if you see clay
Paul Kos, Gallery Paule Anglim, 1/3 & 2/2, 2008
Maybe it's because the task of originality is taller since the 1960's and 70's, but the conceptual art of this era
seems less impressive to me than its predecessor art of a few decades ago... even with the same artist. It's
perfectly true that I do not have vast experience regarding conceptual art, but I will say that I have noticed
this: the conceptual art of the 60's and 70's (bay area) that I have seen has a sense of humor, a playful experimental
feel, and a simplicity of materials that is often missing from later works.
Take for instance, Paul Kos's show at the Gallery Paule Anglim. The work in this show spanned almost 40 years,
although I noticed a 20 year gap missing, making an early/late distinction inevitable (well, for me anyway).
It's not wholly true to say that I prefer the early pieces; there are enough exceptions to render my statement
borderline-worthless. Still, for some reason I have these associations with time period, and found myself looking
for the date before the title of the work. There are a few pieces in the Paul Kos show that I missed, but here is
a run-down of the bulk of the work (in chronological order):
Early works (<1982):
Real Estate Sculpture on Loan 1968-69
I like this piece. It is a perfect example of what I was describing. It has the sense of humor, playful
experimental feel, and simplicity of materials that I associate with bay area conceptual artwork of the late
1960's, and I find it really successful. It's comprised of text and some simple diagrams on paper, and the
concept is both hilarious and original. I'm not sure if Kos was the first to make artwork involving real estate,
and it doesn't matter... the piece still works 40 years later. The context of the artwork has changed considerably
since this piece was created. I will never experience it the way it was experienced by the Richmond Art Center
audience, but I imagine that it was shocking. This piece's dimensions are 100 feet X 50 feet X 66,000,000 feet,
which cracks me up. I think the diagram showing the official boundaries of the land and its underground implications
is endlessly hilarious, as well as deeply profound. Extending ownership of land down to the "molten tip" at the center
of the earth is a very powerful statement. Bravo.
Sluice 1973 and Deposit 1973
These materials (steel, gold) are simple and honest. The meaning of these materials separately is different than the effect
they have together. By juxtaposing the steel bowl (or steel ladder form) and the gold leaf, the viewer is
suddenly aware of a third element: place. By displaying this piece in a San Francisco gallery, current
location becomes a supporting material, evoking the California gold rush. Steel object + gold + California = essence
of this artwork. Placed under the skylight of the gallery, Sluice has connotations of a gateway to heaven. These pieces are very
successful as art objects. Their simplicity adds to their beauty. As an object maker, these are the type of works
I am interested in understanding more about and want to learn to create for myself. These pieces are my favorites of
the show.
Stampede 1973
I love a good typewriter piece. But, I am aware that typewriters mean something entirely differently to me (as a
member of a different generation than the artist) than to those who viewed this work in 1973. In 2008, the use
of a typewriter can be seen as ironic, retro, a statement about materials or process, and much more. I'm not sure what
it meant in 1973. I'm guessing not many people were making visual artwork with typewriters, and that this
piece was additionally interesting for this reason. Its earlier success is moot though, since this piece is
still successful 35 years after its creation, which I greatly admire. Why is it still successful? It is
aesthetically beautiful, it is simple, and it is fun. It translates our written language (English) with its rules that we
generally understand, into visual language, where there are no rules... and that makes this piece conceptually beautiful.
This, too, is one of my favorite pieces of the show.
Tent in the Wind 1982
Graphite on paper (repeated scripted word tent) with audio (sound of wind)... this piece didn't do much for me. The audio
interfered with the I Saw the Light piece next to it. I'm not sure what this one was saying. I think I wrote this one off
as a one-liner (like some of the other pieces in the show), but one in which I didn't even get the joke.
Avalanche Series 1982
This series of four (ink on chrome coat paper) depicts groups of mountain climbers, and a cross section of the
snow and earth below them. We see the mountain climbers before the avalanche (top), and after the avalanche (bottom), and
a funny estimation of where and in what state the climbers will compress and move from the avalanche. I think it's an
interesting conceptual piece, and my take is that (besides being about time and space) it's about our environment, which is in this case, the mountain. I'm not sure if Kos
intentionally employs ants as metaphor, but the humans are ant-like in size (small) and color (black). From a distance,
the work looks like an ant colony. The insignificance of ants (to us not them) due to their size and number, and ants'
sensitivity with regards to their environment fit in well with the message of this piece, so probably Kos wouldn't mind
it being read this way. I am a little bothered by the technical skill of this piece. It is strongest from a distance, but
doesn't hold up under close visual scrutiny. I still liked this piece a lot.
Late Works (>2005):
Scything 2005
This piece didn't make much of an impact on me. The size was problematic, seemed like a trinket, and it was dwarfed by
the two huge sculptures in the room (Canary and Sluice). I don't have much to say about this one other than it helps
contextualize the other gold rush/western pieces.
XC on Brushstrokes 2005
Out of the 3 video pieces projected onto painted canvas, only one is successful to me, XC on Brushstrokes. The two
which fail to impress are Yuba Red Rock and Pilot Butte. The paint is boring, safe. I imagine that these pieces will
go nicely with some rich person's couch. Gallery Paule Anglim probably likes those pieces a lot. XC on Brushstrokes,
on the other hand, is less pretty, and places more emphasis on the idea. It's the earliest, and Kos really nailed the
blurring of lines between a painting and a video. As the cross country skier walks up the mountain your focus is
initially on the movement and sound (video). The skier recedes into the trees and
snow, becoming much smaller and quieter, eventually his movement is quite subtle and almost imperceptible. It is at this
point that the viewer realizes he (she) is looking at a painted canvas. In painting, movement must be evoked using cues of
visual language. This piece is both painting and video. It's not fantastic aesthetically, but the snow helps to simplify
the image allowing the video to painting transition to occur in a clean way.
Can't Get It Right No Matter Where I Go 2006
Posed with accordion, Kos again uses location as subject matter. I see this piece as a one-liner. It is funny, but
doesn't hold my attention conceptually. I have a BFA in photography, and have seen a truckload of photographs.
Maybe that makes me a little hard to impress technically when it comes to this medium. This piece is obviously not
about the medium of photography. But unlike the new large sculptures (Canary and Saw), which are aesthetically
irreproachable, this piece may not withstand another 40 years of critical viewing.
Basho 2007
Oops, there were a few people watching this video piece and I forgot to return to it when it was available for viewing.
Growing up in Midwestern USA, the incomprehensible characters and deliberate lines of Asian brushstrokes did at one time,
seem aesthetically magical to me.
Living in the bay area, and being a ceramist (who has been force fed Asian pottery and its aesthetic for years now), I have
overcome my initial enchantment for this look (when used solely for shallow visual reasons). For all I know Kos is not trying to visually tap
into this heritage that is not inherently his... but is actually saying something. Unfortunately, I didn't watch the piece.
I have no idea what the message was. It is probable that Kos was making some reference to Matsuo Basho, a famous
Japanese haiku poet of the 17th century (thank you Wikipedia).
Canary/Coal (Wait for a song) 2007
This piece is quite nice. Paul Kos assembled a pleasing new object consisting of 4 individually beautiful objects.
These objects were pre-loaded with meaning (coal, bamboo, steel shovel, canary) and the
end result is different than just a sum of the parts. Aesthetically, this is a very successful piece. It is balanced
(literally and figuratively), uses negative space, is of a size that makes an impact on a viewer (and fills a
gallery nicely), and uses quality materials (the taxidermied canary especially impressed). These materials
are assembled in a compelling way, pitting the canary against the coal and making the title of the piece almost unnecessary.
The title does provide the satisfaction of knowing one is interpreting down the right track. It works especially well displayed
next to the sluice and deposit pieces of 1973.
Yuba Red Rock 2007 and Pilot Butte 2007
I have some prejudices about the need for technical prowess in artwork due to my background in clay.
I feel it is ok to lack craftsmanship or technical ability if the work transcends (conceptually) the need for it, or
the artist has proven elsewhere that he/she is capable and has intentionally chosen this aesthetic.
Knowing an artist cannot draw/paint/sculpt skillfully should probably not matter to conceptual art. But, as a
viewer, if I am thinking about the lack of these skills, it reveals an incomplete or unsuccessful artwork.
Paul Kos's works have craftsmanship (clean, professional presentation), but with a few of his pieces, I see the medium as
part of his message, and the lack of technical skill bothers me. This is the case with the video/paint pieces, and
the simple painting technique used for Yuba Red Rock and Pilot Butte take away from my enjoyment of the pieces. As for the
concept, I think these pieces are further investigations of XC on Brushstrokes, but for me they are not quite as successful.
Man in the Snow 2007
This piece is probably my least favorite of the show. It's surprising, too, being such the fan of potty humor,
myself. But to pull it off, especially in a gallery setting with the other works displayed, Kos really needed to step
this up a notch. Not only is it a shallow one-liner, it fails aesthetically, with it's terrible I-can't-draw-worth-a-lick
execution of graphite on paper. Made in 2007, this piece really ought to have had more sophistication. Sophistication
plus potty humor equals exquisite artwork. Ok, maybe not, but that is what I would wish for this piece.
I saw the Light 2007
I think the title is a shame. I like word play, but I wish it had a more refined wit, or better yet, was left untitled
and left us in the "dark" about the inspiration for this piece. It pretty much relegates this beautiful work to just
a pleasant aesthetic delivery of a pun. Being shallow isn't the worst offense an artwork can commit, and I do like
the way this piece looks, but the title prevents me from wanting to read anything more into the work.
Stag's Leap 2007
This piece reminds me of one of my favorite Joseph Cornell boxes displayed in the SFMOMA in the fall of 2007. Cornell's
box, made in the 1940's or 1950's employed this same visual trick of capturing shadow made by the work, within the
work--then displaying the piece under a new light source. Joseph Cornell's piece had a bunch of other elements of course,
but Kos has simplified and has discarded everything but the shadow trick. My only complaint: it would have been better had
he drawn the shadow directly on the wall, rather than a piece of paper that matched the color of the wall.