Spanning three
decades and involving thirty-three artists, Now Dig This! Art and Black in
Los Angeles 1960-1980 at MoMA PS1 presents a collection that chronicles the
social, cultural and political experiences of African Americans during a
particularly tumultuous period. The exhibit opens with Charles White’s Love
Letter #1, a display of letters and a lithograph which narrates the
artist’s plea to free UCLA professor and activist Angela Davis, who served 18
months in jail before being found innocent on the charges of kidnapping and
murder. Love Letter #1 sets the tone for the show by introducing
viewers to socially oriented art that functioned to both share tales and to
incite action.
Focusing on the
marginalized African Americans, a majority of the work on display sheds light
on overlooked stories of injustice. White makes another contribution on this
front with his Birmingham Totem, a charcoal and ink drawing that
shows a boy shrouded in cloth and sitting atop a mountain of scraps. An ode to
the victims of a church bombing in an Alabama town by the Ku Klux Klan, the
pile of debris depicted covers faceless victims, pointing to how easy it is to
forget such tragedies. The reference to a totem pole reveals the White’s
motivation to immortalize the massacre.
Now Dig This! then goes on to break up art movements
that emerged during the time, including Post-Minimalism and Assembling. While
both were obviously significant in the L.A. scene, the quick shift from one to
the other seemed disjointed within the small confines of the space. Of the
mixed media art, David Hammons’ pieces shine the brightest. In The Wine
Leading the Wine, a commentary on the rise of alcoholism in adult males,
Hammons literally puts himself onto the canvas with his body print technique of
slathering oil on his body to produce imprints of two men in the process of
inebriation. Bag Lady in Flight intrigues the eye in a similar way,
a close look at chunks of human hair stuck to greasy paper bags causing
immediate aversion yet revealing refinement in the movement of the origami-like
pleats when seen from afar.
Although
comprehensive, the sheer number of work gathered at the show caused some of the
more interesting pieces to disappear into a cacophonous background. Nevertheless,
the wealth of strong visuals makes for a collection that pierces through very
poignantly. And while it’s easy to leave with the uncomfortable residue of oppression
in mind, the best take-away message comes in the form of Charles Gaines’ triptych of Faces:
Set #4. A breakdown of a black and white photograph of black man to
racially indistinguishable colors and shapes, one walks away with the
realization that perhaps the reason the stories presented resonate so strongly
is because at the end of the day, we are simply all the same.
I find your descriptions very well executed. You concisely describe the work in form and concept. However, I do question certain claims of value throughout the review.
ReplyDeleteWhen speaking of the “shining light” of David Hammons, I think that the show was not only surveying untold stories, but also artists who were under the radar at the time. This shows the depth of such an intellectual and artistic movement at the time that is popularly generalized in one chapter of a highschool text book.
As for the end, I think that your evaluation of questions over closure in the final gallery overlooks the most important aspect of the show. Have we moved beyond prejudice in American society? How would a show responsibly create a "strong ending" to a persisting historical and contemporary issue?
I find this review to be a thorough overall assessment of Now Dig This. You do a good job of focusing on a few pieces to address their message in the exhibit. Because the Now Dig This is large and there were many voices presented, I think your review would have benefited from focusing on a particular theme presented and evaluating it within the exhibit.
ReplyDeleteAt times your phrasing is awkward and a little hard to follow. Also certain words are repeated too frequently, such as “speaks” is used twice in the first paragraph. Stronger and more specific vocabulary would make this review more powerful.