to me how most ideas expressed when expressed can be used to discredit the intent of the statement. All ideas are subjective in the end and there is no objectivity in any person or artist's statement. Susan Harbage's statement:
She links the longevity of objects with their importance in society. Fibers by nature have shorter lifespans than that of certain other materials. Which by default of her statement, these more permanent objects are linked to men and are superior to the temporal. How can you say distinction is appropriate for something that has been simply rescued from the ravages of time? The undervalued textile is perhaps mostly caused by the practical(i.e. most textiles created are functional) and the shifts in taste(tapestries don't have the same charm they once had for some). That is if textiles are in fact undervalued. Those that made them likely used them in the way they felt was appropriate. If they would have been put in a gallery and sold it would have betrayed the idea of the object's purpose.
All the tearing I just did may seem negative but in fact Susan Harbage's work is some of the my best liked work I've seen at the McColl Center. The embroidered pieces are visually dynamic and extremely compelling. Her strengths are in the formal rather than conceptual. The works with the labels and the printed banners are weak and tried to capitalize on magnitude to make the viewer "see" the art. Both of those pieces are not ideally displayed, but even under ideal conditions there is little interest contained.
No comments:
Post a Comment