I had a chance to see HALF EMPTY exhibition at Brennan &
Griffin Gallery. There were three artists’ pieces in this exhibition, but Mateo
Tannatt’s sculpture Untitled interested me. The piece was a mixed-media
sculpture that mixes a painted canvas, rag, and a cast chicken head positioned
on a wooden pallet. I could see only one piece of his work in this gallery, but
it was necessary to look up his previous works to be able to understand his
world of art. The materials for his work mainly include everyday objects such
as a carpet, a mannequin and kitchenware. Most of his sculptures are in a
simple form which looks to be of great importance to him. His works are minimal
and meticulous arrangements with a sensitivity for material texture and
geometry. While viewing his exhibition, I started to think about art and
objecthood. Setting feeble material up against a wall or installing an object
in a risky manner or arranging objects that have different characteristics
intrigues viewers and invites their concentration even for a moment. Perhaps,
his work is completed by the participation by viewers instead of a visible
piece if work itself? I am looking forward to his new works in the future.
Bonam,
ReplyDeleteIt seems a really good start of the critical review. It is easy to understand and I like that you show your interest of one particular work and describe its materials and the background information of the artist’s previous works, but at the same time, in my personal opinion, if I did not see this exhibition, then I would curious about the information of the entire show, like just basic information. Because this is a group exhibition, I think it might be better to illustrate who are in the show, how the works are installed or how they are related. I hope my comments could be useful.
Greetings!
ReplyDeleteI expected nothing less from a respected artist like yourself! However, there are some rather meticulous details that should be addressed. I hope this would further help you to become a better writer. While it was informative of you to Mateo Tannatt’s work outside of the exhibition, I think it is rather pointless if you don’t actually elaborate on the details of what is actually not visible through the work we have seen at the exhibition. It’s important to specify ‘why’ his other work is crucial to the understanding of his approach. Could it be that it is an indirect suggestion to the readers to check out his other work? I did, however, appreciate your open ended where it leaves to the viewers to guess the true intention of Tannatt’s work. After all, isn’t that what makes a personal visit to the exhibition fruitful?