INFORMAL RELATIONScontemporary abstract works on paper
December 3rd - January 15thOpening reception is December 3rd from 6pm - 11pmGallery hours are Thursday - Saturday 11am - 6pmThe Indianapolis Museum of Contemporary Art (iMOCA) is pleased to announce the group exhibition, Informal Relations curated by Indianapolis based artist and curator Scott Grow.
Informal Relations presents recent abstract works on paper by a diverse group of international artists, and focuses on the diversity of practices-approaches, styles, and intentions-- within painting and abstraction today. The exhibition's title refers to kind the "informal relations" artists have with one another, their predecessors, with the modernist tradition, the future, and even with their own work. While works on paper may stand as finished works, they are also often places for exploration, thinking, planning, taking chances, and failure.Abstract art is challenging because of its concrete and/or metaphoric nature which refuses expected representation, its defiance of language and absolute interpretation, and because it requires the viewer's engagement and participation. And because abstraction is not a singular school or style, the term itself is not necessarily helpful in identifying the qualities or concepts embodied in the art object: artists often naturally have shared and conflicting objectives for the art they make. Abstraction, which lends itself to various aesthetic, conceptual, and political stances, is broadly multiphasic, utilitarian, and flexible.Each artist presented here confronts, investigates, and presents a definition of abstract painting true to his or her materials, motifs, and sensibilities. Informal Relations explores the similarities, differences, and connections between these artists, their dialog with abstraction's history, and various directions forward for abstraction.This exhibition presents the works of 32 artists from across the United States and abroad. Participating artists include: Patrick Alt, Chris Ashley, Patrick Berran, Kadar Brock, Matthew Deleget, Laura Fayer, Keltie Ferris, Patrick Michael Fitzgerald, Connie Goldman, Brent Hallard, Rachel Hayes, Jeffrey Cortland Jones, Michael Just, Matthew Langley, Jim Lee, Rossana Martinez, Rob Nadeau, Melissa Oresky, Paul Pagk, Danielle Riede,Maximilian Rödel , Eric Sall, Susan Scott, Gabriel J. Shuldiner, Jessica Snow, Henning Straßburger, Garth Weiser, Wendy White, Paige Williams, Douglas Witmer, Molly Zuckerman-Hartung and John Zurier.For further information visit, www.indymoca.org
30.11.10
Informal Relations
17.11.10
Things Read...Macbeth
14.11.10
Things read...Thomas Bernhard
"I now had an opportunity to examine my grandfather's assertions. I had an obsessive desire to gather the evidence in my head, and so I began a strenuous search for the evidence, tracking it down in every direction, in every corner of the city of my youth and its surroundings. My grandfather had been right in his judgment of the world: it was indeed a cesspit, but one which engendered the most intricate and beautiful forms if one looked into it long enough, if one's eye was prepared for such strenuous and microscopic observation"
12.11.10
A few thoughts (doubts)...
Everything is political on one level, or so it is said.
To be very wary of systems though… in thought too (My love for Pascal). And is it possible to do this in painting? Painting as something forever renegade?
Critical theory can become an orthodoxy in its own right. Before one knows it you are dancing with the devil.
We have seen that everything can become a commodity. Even ideas.
Is this an absolute? How determining is this fact? What status can things (eg. Paintings) have outside the commodity realm?
Painting has its inner worlds; its history makes it problematic but also provides the conventions and frameworks to sustain it (problematically).
Art needs to be problematic. Its very nature is problematic. Does this problematic nature need to be tempered by existential factors? What about pleasure?
The pleasure of making? The pleasure of viewing? Why shun these?
Painting is not one thing. It is not static. It is a confluence (a meeting place?).
Painting (as I see it) is pre-political. It is not sustained by circular critical theory in this sense. Can it lay the ground for kinds of experience from which we can learn (politically)? Crucially, painting can be a place where we can interact on many levels, especially at a phenomological level: forces, energy, synthesis, destruction, creation, openness, flow…
7.11.10
Dublin - London


Courtesy of Paul Andriesse
31.10.10
New drawings
18.10.10
Upcoming show - Informal Relations
Indianapolis Museum of Contemporary Art
Dec 3, 2010 – Jan 15, 2011
14.10.10
Through a window...

8.10.10
The crux, experience and idea...

3.10.10
Some Walls
October 2 – November 21, 2010
.jpg)
Peso (Verde) - 2010
2.10.10
Leaves/Shadows
Return


29.8.10
Maturity
Secret Motivations
I have found that painting most betrays its secret motivations when it deals with things strictly on its own terms. Only then did I understand that it (my painting activity) is to do with the most commonplace stuff of our daily life, and in the most intimate ways: the problems in painting reflect our experience of life. What we inevitably lose in life we attempt to recover in a transfigured way in painting.
28.8.10
At stake...
There is a very fine line between the worst possible piece of absolute trash and a wonderful painting. It is pure idiocy to talk of a painter who knows or doesn’t know how to paint. A painter who comes to realize what is really at stake in his daily activity has learnt how to value that which is constantly being found by chance or otherwise.






