Walking into Diane Simpson’s exhibition, viewers encounter a series of sculptures that blur the boundaries between the two-dimensional planes and three-dimensional space. Constructed from corrugated board, fiberboard, aluminum, brass, linoleum, and galvanized steel, these forms shift under changing viewpoints, generating a sense of disorientation. The material qualities recall everyday life and domestic contexts, yet the geometric abstraction disrupts direct recognition— a chair’s slats spiral like a vanishing staircase, a column stands wide yet impossibly thin. This tension between familiarity and estrangement highlights Simpson’s interest in how utilitarian materials can be reorganized into new architectural forms.
The exhibition continues on the lower level, where Simpson reveals her meticulous process. Axonometric drawings, garment sketches, and archival photographs reveal how each piece originates from historical women’s formal wear. Corsets, bonnets, collars, and hoop skirts become the basis for sculptural frameworks, allowing viewers to see the structural logic shared by clothing and architecture. For example, a bonnet rendered in brass tubing becomes an arched, open form whose negative spaces imply the absent head.
Moving between floors, viewers trace the transformation of pattern into geometry, and garment into architecture. The human body itself is absent, but its implied presence emerges through the negative space of sculptures. Simpson presents an original and inspiring reimagining of how the overlooked structures of daily life and wears shape identity.
I like how you mention that this exhibition takes place on two different floors, and your analysis of why this is seems to be really well thought out. There is a lot of emphasis on the form of the pieces, which is nice, but I also wish there was some context regarding the artist's conceptual intentions. You mention how Simpson evokes the "fragments of everyday life", and I feel like it would be helpful to explain how that demonstrates through specific pieces. I think it would also be interesting if you talked a bit more about why she chose to represent women's formal wear alongside the more abstract furniture-looking pieces.
ReplyDeleteThis review clearly explains how the exhibited works take on different forms depending on the viewer's perspective. Its structure is well-organized, enabling readers to understand the layout of the gallery space. But I think the review merely introduces the functional aspects of the pieces, rather than delving into why they were created this way or exploring their underlying significance. Additionally, the article could incorporate more perspectives, such as the impact of different materials or the work's social commentary, which would add greater depth and tension to the review. Overall, the review conveys the exhibition's distinctive features and successfully provides a conceptual understanding for readers unfamiliar with the show.
ReplyDelete