Post by drevil on Oct 21, 2013 9:29:32 GMT -8
I don’t see a post on Michael DeLucia. He has a new solo at Eleven Rivington right now in NYC. I won’t be able to make it personally, so hoping someone on here might be able to swing by and give some thoughts on it or DeLucia in general.
His current work reminds me a bit of what Guyton did for painting app. 10 years ago, but moving in new directions within the sculptural realm and thus being able to make nods to certain aspects of art history that the current crop of abstract painters can't really make (at least not very well) on a flat surface.
I look at his work as the interaction between two objects (abstract and real) to create a third final object with aspects of both. He starts with an abstract object modeled in a computer that exists as code at its foundation (i.e., an abstract idea) and the real object of the wood. These are then forced to interact with one another via a router to form the final art object which is both abstract (the removed portions) and real (the remaining wood). This is where I really feel a "tension" in his work that is hard to find these days.
Another way to look at it is that the final art form presented is a non-object and the wood is just there to provide the context for the sculpture, which is the empty space that has been carved away, i.e., a non-object. He seems to be asking: “What if a sculpture wasn't an object at all?” This is a really exciting question to be asking right now given the history of sculpture when put in conversation with today’s technology.
Of what is going on right now, he is (IMO) one of the few artists that stand out as doing work that is fundamentally different and interesting. One to watch.
This is one of the better passages I have found about his work and process, for those that are interested:
blog.sculpture.org/2012/08/29/michael-delucia-bushwick-open-studios/
His current work reminds me a bit of what Guyton did for painting app. 10 years ago, but moving in new directions within the sculptural realm and thus being able to make nods to certain aspects of art history that the current crop of abstract painters can't really make (at least not very well) on a flat surface.
I look at his work as the interaction between two objects (abstract and real) to create a third final object with aspects of both. He starts with an abstract object modeled in a computer that exists as code at its foundation (i.e., an abstract idea) and the real object of the wood. These are then forced to interact with one another via a router to form the final art object which is both abstract (the removed portions) and real (the remaining wood). This is where I really feel a "tension" in his work that is hard to find these days.
Another way to look at it is that the final art form presented is a non-object and the wood is just there to provide the context for the sculpture, which is the empty space that has been carved away, i.e., a non-object. He seems to be asking: “What if a sculpture wasn't an object at all?” This is a really exciting question to be asking right now given the history of sculpture when put in conversation with today’s technology.
Of what is going on right now, he is (IMO) one of the few artists that stand out as doing work that is fundamentally different and interesting. One to watch.
This is one of the better passages I have found about his work and process, for those that are interested:
blog.sculpture.org/2012/08/29/michael-delucia-bushwick-open-studios/