Installation view of Mike Kelley, Terence Koh and Jeff Koons at Mary Boone Gallery
Two exhibitions worth catching before they close this weekend: the butt plug show and related ephemera at Mary Boone (actually titled Mike Kelley, Terence Koh and Jeff Koons) and Jacqueline Humphries large-scale abstract paintings at Greene Naftali. Each provide significant grounds for discussion– both for their quality and imperfections therein.
Jacqueline Humphries at Greene Naftali
Almost everything looks good in Greene Naftali’s stunning gallery space, though Jacqueline Humphries’ paintings seem particularly well-suited. The black in many of these abstract gestural works play off of the grid on the windows, and the silver sheen of the paintings beautifully reflect the sunlight. Only the smaller works in the show seem less resolved– there’s not enough space in these pieces, and the gesture feels confined.
Naturally, the patette gives the work a cinematic feel, though an untitled black and silver bulls-eye does all but spell that connection out. I don’t have a problem with this — palette alone might not have led me to draw the initial connection — though over all, the perfection of the work leaves me with a small pang of doubt. The compositions resolve a little too easily, and I left wishing at least one of the larger works challenged awkwardness and pulled it off.
Terence Koh, Untitled (Urinal), 16 by 288 by 16 inches, mixed media, 2008-2009. Image via: Mary Boone Gallery.
Over at Mary Boone, Javier Peres puts three of his favorite artists side by side (or says the press release). The process, though, is a little more complicated than he makes it out to be. The crystal butt plug platter, stretched urinal/double glory hole, and stainless steel liquor sets each reveal the sexual charge of class consciousness. My only issue with this show, if it is one at all (I’m not sure), is Koh’s obvious debt to Robert Gober’s sinks. But Gober’s work would have been too gritty for this slick exhibition. I know its dreadfully out of vogue, but I still love the look of the overly polished.
{ 10 comments }
It seems to me hard to miss the rather base point of this show; desperately shoehorning in a (kinda) young (unproven) bubble-era artist between two of the major, established & proven, names of contemporary art (even if it is only with second-rate work of theirs, but then Mary’s no Larry). It’s pretty shallow and transparent salesmanship.nBeyond the Gober reference I think it really begs the question of the validity of this juxtaposition. Seems wildly lopsided. An interesting choice of Koh’s work too; IMO not representative of his normally overt work (and probably a good thing at that).nAmusing that Daddy would only let Koh show at Mary’s if he curated it. I’ll bet Koh had to work Daddy to get that permission.
It seems to me hard to miss the rather base point of this show; desperately shoehorning in a (kinda) young (unproven) bubble-era artist between two of the major, established & proven, names of contemporary art (even if it is only with second-rate work of theirs, but then Mary’s no Larry). It’s pretty shallow and transparent salesmanship.nBeyond the Gober reference I think it really begs the question of the validity of this juxtaposition. Seems wildly lopsided. An interesting choice of Koh’s work too; IMO not representative of his normally overt work (and probably a good thing at that).nAmusing that Daddy would only let Koh show at Mary’s if he curated it. I’ll bet Koh had to work Daddy to get that permission.
It seems to me hard to miss the rather base point of this show; desperately shoehorning in a (kinda) young (unproven) bubble-era artist between two of the major, established & proven, names of contemporary art (even if it is only with second-rate work of theirs, but then Mary’s no Larry). It’s pretty shallow and transparent salesmanship.\nBeyond the Gober reference I think it really begs the question of the validity of this juxtaposition. Seems wildly lopsided. An interesting choice of Koh’s work too; IMO not representative of his normally overt work (and probably a good thing at that).\nAmusing that Daddy would only let Koh show at Mary’s if he curated it. I’ll bet Koh had to work Daddy to get that permission.
I agree, but I think that kind of shoehorning pretty common, no? You’re totally right to point out that’s not representative of his work (and that’s probably a good thing).
I agree, but I think that kind of shoehorning pretty common, no? You’re totally right to point out that’s not representative of his work (and that’s probably a good thing).
I agree, but I think that kind of shoehorning pretty common, no? You’re totally right to point out that’s not representative of his work (and that’s probably a good thing).
I’m guessing you are playing devil’s advocate: sure, it’s a dealer’s job to position their artists but there’s positioning and then there’s shoehorning. The former is substantive and has credibility, the latter is cheap posing. And I’d argue this instance is not just a case of positioning done poorly; these are both dealers of some means and if terence’s work could support it, it surely would have been to both their benefits to do a better job. The hard truth is there is no grounds to juxtapose Kelly and Koons with Koh (except perhaps for the nifty alliteration!). It doesn’t even strike me as a particularly appropriate trio. I’m very surprised that Joseph Beuys wasn’t chosen instead of Koons (I mean, really, Koons?!) except for the fact that Koons is more of a market darling (ka-ching!) and the intellectual heft of Beuys would totally smother Koh. Even Hirts would have been better than Koons, but Hists is a more tainted brand now I guess. The whoe show was just paper thin & spurious. Much like Koh’s work so I see your point in praising it. As appropriate as it may be I don’t think anyone involved in the show looks good as a result of it, Daddy & Mary included. If it had been done it the summer season I would be more forgiving.
I’m guessing you are playing devil’s advocate: sure, it’s a dealer’s job to position their artists but there’s positioning and then there’s shoehorning. The former is substantive and has credibility, the latter is cheap posing. And I’d argue this instance is not just a case of positioning done poorly; these are both dealers of some means and if terence’s work could support it, it surely would have been to both their benefits to do a better job. The hard truth is there is no grounds to juxtapose Kelly and Koons with Koh (except perhaps for the nifty alliteration!). It doesn’t even strike me as a particularly appropriate trio. I’m very surprised that Joseph Beuys wasn’t chosen instead of Koons (I mean, really, Koons?!) except for the fact that Koons is more of a market darling (ka-ching!) and the intellectual heft of Beuys would totally smother Koh. Even Hirts would have been better than Koons, but Hists is a more tainted brand now I guess. The whoe show was just paper thin & spurious. Much like Koh’s work so I see your point in praising it. As appropriate as it may be I don’t think anyone involved in the show looks good as a result of it, Daddy & Mary included. If it had been done it the summer season I would be more forgiving.
I’m guessing you are playing devil’s advocate: sure, it’s a dealer’s job to position their artists but there’s positioning and then there’s shoehorning. The former is substantive and has credibility, the latter is cheap posing. And I’d argue this instance is not just a case of positioning done poorly; these are both dealers of some means and if terence’s work could support it, it surely would have been to both their benefits to do a better job. The hard truth is there is no grounds to juxtapose Kelly and Koons with Koh (except perhaps for the nifty alliteration!). It doesn’t even strike me as a particularly appropriate trio. I’m very surprised that Joseph Beuys wasn’t chosen instead of Koons (I mean, really, Koons?!) except for the fact that Koons is more of a market darling (ka-ching!) and the intellectual heft of Beuys would totally smother Koh. Even Hirts would have been better than Koons, but Hists is a more tainted brand now I guess. The whoe show was just paper thin & spurious. Much like Koh’s work so I see your point in praising it. As appropriate as it may be I don’t think anyone involved in the show looks good as a result of it, Daddy & Mary included. If it had been done it the summer season I would be more forgiving.
I’m guessing you are playing devil’s advocate: sure, it’s a dealer’s job to position their artists but there’s positioning and then there’s shoehorning. The former is substantive and has credibility, the latter is cheap posing. And I’d argue this instance is not just a case of positioning done poorly; these are both dealers of some means and if terence’s work could support it, it surely would have been to both their benefits to do a better job. The hard truth is there is no grounds to juxtapose Kelly and Koons with Koh (except perhaps for the nifty alliteration!). It doesn’t even strike me as a particularly appropriate trio. I’m very surprised that Joseph Beuys wasn’t chosen instead of Koons (I mean, really, Koons?!) except for the fact that Koons is more of a market darling (ka-ching!) and the intellectual heft of Beuys would totally smother Koh. Even Hirts would have been better than Koons, but Hists is a more tainted brand now I guess. The whoe show was just paper thin & spurious. Much like Koh’s work so I see your point in praising it. As appropriate as it may be I don’t think anyone involved in the show looks good as a result of it, Daddy & Mary included. If it had been done it the summer season I would be more forgiving.
Comments on this entry are closed.