Sunday, April 13, 2008

A must see at the Peeler


Overextended. That is my current lot in life. I have for sometime wanted to inform you all of the wonderful exhibition currently being shown at the Peeler Art Center. I was recently emailed about how wonderful the show was by a friend of mine and then this morning, while checking in on a couple blogs I saw that MW Capacity posted about the show. If you have yet to start reading MW Capacity and you enjoy good, considered discussions about painting, then be sure to read their comments section. The show to see is, Life After Death: New Leipzig Paintings from the Rubell Family Collection. If you enjoy painting and feel you rarely get the chance to see some great examples, then this show is worth the 45 minute drive to Greencastle. I feel I must also mention that the Rubell Family Collection is amazing and seeing their collection in Miami has to be one of my favorite stops when at Art Basel. Their exhibition space is perhaps one of my favorite places to view art, simply a beautifully space.

The works will be on view at DePauw's Richard E. Peeler Art Center through May 18th, 2008. The exhibition is free and open to the public.

The galleries at the Richard E. Peeler Art Center are open Tuesday through Friday from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m.; Saturday 11 a.m. - 5 p.m.; and Sunday 1 – 5 p.m., and are closed during University breaks and holidays.

7 Responses to “A must see at the Peeler”

Richard said...
April 14, 2008 at 9:55 PM

I've been intrigued by the folks over at MW Capacity ever since they posted on Casey Roberts
http://mwcapacity.wordpress.com/2007/12/23/casey-roberts/
and then did an interview with Chad Gallion
http://mwcapacity.wordpress.com/2008/02/01/interview-with-chad-gallion/

I'm always impressed at the level of discussions that MW Capacity holds, and wonder why such a thing doesn't occur here. It seems things never get that far beyond the surface in the discussions here.

I really don't have any good reason.

Anyone have one?


Scott said...
April 15, 2008 at 1:31 AM

You know Rich, I have often thought about this very thing and have come up with little but speculation and conjecture. Perhaps the problem lies with Herron and how they educate artists and/or the fact that there is a lack of critical dialogue and discussion by any local publication. It often suprises me how many artists graduate from Herron year after year that have no concept of whose who in the art world, whether historically or currently. How often do you see students attend local galleries or the museum when not assigned to do so? I particualrly remember a very vivid point made to my painting class by Richard Nicholson when he asked the class who could name the starting line up some basketball team and strangely 75% of the class could. Then we were put to a test to identify slides for artists name, title of painting and aproximate date of work... 95% of the class I remember failing. Too many artists, I think, like the idea of being an artist more so than they enjoy thinking about and discussing art. I do not think it is necissary for artists to go around quoting Kant or Danto but they sure should have some thought out concept of what they believe.


Richard said...
April 15, 2008 at 8:05 AM

Hmmm... Interesting thought, Scott.

I think that it's just as valuable to look and learn about other art as it is to make your own. Of course, I think reading books is important too.

Anyway, check out the post on Jessica Burnside. She's a Herron student. I'm thinking she would have a tough time naming the starting line up for the Pacers, but I never asked her.

http://on-the-cusp.blogspot.com/2008/04/jessica-burnsides-spider.html


Anonymous said...
April 15, 2008 at 10:26 AM

From Anonono:

(i'm going to start using this name to forestall people's wrath, and yes, I'm too lazy to register.)

In my opinion, many kids go to art school because they think it's cool and and easy 4 year degree. They may have some slant towards art and have no other ideas of what to do after HS.

I have no art school background whatsoever, yet I can rattle off artists names and histories mainly because of reading books and studying genres because it is important to me as an artist to know the history of my profession.

The big disconnect becomes glaringly clear when you discuss art with local gallery owners (!!!) and they don't know who you are talking about. I mentioned Paul Klee to a gallery owner 2 years ago and they had no idea. I compared a few paintings in Ruschman to Wols and Hartung while talking with a degreed Herron artist at an opening and he was clueless.

Sad.

It speaks to the style of educating more than to the individuals, but a big part of the responsibility of an artist is to study what came before them instead of blithely living in a bubble and making all about "me, me, me". Is art history required/mandated in the first year at Herron? If not, it should be. At the very least, the history of your particular area of study should be the starting place of any line of instruction.

I'm not advocating mimicry, but at least look at what happened in the last, say, 150 years and get a good foundation.

The basketball vs. art thing is simply Indiana (possibly midwest) -centric. There's barely any fostering of art culture here when kids are in their teens, but there sure is fostering of all things sports.


Anonymous said...
April 15, 2008 at 11:06 AM

being one of mw capacity art nerds, and also a teacher at Herron, i wanted to contribute a couple of things. First of all, to put rumors to rest, yes, the herron students are required to take art history classes.
also, not being that long out of school myself, i think one thing that we are failing to consider, is the tremendous value of an educational system that gears itself more in line with the liberal arts at large than with fine arts specifically. i think this type of model could ideally thrive even in an 'art school' environment, however, it would call for initiating some fundamental (and difficult) changes.
most artists get excited about making art, because they see it as an avenue of expression in direct relationship to the larger socio/economical/political/theological/environmental world they find themselves located within. very few people make art for the sake of the art world. they make it for the sake of the rest of the world, and for the ways in which they see themselves relative to that world. if you neglect to educate students about things that fall outside of their areas of concentration...to make them excited about these things... then you deny them access to inspiration, and art becomes a powerless, flat, and fairly inane pursuit.
passionate art discussion ideally opens itself and its participants up to much more than showboating and laundrylists of artists names.
-j


Richard said...
April 19, 2008 at 9:20 AM

Well, I don't think the lack of in-depth discussion at onthecusp has anything to do with the students, teachers, or curriculum at Herron (I would venture to say the vast majority of Herron students don’t even know this site exists). And I don’t think you even have to know any artist’s names to be able to describe an artwork. These things may help to put the work into a greater context, but what is most important is an interest in looking and describing (seeing) an artwork.

The idea of ‘critique’ would come next – and it’s one in which I’m only secondarily interested. At least I’m not necessarily interested in externalizing it here – the “I like,” and “I don’t like” kind of observation usually aren’t that helpful to understand an artwork, but more useful to understand what the person looking at it does and doesn’t like.


Richard said...
April 19, 2008 at 9:20 AM This comment has been removed by the author.

All Rights Reserved OnTheCusp.org | Blogger Template by Bloggermint