At the Oakland Art Gallery, nestled between office buildings on a pedestrian walkway off the Frank H. Ogawa plaza in downtown Oakland, nine artists— some very recent and some semi-recent MFA graduates—are placed together under the visiting curatorial eye of Aimee Chang, of the Orange County Museum of Art, to showcase the pulse of artwork and art-making of the Bay Area.

Bay Area Currents 2007, a juried exhibition, shows a fair range of media: sculpture, painting, video and conceptual art. What is initially striking about the chosen artwork overall is the lack of “the figure” as either subject or object. Granted, this is my traditional take on the whole matter of figuration, and I’m sure arguments could be made that many of the artworks included in this exhibition could stand-in for a metaphysical body of sorts. However, I’m going to stick to my initial reaction that the curator, Ms. Chang, has a preference for the non-objective, the minimal and the abstract and this exhibition is a reflection of that specific interest. In addition, it is apparent that the curatorial decision to include such an overwhelming amount of sculpture in this exhibition shows Ms. Chang’s other preference, namely one of the three-dimensional object over the two-dimensional image. And, it is with this particular focus on sculpture, especially when compared to the few examples of painting included in the exhibition, that a challenge is initiated between the object versus the image, possibly in general in the perception of the curator, but most definitely noticeable within this particular group exhibition.

In the exhibit, there are a number of free-standing sculptural pieces, such as the all-white carved pillars in resin by Xuchi Naungayan reminiscent of totems or possibly busts of found geological specimens, or the all-black, burnt looking and un-soft arm chair by Terry M. Mason that speak to weight, material and an idea of the object found by the artist versus the object formed by the artist’s hand. And then there are the neon-incorporated brick-and-mortar and metal sculptures of David O. Johnson, where I am pleasantly reminded again that simple basic and structural forms are simply beautiful…and especially so when they are glowing from within and hold a much darker/dangerous message (although the glowing neon aspect to these works would be better suited to a much darker gallery space).

While free-standing sculpture “stands out” in this exhibition, the real meat on which to chew presented itself when I started to take a look at the wall-based sculpture in direct relation to the paintings on display, and a perception of a biased challenge of the object vs. the image became undeniably present.

On the side of painting in this exhibition is the artwork by Mel Prest, drawn lines of color in loosely methodical arrangements, and the color-bomb, drippy abstract landscapes of Jessalyn Haggenjos. Figurative reference is absent in both of the artists’ work: the paintings do not speak on the issue of presence of physical form within the image, something impossible to ignore when considering the sculptural works arranged throughout the exhibition space. And, because both examples of painting bring the focus of the viewer to the surface of the canvas—a possible reference to the painting as being an object in itself—this leaves no example of one of painting’s few unique characteristics: depth and perspective within the image. Both painters are boldly using color to elicit a response that is a rewarding characteristic not readily available in the sculptures by the other artists; color is the strength that these artists wield.

Now, it might read like I’m giving these two examples of painting a hard time, and that just isn’t true. In and of themselves, both Prest and Haggenjos are exploring their own sense of image building, and it is commendable to see such strong, direct and positive investigation—maybe this “image building” idea is what Ms. Chang presents as the relation between the paintings and the sculptures of the exhibition. What I am concerned with, however, is the competition between Prest and Haggenjos’s artwork and the wall-based sculptures of Xuchi Naungayan, Monica Martinez and Zachary Royer Scholz, and how the latter’s artwork speaks more broadly to Painting as a concept albeit while being wall-sculpture, than the curator’s choice of painters. Naungayan’s work Polyhedron Drip is a collection of what look like sharpened charcoal sticks on metal rods that bend off the wall, reminding me exactly what makes a good drawing a good drawing, when it assaults your eyes and “pops” off from the two-dimensional page. Martinez’ sculptural construction called Trapitos al Sol shows me how parts within a composition can have weight, movement, texture and reflection, as well as the strength of the abstracted image that plays a tension between the composition after nature and the autonomous structure as you walk around the artwork. If you don’t know what I’m talking about, go look up Cezanne. Zachary Royer Scholz, in his artworks titled Objects XXXXXXX plays out how the perverted simple material and form can still show the sublime equation, and one artwork directly points out the “window onto the world” concept developed and tossed around by painting for the last couple hundred years. I love it when basic artistic statements can so succinctly address the wealth of history.

Not to forget, there is also the video de-constructivist work of Toban Nichols and the direct-as-life public project of Packard Jennings. Ms. Chang must have felt that time-based artwork and society-affecting artwork needed some voice in this survey exhibition, and she choose well, if even so little was included. Nichols’ video artwork did not get a fair physical placement in the exhibition, and honestly, in this instance it doesn’t hold its own against the other artwork on display. The same can be said for Jennings fabricated newspaper stories/collaboration project. Jennings, in the past, has proven to be a saboteur with wit, and the project selected for Bay Area Currents 2007 should have been placed dead center in the gallery, so that more attention could be garnered.

So where does this exhibition stand, what “current” flows in the Bay Area if considering this survey as any indication of the future-now of the Bay Area arts? I’m either brave or stupid enough to ask a question like this, and I’ll go even farther and answer it as well: Bay Area Currents 2007, while itself a professional collection of artists—both the not-so-recent MFA graduates dedicated to the Bay Area and some very fresh graduates who are just jumping into the local game—and a show that presents quality in material, product as well as quality in presentation of ideas (although heavy on minimalism to be fair…), overall it displays a much too heavy curatorial subjective view on the current of Bay Area minimalism and sculpture-based art to feel inclusive of what actually goes on in the Bay Area, which is a much wider range of media and vision. However, it is always my preference to see a curator take a stand on an issue or a medium or a genre and promote the hell out of it, and surely Aimee Chang does it here with aplomb. It is just too bad the show couldn’t have been re-titled and re-focused to something like: Bay Area Modern Abstractness: Still Kicking Ass in 2007 as Exemplified by Local Emerging Artists.

-S.R. Kucharski
srk@tomorrowism.org

Bay Area Currents 2007
May. 17, 2007 - Jun. 29, 2007

Bay Area Currents is our annual juried exhibition showcasing the work of Bay Area artists. The 2007 juror for Bay Area Currents is Aimee Chang.

Reception: Thurs., May 17, 5-8 pm
Curator/Artists Talk: Thurs., June 21, 6-8 pm

Exhibiting artists: Jessalyn Haggenjos, Packard Jennings, David o. Johnson, Monica Martinez, Terry M. Mason, Xuchi Naungayan, Toban Nichols, Mel Prest, Zachary Royer Scholz.

http://www.oaklandartgallery.org