GalleriesWeekend

Spinning a Web: When Art Addresses the Infinite

by Thomas Micchelli on July 13, 2013

Jason Rohlf, "Soundings" (2013), acrylic on canvas, 44 x 77 in (all photos by the author for Hyperallergic)

Jason Rohlf, “Soundings” (2013), acrylic on canvas, 44 x 77 in (all photos by the author for Hyperallergic)

Every so often the idea behind an exhibition comes across as so pertinent and expansive that it makes you wonder why it hasn’t already become part of the conversation.

This appears to be the case with Reticulate, a group show at McKenzie Fine Art on the Lower East Side, which explores the concept of the network — digital, biological, social, historical — across a range of sensibilities, mostly in the form of abstract painting.

I may very well be wrong, but I can’t think of another show offhand with a similar premise, which, if true, suggests that the idea has been hiding in plain sight — so much a part of what we do that we don’t notice it until someone points it out.

Daniel Hill, "Untitled 1" (2013), acrylic polymer emulsion on paper mounted on board, 11 x 14 7/8 in (click to enlarge)

Daniel Hill, “Untitled 1″ (2013), acrylic polymer emulsion on paper mounted on board, 11 x 14 7/8 in (click to enlarge)

While it’s easy to name this or that artist who uses web-like structures as a formal or narrative device, to come up against twenty-five works by seventeen artists mounted in a smart and sensitive installation feels like a paradigm shift.

And what is shifting is pictorial space — away from the almighty grid into looser, deeper, more organic and more pliable systems. Let’s consider for a moment what this implies in light of the grid’s dominance of the very idea of modernism from the paintings of Piet Mondrian through the late-postwar practices of artists as diverse as Larry Poons, Agnes Martin and Chuck Close.

The grid is the prime Greenbergian model of consonance within a painting’s physical dimensions. It reasserts the support’s flatness and right angles, so that any formal configuration will perforce parallel the surface on which it is created.

That model is now obsolete. The longitudinal/latitudinal simplicity of the grid has reached a point of diminishing returns aesthetically, and metaphorically it has been supplanted by technological and social changes, already ubiquitous by the turn of the 20th century, which have since gone into overdrive.

Our existence is, at the very least, multi-planar, and the artists in this show recognize that. But Reticulate is modest in its claims for the works on display. It neither announces a trend nor casts around for a wider significance.

The press release simply states, “The exhibition explores the work of artists who employ various types of reticulation, or imagery of webs and nets, in their work,” and then provides a brief description of each artist’s contribution.

The pieces in the show are so varied that it makes sense not to try to group or label them; the common thread is their content. There are linear networks, splotchy networks, networks overrun by multifarious forms. There’s a political one, a realistic one (of a spider’s web) and an art historical one.

Left: David Mann, "Barcelona" (2012), acrylic and oil on canvas stretched over board, 72 x 65 in; right: Jason Karolak, "Untitled (P-1305)" (2013), oil on canvas, 84 x 71 in

Left: David Mann, “Barcelona” (2012), acrylic and oil on canvas stretched over board, 72 x 65 in; right: Jason Karolak, “Untitled (P-1305)” (2013), oil on canvas, 84 x 71 in

Two large paintings face each other in the front part of the L-shaped gallery space, David Mann’s “Barcelona” (2012) and Jason Karolak’s “Untitled (P-1305)” (2013), defining the geometric (Karolak) and organic (Mann) ends of the spectrum.

Mann’s dark red painting is a tour-de-force of pouring, dripping and brushing, its high-gloss surface acting as the frontward terminus for legions of glowing, viral-looking forms as they bubble up from deep space. Karolak overlaps four linear structures, each a different color — scarlet, red-violet, cobalt blue and violet-ash — over a black field, the color changes evoking a Doppler shift.

Each painting violates the flatness of the picture plane while exploiting the classical power and elegance derived from the frontal presentation of imagery. Their depth is achieved by sandwiching several imaginary planes together, through which we can see the limitless field beneath.

Lori Ellison, "Untitled" (2012), ink on notebook paper, 11 5/8 x 8 1/4 in (click to enlarge)

Lori Ellison, “Untitled” (2012), ink on notebook paper, 11 5/8 x 8 1/4 in (click to enlarge)

In contrast, the four meticulously interconnected ink drawings on notebook paper (dated between 1999 and 2012) by Lori Ellison, firmly set their patterns on the surface, with three of them appearing somewhat relief-like, as if alluding to delicately tooled tracery or Renaissance metalwork.

The lacy patterns of Daniel Hill’s two untitled works (2012 and 2013) literally rise off the surface, the effect of blue acrylic polymer emulsion applied to a black paper support, resulting in an emphatically handsome, wiry materiality.

The blunt tactility of these pieces is carried into Jason Rohlf’s “Soundings” (2013), an explosion of multicolored triangles that, although painted in acrylic on canvas, possesses the bold graphic flavor and tough, matte surface of a Jacques de la Villeglé affichiste collage.

Laura Sharp Wilson’s two works in the show (from 2007 and 2011), which are done in acrylic and graphite on Unryu paper, are just as bold and tactile, but where Rohlf adheres to geometric patterning, Wilson’s imagery is wild and unpredictable, comprising incisively rendered forms that thrust, interlink, zigzag, slash and loop in jammed-together layers.

Laura Sharp Wilson, "Four Way Noose" (2011), acrylic and graphite on Unryu paper mounted on wood, 14 x 11 in (click to enlarge)

Laura Sharp Wilson, “Four Way Noose” (2011), acrylic and graphite on Unryu paper mounted on wood, 14 x 11 in (click to enlarge)

Wilson paints both sides of the translucent paper, enabling her to seamlessly intersect elements on the verso with new ones on the recto, a profusion of shape and color suggesting random phenomena and parallel lives.

But thanks to the interplay of milky and vivid colors combined with the paper’s skin-like membrane, these works, which have the makings of nerve-jangling stand-ins for our dangerously overstimulated cerebral cortices, are in fact irresistibly sensual — multidimensional complications with an erotic, upbeat spin.

The underbelly of networking is represented by the late Mark Lombardi’s “Cabazon Arms of Indio, California, circa 1978-88 (third version)” (1999), a graphite-on-paper diagram of shady arms dealings manifested in clusters of confederates that spiral outward from the eccentric billionaire Howard Hughes to King Fahd of Saudi Arabia to the swarms of low-profile players along the fringes.

Beside it, explicating another form of exchange, is Loren Munk’s “Symbolic Clusters” (2010), a daisy-chain flow chart of art historical influence implicating Dada and American Pop with the Pictures Generation, British Pop and the now not-so-young Young British Artists.

Munk’s canvases are always so chock-full of information that it’s easy to overlook what a gifted colorist he is, with subtle variations of high-key primaries and secondaries, thickly laid down in dizzying patterns, that play off swatches of smoldering grays, tonic earth tones and crisp contrasts of black and white.

Loren Munk, "Symbolic Clusters" (2010), oil on canvas, 24 x 20 in

Loren Munk, “Symbolic Clusters” (2010), oil on canvas, 24 x 20 in

Interestingly, the most literal depiction of a web is also one of the least compelling, Vija Celmins’ “Untitled (Web 3)” (2002), a print incorporating photogravure, aquatint and drypoint. Its blurry, grayed-down image of a spider’s web may lack the graphic punch of its hyperactive neighbors, but it’s tempting to look beyond the formal and consider that there may be something more metaphysical going on.

Our present-day understanding of networks is implicitly abstract — electronic, social, even spiritual — and so to be brought down to earth by a picture of a spider’s web undercuts the point of the show, which is to give form to a concept forever in flux.

In a weird way, the material/immaterial tension occasioned by the inclusion of  “Untitled (Web 3)” brings to mind the transition from late Roman art to Early Christian, in which the human body became increasingly stylized and abstracted, in part to distance Christian iconography from Rome’s body-centric hedonism.

An icon bearing the face of Jesus is not a portrait of a particular man; such a specific representation would distract the believer from the image’s spiritual essence, encumbering it with the mundane. Similarly, the virtual architecture of connectivity that each of us harbors exists in a realm of intuition and imagination; an analogue as worldly as Celmins’ spider’s web inevitably falls flat.

Traveling at the speed of light, networks defy physical limitations, intervening in our lives thousands of times a day while remaining as incorporeal as seraphim. Addressed as art, their visual avatars are at their most potent when they are equally indefinable and elusive, pointing to worlds just beyond our reach.

Reticulate continues at McKenzie Fine Art (55 Orchard Street, Lower East Side, Manhattan) through August 17.

  • Subscribe to the Hyperallergic email newsletter!

Hyperallergic welcomes comments and a lively discussion, but comments are moderated after being posted. For more details please read our comment policy.
  • SG

    Doesn’t it seem counterintuitive to curate a show about shifting modern society and the influence of digital culture but choose to include only painting and drawing? Curating a show with such rich and contemporary subject matter but including only 2d media is limiting and quite anachronistic in my opinion. This is not to say that painting is useless in commenting on contemporary issues, but I think a show that deals with contemporary life either needs to embrace modern media, or have a strong motive for not using newer media. Maybe I’m being overly critical but I don’t think a bunch of paintings and drawings of webs, grids and chains make a strong enough statement. I’m not knocking the individual pieces, but I do have a problem with conservative curatorial choices. The collection of works displays a shallow depiction of networks and webs – the work is conservative when the topic calls for pieces that are a bit more forward-thinking and challenging. Why not include video or other new media

    • http://giornata.net/ Thomas Micchelli

      Interesting point, but please keep in mind that the exhibition’s premise, as stated in the press release, is simply to explore artworks that use webs or networks in their imagery. The inferences about the changes in society are entirely mine. Perhaps I was drawn to the show by the prospect of an ancient art form attempting to address, at least in my interpretation of it, ideas that are incompatible with, if not antithetical to, its material properties.

      • SG

        yeah, you’re probably right. it can definitely be cool when a medium clashes with its subject matter. and i think your interpretation of the show actually gives it more life, so props for that. i dunno…i think even if the show was just about the aesthetics of the web, there is room for more dimension and diversity in medium. but your argument is entirely valid. good stuff to think about

    • Ivo Ringe

      Have you seen the Reticulate show and the including artworks in person or have you seen them only through the “New Media” ?

  • Martha Ilse Tjoe Nij

    Very beautyful

  • Adrienne Callander

    I thought the Ivo Ringe painting hit the mark and wish an image and /or mention of it were made here. “Reticulate” was, as you mention, a show of mostly abstract paintings and drawings; as such, it was very good. Regarding the call for multimedia, perhaps there is no better place to view the impact of digital culture than the context of painting and drawing. To show digital work is not to show its influence, merely its presence. (On the subject of spiderwebs, though, a little Nina Katchadourian would have been delightful).

Previous post:

Next post: