William Schwedler’s work, now on view at Susan Inglett Gallery, is truly captivating, challenging traditional norms of form and scale pertaining to linear perspective. The works come alive in the exhibition space with a soft yet emphatic presence. Schwedler’s Untitled, 1964 is predominantly a blue painting with architectural forms spanning across the canvas. The work denies any continuity and follows its own self-created rules as lines and columns break free and create skewed perspectives. Schwedler’s adroit choices to contort and toy with linear perspective and isometry is perplexing. Most of the works on display are large format canvases which allow the viewer to step into these distorted, alien scenes. While these imaginative planes have an other-worldly feel, they do engulf the viewer with a serenity that is comforting and familiar. Concurrently though, the paintings evoke feelings of displacement. Grids and repetitions are at the forefront of the artist’s formalist explorations, for example, in A Perfect Stranger, 1971. A foreshortened phallic structure with a moire pattern, is tethered to and seemingly radiates into a fence-like structure. The heft of this structure is concealed because of the smooth ombre background. Curtain Wall, 1967, showcases the experiments Schwedler conducted with dimensionality. This intriguing work is an interplay between painting and sculpture. The dichotomies of tranquility & industry, painting & sculpture, welcome & displacement create a world of their own that heightens and emphasizes self awareness. These landscapes, devoid of identifiable forms, leave viewers perplexed, intrigued, wanting more.
- Priyanka Dey # (edited)
You successfully used visual/formal description, personal impression, and external analysis, to explore Schwedler's work. Adding and mentioning the name of the exhibition (Against the Grain) is important in better understanding how the body of work functions as a whole (also hinting at the reason for said title). Your utilization of specific artworks (that become emblems) to represent themes of the show is effective. However, breaking up the large body of text will benefit your analysis, allowing readers to better relate elements (displacement, minimalism, form). More consistent use of "&" and "and" may make the end read more professional.
ReplyDelete(Otherwise, great)
Your descriptions were immersive and made me care about work that I personally was uninterested in. The combination of formal discussions of form with your more poetic descriptions really gave the work a sense of life that I find hard to retrieve with such abstract work. At times the review did become a bit wordy. I would break it up with indentation and maybe break a couple sentences up instead of packing it so full of descriptors. I really enjoy your writing and simply long for more air between the words.
ReplyDeleteI really enjoy your description of the show, it is compelling, factual, yet opinionated in a way that really sells the show to the reader I feel like I have a sense. of not only the exhibition but the work. I also enjoy how you use specific works to convey your point, it would be nice if there were photos of these works included so we could follow along. You have a nice vocabulary in describing the show, which is very immersive, however specifically "alien planes" I think would be substituted or worded differently to be more clear.
ReplyDeleteI deeply enjoy your descriptions. Explaining the distortion and flow of each piece is critical to illustrating its effects, and you capture each piece's movements perfectly. One thing to consider is breaking up the texts, after "Schwedler’s adroit choices to contort and toy with linear perspective and isometry is perplexing. " consider a new paragraph after this section. You speak in a compelling tone, mixing factual evidence and emotion to highlight your experience with the work. I also deeply appreciate your style of writing, and through perhaps some more photos referencing specific works the reader could follow along visually as well.
ReplyDelete