Skip to main content

Serious Laughter (rebuttal) Butchershop Dogmatic



Here is a sad moment...

Characterized by an iterative structure and favoring modulating events to idol speculation, Meg Duguid and Catie Olson’s program navigated a space wherein process was investigated as an experiential device. At its core, Serious Laughter employed humor and absurdity as mediums with which contemporary aesthetic could be analyzed and its fraying bits snipped at the pleasure of a passerby’s joke. In their words this was, “based on a weird tracking of subject and object within a fictional world of serious laughter.”
This could have meant most anything, but it didn’t. It’s in fact a lovingly crafted piece of language that provides a specific literal introduction to a body of work whose feet existed in two streams of poetic distinction, with its patina of thrift and casual craft on one side and its postulations of action and experience on the other. This bit of doggerel, of tag line is in fact a very clever indication of the viewers “subjective” experience, much of which was wrapped around silent and not so silent observances of the body as an object that, creates, reiterates and disseminates text in the specific form of Art. “Based on a weird tracking of subject and object within a fictional world of serious laughter,” created a tacit consent with its audience by virtue of its accuracy in describing Duguid and Olson’s intention.
As tracking implies following or pursuit, it also implies intention. Ironically it’s this intention that was easiest to miss within Serious Laughter’s construct. But the thing is it was as there as the punch line in any joke. It was in fact so pervasive that the examination of any one piece offered a remarkable amount of insight into workings of the entire program. Its layout prescribed a situational foundation that made this possible even necessary as works had to coexist to function. In the case of What it all Means, a water colour representation of everything in the program and its placement within the gallery this becomes acutely evident as the show itself had to be constructed and hung entirely before this piece could be developed. Yet, What it all Means is clearly referenced in the documented correspondence between Duguid and Olson earlier in the year.
What it all Means, also provides an important chronological buffer for the work, as it acts as the distinctive point wherein Serious Laughter ceases to be a performance that Duguid and Olson are the primary participants of. After the completion of, What it all Means, Serious Laughter is transformed into a four week long performance that is mediated by the gallery and performed by its audience using the props that the artists have assembled for them. Making the banal inclusion of a chess board in the front room, far more significant as its inclusion personifies the relationship that the artists are forging with their respective audience in this fictional world of Serious Laughter.
Clown Car and C World were at the apex of this as both pieces formed nuanced theatres that highlighted succinctly the bond between artist and audience. Like nesting dolls, they were arranged so that they invited the viewer (participant) into static performative fantasies about looking. Settling on a couch or a toilet depending, they offered plastic moments of unkempt voyeurism in the one place were voyeurism, with its attending fetishistic qualities is not discouraged, the art gallery. This mode of hyper-textual theatre was then pushed even further by the artists with, The Joke Wall. As the gallery’s institutional role was usurped from a place for indicant texts and their believability to one of repression by an ever accumulating repository of low brow humor and the immediate critical response that accrued there. The audience (players), the unedited voice then relents to the same static conveyance that the artist relies on. By so doing they recreate the silent scrawl found in public bathrooms everywhere, but here it becomes anointed as an elevated action.
It is however what this work was not about that has been engaged most vociferously by unknown parties at the Butcher Shop. Since July 1st, their zeal in rallying against Meg and Catie and their work, with its casual appearance and mercurial substance has resulted in the vandalizing of 6 pieces over the course of 2 and a half weeks time. Typically, if this had happened in another space the artists would be notified and the damaged work would be quietly removed or replaced. Dogmatic however is not a typical space. Dogmatic is an ongoing series of relationships perched on the edge of a breath. Art after all can be housed in a garden shed, in fact in the future it might, but relationships can only be housed in the hearts and minds of a community.
When, so many years after Duchamp you can’t find the joke or take from it something progressive then maybe the institution wins, perhaps the big museum is right for the moment but Dave Hickey’s nostalgic butterflies certainly aren’t a substitute for real questions. This was a program with a light heart and deep questions. It invited its viewer’s participation openly and without bias. Its only request was that they be adults and pay attention. How shockingly different was that for a program by Artists? So on the 28th of July, I invite you as an adult, as an artist or as a viewer to bring to the Butcher Shop a piece of artwork to be destroyed. As Meg and Catie’s work has been remorselessly harassed by faceless critics at the Butcher Shop, I invite you to join us in reclaiming and rebuilding an idea. No, naughty words won’t be flung .

From Dogmatic Advertisements

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The apologist and the appraiser have decided to stay put

dashed wet and grim Oh now, Reagan of steel glitter in pants with which to shake them on down. Oh now, I shit you not for these are the things. Yes in any order you should choose these are the things to please please me, Oh Yeah. - Unmarked letter signed, A to A They'll say to me that it's safe to say so much for ubiquity, for disenfranchisement, and the terrorism of privilege. They'll say to me, With all of the effects from these profoundly toxic effects, is the project of our shared humanity effectively being dismantled. Are these the idle thoughts and sad tidings of despots and the tyrant kings inside of their comfortable towers of raised muck. As I've said before, They're not so far gone as to be gone for the good of all. This is plain to be seen in a world of bent backs and gross hyperbole. I'll sit in any unused doorway. I'll be beside myself while every door is locked. I'll dream of the halls and listen as the curtains, the drinking, an...

Piles of leaves: Letters Campaign

Suddenly old but feeling perfect, my wet underwear is on the the floor. It's gathered round my ankle. Myko laughs, just as wet and full of piss as ever. The violence of our togethering already feels like more than something. I reach out, taking the back of her neck with my hand. She's stepping in as I lean over to write; Dear, Temperance, October, and Brine, You are more than a place to me. More than walls and simple chimes, but I'll write to you anyway. This you'll know as you read my words. From here beside the lark's buttered breast, from under the heavy lids and the bright side kettle where we'll hum. We'll hum together, Bunny. Dickens be damned, we're now brightly doomed. Soon enough we'll see, the forest within the trees. To you, Tigre PS. are more or only this bed, maybe the floor too.   We spend the day in, ordering takeout and hiding under the sheets. I get up and pee while Katt is talking about Milton. Her mouth's open, it's as rou...

Not the Willem DeKooning Retrospective (Not Even Close)

Willem DeKooning, Excavation (1950) oil on canvas Yesterday at work I bumped into this piece by Donald Kuspit on DeKooning's retrospective over at Artnet . Then this morning I bumped into this one on L Magazine's site, by Paddy Johnson . I don't know that Paddy Johnson demystifies DeKooning as much as she takes issue with his pallet, declaring it repetitive and boorish en masse. By contrast, Donald Kuspit writes an article painting DeKooning as a sadistic brute inextricably tied to the modern tradition in general and Picasso specifically. Together they make for some interesting reading, particularly as Kuspit never addresses the show itself in favor of drawing his conclusions from individual works. While Johnson seems to wear the show like an imaginary wool shawl, noting it's uncomfortable, out of style, and the zipper is broken. But she doesn't seem to get to a place that addresses what was actually there either, only what she felt was missing or to her mind ...