Review: A consideration of
“local”, and the work of Margaret Eriksen
-Misty Morrison
Cat
with Very Little Brain, Ceramic/Acrylic.
Before I painted her, she sat out in the backyard for
some time. When I started on her head I discovered a (discarded) wasps nest in
her 'brain cavity'! Its still there.
I went into
Ohio University Lancaster's Wilkes Gallery with a number of presupposed
expectations about local artists running through my thoughts. It wasn't
until the moment when I glanced around the gallery space, and stood in front of
the first painting that I began to confront these thoughts, and then much more
slowly, as is the way with these things, the acceptance that I was subject to
them. Following which I began to question just what it is about the application
of the word local to the practice of art that is so easily acceptable as
a negative.
An old song says “Kids! Whats the matter with kids
today?!! Why can't they be like WE were (perfect in every way)? -Oh, What's the
matter with kids today?” There are many reasons that children have difficulties
in school. It's not just lack of effort from them and their teachers!
Why can Johnnie (and Sue and Leroy) still not read?
Acrylic on canvas
Answers to
this musing are too numerous to list in the course of a review, and I'd like to
focus instead on why I decided for myself that this attitude in response to
Margaret Eriksen's work would be misguided. We feel like we know where the
local artist is coming from- after all, their inspirations are perhaps places
or things we passsed by on our way to see their work. I've given a great deal
of thought lately to the practice of considering the intended audience of a
work. If the bar I aspire to in my own practice is to raise questions, where
does this work fall into that?
Eriksen's
piece “Why can Johnnie (and Sue and Leroy) still not read?” is a very
straight-forward acrylic painting on canvas, the surface of which is taken up
with stylized portraits, painted words, and color shapes creating a patterned
ground onto which words and portraits are placed. There is a great deal of
ambiguity for me in the juxtaposition of smiling portraits, and the cliché
words attempted to announce exactly why Johnnie, Sue, and other children
might not be performing in school. If I hadn't known from the artist's bio, I
would know now that Eriksen had taught. It is quite within my presuppositions
to expect a retired art educator to address the problems with the education
system in their studio practice. But this work goes a little further than that
for me, in that what it proports to be doing- telling me what is the matter
with kids today- it is in fact, not. Instead, it is raising questions for me.
The information that it does give me, that kids in local school districts face
problems that make learning challenging, does nothing to lessen the question of
why. Because I think it's obvious to anyone reading the painted words
“hedonism”, “television”, and “environmental pollution” that the attribution to
any one thing, most likely as outdated in concept and understanding as
is our education system, just isn't solving any problems. Which raises the
question: what will?
Lunchin' at the
Sistine, Mixed Media
Eriksen
uses “humorous” as a descriptor in her own statement about her work, and there
is a great deal of humor in them, but also something of whimsy. “Lunchin' at
the Sistine” is the most overtly both, delivering no direct social message, but
allowing us to form many of our own assumptions as to potential themes. This
painting, and the body of work as a whole, references traditional tropes of
painting that make them easily accessible (and in some cases easily
disregardable) to insert social commentary that doesn't answer and of the
issues it raises, combined with something wimsical to make it palatable. The
recipe, though no update to any of the means she's employing, I have to say is
compelling none the less. The group of work as a whole begs the questions, what
is sacrificed of expanded perspective in the choice to remain local? Can that
be a choice made to engage a specific audience? What sort of expanded
understanding can be gained without leaving “home”? Misty Morrison
As with many group shows, the quality of the art varied
widely. I find that often juried shows lack cohesion, and I am afraid that You
Call That Art? falls into this category. Although Cultural Arts is a
beautiful and historic space, with tall ceilings and great light, I found that
the layout of the show was jammed. This only added to the hodge podge nature of
the work on display. The space really could have used some floating walls, to
allow the pieces some breathing room. 
