Bad Magazines, Bad!

Bad Magazines, Bad!

Donald Barthelme the Architect

Donald Barthelme the Architect

The Wisdom of Architects

The Wisdom of Architects

As the Key Tolls

As the Key Tolls

Mrs. Kaplicky Regrets

Mrs. Kaplicky Regrets

Top Stories


Architecture-related Art, Oh, The Academy

Bonkers Writing, Good Art

momabaldi.jpgWe. Just. Can’t. Keep. Up. With. Our. Contributors. Today. Over to you, Michael!

While you’re waiting for MoMA’s Web site to load (or, perhaps, for the museum to finally get its head on straight), why not have a look at White Columns? Image Image, a small first solo show by Steven Baldi, opened at the venerable West Village/MePa gallery on Tuesday night, and it takes MoMA’s 1932 Modern Architecture exhibition (you know, the one that introduced the International Style to America—oh, right, that one) as its jumping-off point.

Baldi re-created images from the exhibition catalog in a series of unbelievable photorealistic paintings that painstakingly replicate not just the text and images (Mies’s Tugendhat Villa, in Czechoslovakia, is the cover model) but also the creases on the front. (An uncreased copy with an inscription from Alfred H. Barr Jr., then MoMA’s director, runs for just shy of $4,000.)

Baldi’s paintings are pretty neat on their own—we are not so secretly in thrall to the obsessive art documentarians, routine categorizers, and other detail-oriented people of the world—but they’re also apparently (and somewhat unnecessarily) a commentary on “multiple histories” and “institutional hegemony,” according to the press release. Fine. It’s at least nice to know that The Bostwick’s writing advice to designers (number two: “Kill jargon.”) is equally applicable to the art world.

Architecture-related Art, EventCity

Building Code’s Sarah McKenzie Speaks… Live! To Us! In the Future!

sarah_mckenzie_interior2.jpg
Image courtesy Jen Bekman Gallery

It appears that our fandom of architecturally-inspired painter Sarah McKenzie has been so well documented that someone—Jen—thought it’d be a good idea to have us—Eva—talk to the artist—Sarah—in person—that would be with words—on Saturday—this weekend—at the gallery—6 Spring Street. Officially:

Join us for mimosas, pastries and sparkling conversation @ Jen Bekman Gallery this Saturday, March 7, 2009, from 10 a.m. to 12 p.m. — before the fairs!

We’ll be downing as much seltzer as we can get our hands on in preparation for that promised sparkle. But it’d be cool if you came. Yes, you. No pressure. Of course. Ha. Just. You know. A little support. Might be nice? Also the art is cool? Scratch. The art is cool. Come.

Sparkling Conversation:Sarah McKenzie + Eva Hagberg [ed: mind explosion!] [Personism]
Building Code’s Sarah McKenzie Speaks! [Edificial]

Architecture-related Art, In Which We Report

Building Code’s Sarah McKenzie Speaks!

sarah_mckenzie_interior3.jpg
Image courtesy Jen Bekman Gallery

Week before last, we invited you to party with us (in absentia), Sarah McKenzie, and Jen Bekman at Ms. Bekman’s Nolita gallery. This week, after a few days spent stalking the delightful Colorado-based painter, we bring you her words. But first, given that every day is Solipsism Day, a few of ours.

McKenzie’s paintings of construction sites are killer, and, if at all possible, should be seen in person. There’s something about their scale and brightness, about the different levels of paint she applies, about the combination of geometric flatness and material texture, that invites a truth out of architecture-in-progress that’s difficult to see in a photograph. Earlier work—like Lift, and Construction 4—is dense and lush. Paint is escaping the canvas, and looking at the saturated pieces makes your teeth feel a little sticky, like you just chewed on some chalk or a Mika Rottenberg cherry. Later work—like Interior and Interior 3—is flatter, the levels of distance between you and objects and objects farther away more compressed. Your eye searches less for something to hang on to with these paintings, and searches more for a way to penetrate an image that’s so unambiguous you just want to figure it out.

And that’s how we came to find Sarah, and ask her a few questions:

Why did you make the shift from aerial suburb paintings to construction sites?

This shift occurred for a few reasons. First, I made the aerial paintings from about 1999 until 2004, and after five years, I felt like that work had run its course, and I’d taken that imagery as far as I needed it to go. I’m still really proud of that work, but it was time to move on. My last “official” aerial painting, in 2004, was titled Aerial #69, so that gives you a fairly good idea of just how many paintings I produced for that series.

Coinciding with my creative desire to move on was the fact that, in 2004, I stopped using a film camera to shoot the aerial photographs from which I was painting, and I started shooting digitally. Most of my photographs were taken from hot air balloon, and although the balloon occasionally got quite low to the ground, most of the time I was floating anywhere from 200 to 1000 feet above my subject matter. When I switched to the digital camera, I was delighted to discover just how easy it was, using Photoshop, to zoom in on my high resolution photos and see tiny details up close. It sounds so simple, but really the shift in technologies was a huge catalyst for change in my work. Many of my later aerial paintings had focused on construction sites, and I was already quite interested in the structure of unfinished houses, but it was the digital camera that really made it possible for me to pursue that as a new body of work.

My first few construction paintings (from 2004-5) still included the aerial perspective, even as I began focusing on individual houses. I like the way the aerial perspective works to disorient the viewer, transforming these otherwise familiar construction sites into almost abstract compositions. Even though I have never been an abstract painter per se, I have always been interested in abstraction. In these images of unfinished architecture, I think I have found an ideal vehicle for exploring elements of abstract painting (grids, stripes, color relativity, flatness vs. depth, etc.) while still keeping one foot firmly in the realm of observation. At present, I am not taking aerial photos— I think I am able to find abstract qualities in the architecture even from ground level, but I can imagine bringing the bird’s-eye view back in at some point. Lately I’ve been taking lots of photos looking up, and that’s a perspective which can also serve to dislocate the viewer, in a good way.

I would describe the new work as being rooted in suburbia and the contemporary American landscape, but it is not about the landscape in a direct sense. For me, the work is much more about the process of building a picture on a two-dimensional surface, and I am using architecture metaphorically.

How do you look at a building-in-progress as opposed to a finished one? What are you seeing that your paintings are showing?

Continue reading…