I get comments - Ross Birdwise responds
Howdy!
Back in December, I wrote about seeing a piece by Ross Birdwise. I wasn't too fond of it, he wrote a comment that explained the piece. And I then wrote back to him
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chris from Zeke's Gallery
> Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2005 11:10 PM
> To: Ross Birdwise
> Subject: Thanks tons!
>
> Howdy!
>
> For the comment, apologies if you took what I wrote personally,
> that is not my intention. Feel free to elaborate if you would
> like. Or I would be more than happy to discuss your work further
> (publically or privately) if you would like. The blog is my
> attempt at starting discussion on and about contemporary art here
> in Montreal, and to a certain extent, I feel like there is some
> change afoot.
>
> If you would like to see previous discussions public I've had try these:
> Murry Whyte
> Jerome Delgado
>
> I hope that everything else is well.
>
> Chris
> Zeke's Gallery
> http://zekesgallery.blogspot.com
He then responded
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ross Birdwise
> Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2006 5:03 PM
> To: Chris from Zeke's Gallery
> Subject: Videoportraits
>
>
> Hi,
>
> Sorry for my late reply, I get quite the onslaught of
> new mail everyday.
>
> I guess I took what you wrote about my work
> personally. I also found your description of the work
> innaccurate and reductive. You did not mention it had
> sound, or that the work was not simply loops. You
> characterized it as "Three very large video screens
> rotating looped two second headshots of people that
> then switch positions on the walls." You also said
> "Yawn". This simply is not true. If you looked at
> the work for a minute or less, or just very casually
> without much focus of attention, I can see how the
> work might come across in this way. However, if you
> listen to the sounds, and watch the images with some
> minimal concentration for awhile, you will see that
> the loops 'unloop' periodically and move onto new
> sections of the recorded footage. You are still free
> not to like the work, but to dismiss it so casually,
> without even properly describing it, is what gets to
> me.
>
> Ross Birdwise
And we were off!
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chris from Zeke's Gallery
> Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2006 5:46 PM
> To: Ross Birdwise
> Subject: RE: Videoportraits
>
> Howdy!
>
> No problem-O! Either for the delay, or your response.
>
> Guilty as charged, I did look at your work for about a minute and
> a half. Going up against the touch screen thing-y, and then
> talking to Pierre-Francois, Mike and John, and then back to the
> touch screen thing-y, all while seeing 17 other artists, I'm not
> likely to get some discreet thing that you're trying to say with
> your work. Sorta similar to you whispering at a Merzbow concert
> and then complaining when I say I can't hear you...
>
> At the time that I saw your piece(s) and more so the week
> afterwards, what I wrote was all I could remember. While what I
> remember and what you created are most definitely two separate
> things, both are equally valid and true. And if your intention
> with your art is to get people to slow down and pay attention to
> small details then obviously from my perspective some work still
> needs to be done.
>
> My writing is an attempt to discuss visual art in the same manner
> as most people discuss films, music or books. What gets me is how
> way too many people think that all visual art demands as much
> attention as a PhD thesis and as a consequence don't go see art.
>
> Are we doing this conversation for publication? Or would you
> prefer to keep it private?
>
> Chris
> Zeke's Gallery
> http://zekesgallery.blogspot.com
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ross Birdwise
> Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2006 6:25 PM
> To: Chris from Zeke's Gallery
> Subject: RE: Videoportraits
>
> Hi Chris,
>
> You can publish this if you want to. Its too bad you
> cannot view the piece under less strained conditions.
> I think the small details would come out much more,
> and the piece would deepen in its signifigance,
> causing you to reflect. In short, it might change your
> mind about it.
>
> I find 'serious' music is in need of light criticism
> as well.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Ross
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chris from Zeke's Gallery
> Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2006 6:39 PM
> To: Ross Birdwise
> Subject: RE: Videoportraits
>
> Howdy!
>
> Cool and thanks. Unfortunately I do not run a 'serious' music joint :-)
>
> As for seeing them in less strained conditions, unless it is a
> unique piece, or PF sells (sold? :-) it to some out of town
> museum, it is quite likely I will have another chance.
>
> Off the top of my head, one way to unstrain the conditions
> without changing the piece too much might be to consider a door
> that is not transparent next time, so that once you're in, you're in.
>
> Chris
> Zeke's Gallery
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ross birdwise
> Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2006 6:53 PM
> To: Chris from Zeke's Gallery
> Subject: RE: Videoportraits
>
>
> Hi Chris,
>
> The piece isn't unique so you may see it again.
>
> I'll consider your advice. Some people still got into
> the piece nonetheless (I actually won a couple of
> awards for it, and have seen people staring at it in a
> mesmerized way) but I may be able to make it easier,
> by making it more closed-off and immersive.
>
> I plan on doing newer versions of the piece as well,
> with slightly different set-ups.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Ross
And for the record, I do look forward to seeing it again. Let's just hope that it ain't at the National Gallery! I'd also like to thank him for allowing me to publish our email conversation.
Back in December, I wrote about seeing a piece by Ross Birdwise. I wasn't too fond of it, he wrote a comment that explained the piece. And I then wrote back to him
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chris from Zeke's Gallery
> Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2005 11:10 PM
> To: Ross Birdwise
> Subject: Thanks tons!
>
> Howdy!
>
> For the comment, apologies if you took what I wrote personally,
> that is not my intention. Feel free to elaborate if you would
> like. Or I would be more than happy to discuss your work further
> (publically or privately) if you would like. The blog is my
> attempt at starting discussion on and about contemporary art here
> in Montreal, and to a certain extent, I feel like there is some
> change afoot.
>
> If you would like to see previous discussions public I've had try these:
> Murry Whyte
> Jerome Delgado
>
> I hope that everything else is well.
>
> Chris
> Zeke's Gallery
> http://zekesgallery.blogspot.com
He then responded
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ross Birdwise
> Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2006 5:03 PM
> To: Chris from Zeke's Gallery
> Subject: Videoportraits
>
>
> Hi,
>
> Sorry for my late reply, I get quite the onslaught of
> new mail everyday.
>
> I guess I took what you wrote about my work
> personally. I also found your description of the work
> innaccurate and reductive. You did not mention it had
> sound, or that the work was not simply loops. You
> characterized it as "Three very large video screens
> rotating looped two second headshots of people that
> then switch positions on the walls." You also said
> "Yawn". This simply is not true. If you looked at
> the work for a minute or less, or just very casually
> without much focus of attention, I can see how the
> work might come across in this way. However, if you
> listen to the sounds, and watch the images with some
> minimal concentration for awhile, you will see that
> the loops 'unloop' periodically and move onto new
> sections of the recorded footage. You are still free
> not to like the work, but to dismiss it so casually,
> without even properly describing it, is what gets to
> me.
>
> Ross Birdwise
And we were off!
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chris from Zeke's Gallery
> Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2006 5:46 PM
> To: Ross Birdwise
> Subject: RE: Videoportraits
>
> Howdy!
>
> No problem-O! Either for the delay, or your response.
>
> Guilty as charged, I did look at your work for about a minute and
> a half. Going up against the touch screen thing-y, and then
> talking to Pierre-Francois, Mike and John, and then back to the
> touch screen thing-y, all while seeing 17 other artists, I'm not
> likely to get some discreet thing that you're trying to say with
> your work. Sorta similar to you whispering at a Merzbow concert
> and then complaining when I say I can't hear you...
>
> At the time that I saw your piece(s) and more so the week
> afterwards, what I wrote was all I could remember. While what I
> remember and what you created are most definitely two separate
> things, both are equally valid and true. And if your intention
> with your art is to get people to slow down and pay attention to
> small details then obviously from my perspective some work still
> needs to be done.
>
> My writing is an attempt to discuss visual art in the same manner
> as most people discuss films, music or books. What gets me is how
> way too many people think that all visual art demands as much
> attention as a PhD thesis and as a consequence don't go see art.
>
> Are we doing this conversation for publication? Or would you
> prefer to keep it private?
>
> Chris
> Zeke's Gallery
> http://zekesgallery.blogspot.com
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ross Birdwise
> Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2006 6:25 PM
> To: Chris from Zeke's Gallery
> Subject: RE: Videoportraits
>
> Hi Chris,
>
> You can publish this if you want to. Its too bad you
> cannot view the piece under less strained conditions.
> I think the small details would come out much more,
> and the piece would deepen in its signifigance,
> causing you to reflect. In short, it might change your
> mind about it.
>
> I find 'serious' music is in need of light criticism
> as well.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Ross
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chris from Zeke's Gallery
> Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2006 6:39 PM
> To: Ross Birdwise
> Subject: RE: Videoportraits
>
> Howdy!
>
> Cool and thanks. Unfortunately I do not run a 'serious' music joint :-)
>
> As for seeing them in less strained conditions, unless it is a
> unique piece, or PF sells (sold? :-) it to some out of town
> museum, it is quite likely I will have another chance.
>
> Off the top of my head, one way to unstrain the conditions
> without changing the piece too much might be to consider a door
> that is not transparent next time, so that once you're in, you're in.
>
> Chris
> Zeke's Gallery
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ross birdwise
> Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2006 6:53 PM
> To: Chris from Zeke's Gallery
> Subject: RE: Videoportraits
>
>
> Hi Chris,
>
> The piece isn't unique so you may see it again.
>
> I'll consider your advice. Some people still got into
> the piece nonetheless (I actually won a couple of
> awards for it, and have seen people staring at it in a
> mesmerized way) but I may be able to make it easier,
> by making it more closed-off and immersive.
>
> I plan on doing newer versions of the piece as well,
> with slightly different set-ups.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Ross
And for the record, I do look forward to seeing it again. Let's just hope that it ain't at the National Gallery! I'd also like to thank him for allowing me to publish our email conversation.
posted by Zeke's, the Montreal Art Gallery on 25.1.06
<< Home