One is greeted by a life-size sculpture of a woman getting crushed by a chrome ball when viewing Alex Prager’s Part Two: Run at Lehmann Maupin. The representational nature of the work makes the piece captivating, but the lack of realness is what increased my intrigue. If this woman was getting crushed, there would be blood. Every aspect of the sculpture is hyperreal, but there is no blood to be seen. This piece is a representation of a continuing theme in Prager's work: the everyday disrupted by the nonsensical. Prager's work is digestible and keeps the viewer at a distance by excluding all gore and replacing it with a 1950s aesthetic. The sculpture is a physical representation of a moment in Prager’s film Run, where civilians are being chased by a chrome orb.
On the surrounding walls are photographs from the film. Each has the power to stand alone as a still image independent of the film. In one of the stills, Sleep, dozens of people are laying on the ground and the framing of this moment brings to light the absurdity. When watching the film we know that all of these people get up after a couple of moments, but in the photograph time is infinite. Prager, by playing into a sterile aesthetic and absurdity, brings to light how an ordinary day can change into a ludicrous one.
Thursday, February 16
Alex Prager's Part Two: Run at Lehmann Maupin
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Zoe Leonard's "Display" at Maxwell Graham
"Display" at Maxwell Graham displays new photographic work from Zoe Leonard. Six medium size photos of suits of armor, originally ...
-
On View at the Hill Art Foundation, Jordan Casteel’s “Field of View” is a combined body of work from the ten most recent years of ...
-
Nicola Tyson’s exhibition I am a teapot investigates the material qualities of paint while playfully exploring themes of the body. Her ... -
Sarah Stevenson's work walks the line between drawing and sculpture. Her sculptures evoke geometric architectural drawings, but are...
I thought you provided a detailed description of Alex Prager's Part Two: Run exhibition at Lehmann Maupin and effectively and effeinetly expressed your personal response to the artwork. Your comments on the lack of blood in the sculpture and the hyperrealistic aspects of the work were a good detail to bring up. Additionally, your interpretation of Prager's message, that the everyday can be disrupted by the nonsensical, is well supported by your analysis of the artwork's elements.
ReplyDeleteYour discussion of the photographs on the surrounding walls is also well thought-out, and your observation about how the photograph captures a moment in time that is infinite, in contrast to the film's time-bound nature, is insightful. Overall, your critique is engaging and thought-provoking. However it can be helpful to add more personal reflections to further the engagement of the reader.
Overall I thought you did a great job summarizing your experience of Alex Prager's Part Two: Run exhibition at Lehmann Maupin. You were able to touch on important visual details as well as your own impression of them. I think maybe your introductory sentence could be adjusted slightly to feel a little less abrupt and guide your reader into the review. I would also change your phrasing in the second sentence from “lack of realness” to something more like actuality. Realness just stands out to me as a little awkward compared to the rest of your writing which is really eloquent.
ReplyDelete