Log in

No account? Create an account
13 January 2009 @ 10:35 am
Sharon's Art Show  

Breadcrumbs 2008. Rust, paper, 55.9 cm x 86.4 cm.

B/p/m. Ink, paper, 66cm x 203.2 cm.

ABOUT THE ARTIST: Sharon Arnold http://www.dimensionsvariable.org

Sharon Arnold is a Seattle based artist whose projects manifest through unique and repetitive applications of both traditional and non-traditional materials. After a whirlwind career as a chef in Seattle and New York, Sharon returned to art school at Pratt Institute in Brooklyn NY, completing her last year Magna Cum Laude at Cornish College of the Arts in 2006. Falling in love once again with her childhood town, Sharon opted to remain in Seattle rather than return to New York, and schemes over her obsessive creations from the very Pacific Northwest-y damp of her basement. Her current series revolves around process, repetition, presence, and labour. She likes to think of it as a fictional cartography, combining methods of mapping with the idea of place.


Most of the work embodies a topographical feel either by process or by pattern. While not intentional, it’s not without reason. I have purpose in materials but intuit the process, like formulæ without the math. The element of surprise is critical – the rule is don’t think about the end result, and while paper, steel, ink are the media they are not the point.

In drawings, I traverse distance by threading or tracing across a field of paper. An aesthetic result is almost circumstantial, as each mark records the path behind it. This is a marker of where I am, and of where I’ve been.

In printmaking, I corrode steel plates to destroy the surface and leave an impression on paper -- the corrosion becomes part of the finished work as well as the process. The embossed and rusted surface effectively records a moment of human interference—a stain being an inherently human deposit. This too, records that I was here.

Process, repetition, and labour are the methods by which I reach a conclusion.
Philosophy, obsession, and location are my exploration.

Sharon Arnold (right)

Untitled 2008. Staples, paper, 45.7 cm x 91.4 cm.

B/p/m. Ink, paper, 66cm x 203.2 cm.

Rift 2006. String, paper, 198.1 cm x 304.8 cm.

more photos from the show
sculptruth on January 13th, 2009 07:23 pm (UTC)

Wow, thank you burgunder!
Varnvarn_ix on January 13th, 2009 07:48 pm (UTC)

Some of these fall into my definition of lazy art. If I can repeat it when I've seen it once, it's a bad sign.

Still, I admit it's fetching.
sculptruth on January 13th, 2009 07:58 pm (UTC)
That sounds like an interesting weekend project -- you should do it!

[p.s.] That's the best lolcat, ever!

[p.p.s.] If it works out, you're totally hired. I make a damned good dinner and will supplement with beer!

Edited at 2009-01-13 08:14 pm (UTC)
Kburgunder on January 14th, 2009 12:37 am (UTC)
Lazy implies to me a lack of work, and a lack of vision. Sharon lacks neither. Calling it lazy art is dismissive of her vision and her hard work, and shows a lack of perspective about what it takes to put together an art show like this. It's one Hell of an undertaking!

Still, I admit it's fetching.

Yes, it is. I especially love the textures of the 3D work and the gradients of the rust work.
Varnvarn_ix on January 14th, 2009 11:56 am (UTC)
Oh, my. The reactions!

The comment wasn't meant as dismissive, demeaning or insulting. But perhaps it did come across that way. Mea culpa. Obviously, OCD-liek art requires determination and hard work, not to mention, as you say, organizing the show itself.

Historically, whenever I was drawn into discussions on what is art and what isn't, we generally couldn't agree on anything and the debate ended in crossed arms and divergent gazes.

Then, the term lazy art was coined. Perhaps it is a little trolling, but it merely indicates there doesn't seem to have been a larval period in which the artist would need to develop his or her technique to an extent which would decisively set her apart from mere mortals. In other words, that her works cannot be reproduced unless one spend the time learning how to do it rather than just what. The idea itself may or may not construe art, but the execution should show more than short-term dedication if it is to be called art rather than lazy art.
sculptruth on January 14th, 2009 04:46 pm (UTC)
Hi, I'm the aforementioned artist. And I just want to let you know I'm not offended in the least; In fact I thought your comment was hysterical. After your comment, I chuckled at the realisation I can walk away from any Realist painting and recreate it at home, and the very reason I don't paint realistically or pursue any traditional method of artmaking is precisely because I feel anyone can learn it and for me, there is no art in it.

Art does not, should not, exist on a pedestal. The flaw in your logic is you assume you have a sense of what an artist's larval period entails. The second assumption is that mere mortals don't make art. Both ideas are false. I don't know what another artist goes through to make their work; I've seen the most brilliant art from people who refuse to call themselves artists.

As for reproduction, naturally all art can be recreated. Art history is a progression of ideas built upon ideas built upon copies of ideas. The idea of the original is the self absorbed idea of an egotist. The challenge is to take that idea and make it one's own, knowing the references.

There is no such thing as not art- this is why no one agrees on what is. People shouldn't get upset about it! The hardest idea to grasp is the one which says all things are art.
Varnvarn_ix on January 14th, 2009 09:40 pm (UTC)
Pleased to make your acquaintance. I only slightly suspected your identity.

Your views on this are refreshingly new to me and will obviously have to be meditated upon for some while. In the meantime, thanks. ;)