The Phoenix Network:
 
 
About  |  Advertise
Adult  |  Moonsigns  |  Band Guide  |  Blogs  |  In Pictures
 
Books  |  Comedy  |  Dance  |  Museum And Gallery  |  Theater

Monkey see, monkey do

Into the cute at the DeCordova
By CHRISTOPHER MILLIS  |  September 12, 2006


POP BEETLES: You don’t have to know the punch line to appreciate Catherine Chalmers’s costumed cockroaches.
So thorough and deadpan is the joke that Catherine Chalmers pulls off in her ravishing color photographs of insects crawling across flowers they resemble that when I read the wall text I was sure there had been a mistake. The text talked about her cockroach series and the “fictive scenarios” she creates by employing mail-order cockroaches, but where were they? In one photo, a bug I’d never heard of, the peacockroach, displays the dazzling plumage, feathery and iridescent, of the bird it’s named for. In another, black and yellow bumblebees with unusually large antennae amble across a brilliant sunflower of the same contrasting hues. In a third, ladybugs in their traditional finery of black spots on red surfaces inspect the blossom of a leafless red and white flower. That the ladybugs were elongate and sported antennae larger than their bodies only meant I wasn’t familiar with all the variants of the species. Even the pop beetles with their ’60s-style pattern of simplified blossoms on their backs raised no suspicions: who hasn’t beheld with awe the ingenious camouflage of not dissimilar creatures in the pages of National Geographic?

It took the patient good humor of the DeCordova Museum’s publicist to explain what I had failed to see: all the insects were in fact cockroaches that the artist had meticulously painted, outfitted, and positioned. The joke was on me. Yet grateful as I was to have been arrested in my gullibility, and impressed as I am by Chalmers’s rich artistic sensibility, her “American Cockroach” photos and the estimable contributions by a few other artists are not sufficient to make “Going Ape” more than a mostly silly, frequently inept, and decidedly unconfrontational treatment of a well-worn (but hardly worn-out) theme: animals as the subject of artistic imagemaking.

One problem with the exhibit is that all the still works — paintings, photographs, installations, and sculptures — are just animals, with the exception of Komr & Melamid’s contribution, two acrylic paintings they coaxed elephants into making by holding a paintbrush in their trunks. The result of keeping humans out of the pictures and 3-D works is that none of our interactions with what remains of the beasts and the birds and the bees has been allowed in. Instead, we get the museum version of a zoo. Onlookers only, we’re invited to stare at animal forms that are as removed from their meanings and contexts as the caged cats at Franklin Park.

The other problem is the overwhelming sense of cute.

James Grashow’s network of square-faced cardboard interlocking monkeys cascades from the ceiling of the museum’s great staircase. They’re chimpanzee-sized and draping from one another’s arms, as if Curious George had metastasized as a garland. I’m not sure what Grashow was after beyond the effect of the nursery mobile — The Great Monkey Project could well delight the infant and toddler and pre-schooler. Would that the appeal went farther, or that the curators had packaged the exhibit for what it so frequently is, the fine-art version of the Museum of Science.

1  |  2  |  3  |   next >
Related: Get buggy with it, The queen of Cambodian cooking, Does this cheese taste funny?, More more >
  Topics: Museum And Gallery , Sports, Mammals, Nature and the Environment,  More more >
  • Share:
  • Share this entry with Facebook
  • Share this entry with Digg
  • Share this entry with Delicious
  • RSS feed
  • Email this article to a friend
  • Print this article
Comments
Monkey see, monkey do
Response to the article "Monkey See, Monkey Do” The question of what defines contemporary art is vast and varied as the artwork one views while walking Newbury Street. Art as with any “product” is about marketing, and how one can create an audience and profit from it. The role of art has changed through history as the advancement of technology offered us more freedom to explore. Contemporary Art shows us ourselves and what we learn from that experience. For example, one museum shows “The Art of Football” the show would follow the history of how fabric and materials have change the look of football apparel. In another museum we have a show called “The Art of the Body” You have a room with a single painting of a nude figure done in the 16th century next to it is a full length mirror, to enter the show you have to disrobe and stand in front of the mirror and look at yourself, as you look at yourself and the figure in the painting you begin to see the relationship between today and the past and how much or how little has changed. Ask the question, which museum will generate more ticket sales and secondary sales? That I believe is how larger shows are conceptualized. In closing, the role that contemporary museums play in contemporary society is one that can and will be debated for sometime. Life has many sides and not all are witty and funny. Contemporary Museums should show us those sides but also show us issues facing ourselves and society. Have museums become places of entertainment, to walk around, have a drink, buy a t-shirt and leave rather than institutions of learning? The balance between commerce & profitability against dialog on social issues or issues that face contemporary art should play a more vital role in the concept of future shows and the role that museums can play in society today.
By Time Fades Away on 09/21/2006 at 1:58:07

ARTICLES BY CHRISTOPHER MILLIS
Share this entry with Delicious
  •   GRAVE MATTERS  |  July 15, 2008
    Entering the small back room at Gallery Kayafas, you feel you’ve been transported into the shadowy pages of a small, mysterious book.
  •   SALONS OF SUMMER  |  August 07, 2007
    I’m not sure when the word “salon” started to mean an all-inclusive sampling of a gallery’s artists.
  •   KINETIC  |  June 12, 2007
    In their doll-like stiffness and manufactured hair, Pat Keck's shamelessly wooden, unmistakably hand-hewn figures suggest a descent into the underworld.
  •   CONVERSATIONS WANTED  |  April 17, 2007
    Just what is cyberarts?
  •   ABSENCE AND PRESENCE  |  March 07, 2007
    “Sensorium I,” which was up at MIT’s List Center between October and December last year, was an ambitious mixed bag of what one critic aptly termed “circus art.”

 See all articles by: CHRISTOPHER MILLIS

MOST POPULAR
RSS Feed of for the most popular articles
 Most Viewed   Most Emailed 



  |  Sign In  |  Register
 
thePhoenix.com:
Phoenix Media/Communications Group:
TODAY'S FEATURED ADVERTISERS
Copyright © 2009 The Phoenix Media/Communications Group