Nicolas Mavrikakis does Maclean
Howdy!
This is the 23rd exhibit at Galerie Roger Bellemare since since June 2001. If I were John Heward or Jocelyne Alloucherie, I'd be asking some serious questions. Maclean - who y'all know had two shows here ("New Landscape Theories" in 2001 and "Sportsmanlike Driving" in 2002), gets yet another review for his absolutely wonderful (am I biased?) exhibit. That tallies up a total of three local reviews, so far. Mr. Heward and Ms. Alloucherie have had numerous shows at M. Bellemare's gallery and haven't been able to crack one review between them.
Nicolas Mavrikakis writes 588 words with a minimum of name dropping (only Tony Smith), and no major errors (Maclean as a franco? I never knew!), so I figure we're off to a good start. While I like the line "de panneaux dont les pictogrammes auraient été revus par un ministère du Tourisme ou du Transport totalement post-moderne ou encore par un ministre converti au surréalisme" (or in blokespeak: the signs with pictograms made up by a post modern or surrealist Ministry of Transport or Tourism). I don't exactly think that Maclean's work is Post-Modern or Surrealist. You could make a case for it being dada-esque, conceptual, textual or using name drop method of description, Jenny Holzer on a road trip.
M. Mavrikakis makes a slight dig at M. Bellemare's choice of works in the exhibition, by suggesting that viewers wander into the office part of the gallery where there are "even stronger" works on display. Which then leads to the question of why are they in the ofice? I'd give the review a B.
Then, as of the time I'm writing this, there had only been one comment made by a reader of Voir. Marion Gerbier writes 366 words on the exhibit as well. She starts off nicely, responding to what I would imagine was the conversation she had with Peuline [Pauline?] 'cuz it is addressed to them. But it took me a little bit time to understand that what she was writing was one side of a conversation that I had not heard - probably because of the language (sorry, I gotta concentrate more when it is in French). Ms. Gerbier's prose is way more flowery and personal than that of Mr. Mavrikakis' bordering on the poetic. It makes for an interesting take on Maclean's work, which I don't view as being anywhere near to poetry or even flowery statements. I'd give her an A- just because she made me pause to consider a different way of viewing the works.
However, the thing you gotta remember, is despite whatever I say, Mr. Mavrikakis says, Ms. Grebier says, Mr. Lamarche says, or Mr. Delgado says, or anybody else for that matter, go see it for yourself. Then let me know what you think, ok?
It's up for another week, 372 Sainte Catherine W, #502, (514) 871-0319.
This is the 23rd exhibit at Galerie Roger Bellemare since since June 2001. If I were John Heward or Jocelyne Alloucherie, I'd be asking some serious questions. Maclean - who y'all know had two shows here ("New Landscape Theories" in 2001 and "Sportsmanlike Driving" in 2002), gets yet another review for his absolutely wonderful (am I biased?) exhibit. That tallies up a total of three local reviews, so far. Mr. Heward and Ms. Alloucherie have had numerous shows at M. Bellemare's gallery and haven't been able to crack one review between them.
Nicolas Mavrikakis writes 588 words with a minimum of name dropping (only Tony Smith), and no major errors (Maclean as a franco? I never knew!), so I figure we're off to a good start. While I like the line "de panneaux dont les pictogrammes auraient été revus par un ministère du Tourisme ou du Transport totalement post-moderne ou encore par un ministre converti au surréalisme" (or in blokespeak: the signs with pictograms made up by a post modern or surrealist Ministry of Transport or Tourism). I don't exactly think that Maclean's work is Post-Modern or Surrealist. You could make a case for it being dada-esque, conceptual, textual or using name drop method of description, Jenny Holzer on a road trip.
M. Mavrikakis makes a slight dig at M. Bellemare's choice of works in the exhibition, by suggesting that viewers wander into the office part of the gallery where there are "even stronger" works on display. Which then leads to the question of why are they in the ofice? I'd give the review a B.
Then, as of the time I'm writing this, there had only been one comment made by a reader of Voir. Marion Gerbier writes 366 words on the exhibit as well. She starts off nicely, responding to what I would imagine was the conversation she had with Peuline [Pauline?] 'cuz it is addressed to them. But it took me a little bit time to understand that what she was writing was one side of a conversation that I had not heard - probably because of the language (sorry, I gotta concentrate more when it is in French). Ms. Gerbier's prose is way more flowery and personal than that of Mr. Mavrikakis' bordering on the poetic. It makes for an interesting take on Maclean's work, which I don't view as being anywhere near to poetry or even flowery statements. I'd give her an A- just because she made me pause to consider a different way of viewing the works.
However, the thing you gotta remember, is despite whatever I say, Mr. Mavrikakis says, Ms. Grebier says, Mr. Lamarche says, or Mr. Delgado says, or anybody else for that matter, go see it for yourself. Then let me know what you think, ok?
It's up for another week, 372 Sainte Catherine W, #502, (514) 871-0319.
posted by Zeke's, the Montreal Art Gallery on 25.2.05
<< Home