Artist: Scott Grieger

1. Globalization and war, is it important as a subject matter?
2. Are swooshtikas cliché?
3. Is there any redeeming quality in Grieger's work?


1. Globalization and war could be appropriate subject matter, of course, the methods used to express in Grieger's work is possibly the worst way to discuss war and globalization. There is absolutely no focus to his installation Be Here Now!; there is no real construction of ideas that express a meaning. That which he has chosen to signify has little to do with what the artist has thought or produced. As Grieger states, "What I'm trying to do is make a protein drink out of many fruits and vegetables. What comes out has a different texture and look from any of the original ingredients." All he is doing is paraphrasing and making it seem like his paraphrasing is important enough to fill a gallery. The paraphrasing maybe okay unto itself but there it no further redeeming qualities which the installation holds(i.e. formal or perhaps a quirky point of view). Barbara Kruger does slightly similar installations but hers are much more potent to the viewer.

2. Swooshtikas are totally cliché. It is kind of funny that the symbol went from religious to nazi to punk to the representation of the similarities between globalized economy and government authoritarianism. So is control good? Either there is to much or not enough, no one is ever happy. So how does global warming fit in. Metaphors and metonyms are great ways to make things seem poetic but most of the things in the installation only fake what could make poetic substance. It is middle school love poems.

3.This questioning has become rather cynical and will stay that way. There is no redeeming quality to Grieger's work. Entirely or partially due to the fact that there is no point of view and/or clear topic of thought that the viewer can observe and internally discuss. Seemingly contrasting ideas of meditation and war,cliché. Authoritarianism and global warming, cliché. Tags that say "Dharmy", cliché. hELLO, cliché. How does all this make any sense? The artist intentionally does not take his references and make them have any grand idea that encompasses. "German youths were given a color and a uniform and they became monsters", this is what conceptually unites footwear and nazis for Grieger. He was simply enthralled by a picture of the world, "How could so simple an image represent something so complicated as the whole globe?" Extension. The work just seems ridiculous and pointless. It is funny that Grieger says his show was pointed and blunt, almost the opposite off my thoughts.

Three more:
1.Does his Buddhist point of view actually manifest in ways less trivial in other works?
2. Are his views egocentric or does the text betray him?
3. Is it possible to make work with separate ideas that do not relate successful? In other words, can the kitchen sink be thrown in and still keep it interesting?