May 18, 2010

RAM treats insects as art

A vignette from Jennifer Angus' exhibit

Three women artists with an affinity for insects have taken over the Racine Art Museum. They have filled two of the museum's big galleries with thousands of moths, bumblebees, beetles and especially cockroaches -- an installation of three related shows designed to humanize these creatures and restore our sense of awe.

There are dollhouses decorated with beeswax and insect parts, fine drawings and visual puns, and five-foot wide photographs of giant cockroaches in unusual poses. Cockroaches in costume; cockroaches being executed; cockroaches taking over our homes.

And yet ... to use a term from Bruce Pepich, museum director, there's no "ick" factor. "The artists have the wonderment of a child. For adults, they reawaken a sense of awe."

Earlier this month we posted, in the Kiosk, a story about these three interlocking exhibitions by Catherine Chalmers (cockroaches), Jennifer Angus (insect patterns) and JoAnna Poehlmann (insectopedia). Tuesday we got a sneak peak, touring the installation with Poehlmann, Pepich and RAM's new curator of exhibitions, Lena Vigna. It was eye-opening, both visually and intellectually.

But first, a disclaimer from Vigna: "No cockroaches were harmed in the making of this exhibition." That made me feel a lot better than a couple of other things she said: "The average candy bar has eight insect legs in it." And, "cockroaches can live a week without their head."

Those two last statements may help explain Pepich's observation about "the discomfort we have of sharing our homes with these insects." But as he passed one of Chalmer's wall-sized photographs he also noted that cockroaches "are much less threatening in pink."

Chalmers' installation is in three parts, featuring video and large photographs of costumed cockroach "imposters," (above), cockroach "executions," (left), and giant-appearing cockroaches inhabiting our homes (actually small dollhouses that Chalmers creates, which makes the cockroaches seem much, much bigger. The story behind Vigna's "none were harmed" disclaimer is that the roaches are chilled, embellished, posed for their closeups, and then thawed out of hibernation. Any adornment then falls off and the cockroaches are, we are assured, none the worse for wear. But whether you want to put one of Chalmers' large photos in your dining room may be another story. (In my case, no need to ask the wife; I already know the answer.)

Poehlmann explained the background of some of her artwork; for example, a miniature book with four beetles created after John Lennon was killed -- hence its title: Homage to the Beatles. She likes "appropriating " other artwork, and adding bugs, visual and verbal puns that play on the original painting. "Taking things out of their original context," is how Pepich described it.

"People give me things," Poehlmann said, pointing to a small sewing box she adorned with insects. "I keep looking for more boxes like that. I just got in the mail a box of 12 bumblebees... I was thrilled."

Lena Vigna in front of a tiny portion of Angus' patterns

Angus' patterns of insect life used the most bugs -- thousands of them mounted artistically on walls around illustrations from a Victorian children's alphabet book, and more in beeswax dioramas staged around dollhouses, like a bug funeral, bugs kissing a cow, scenes from fairy tales. The exhibit took the artist and four workmen almost a week to install. Vigna assured us that Angus "reuses" the insects as many times as she can. And Pepich noted, "A lot of these insects are not Midwestern bugs -- or we'd be doing an installation of mosquitoes, and houseflies."

Here are some quotes from the artists:

Catherine Chalmers: "Insects are a window into the unimaginable... One of the things I discovered when reading up on the American cockroach is that they are no longer found in the wild. They have existed for hundreds of millions of years, have survived several mass extinctions, yet we have succeeded in chaging how they live. Our homes are now their natural habitat. They are, in a sense, our alter-egos, the shadows that clandestinely follow in our wake.... Our hatred of the roach has perhaps grown in proportion to the boundaries we have erected between ourselves and the natural world."

Jennifer Angus: "I never liked insects; after all I grew up in Canada where most things seem to be black or brown and bite or sting. I have a revulsion for earwigs in particular... and I think junebugs are the stupidest insect I have ever seen because of the way they get stuck on their backs and buzz around trying to right themselves."

JoAnna Poehlmann (above): "My reaction to the world of insects is simply awe at the endless variety and limitless subject matter of creation and the desire to reflect what is witnessed."

RAM has scheduled many events around this All The Buzz exhibition, including kids' days, bug days, opportunities to meet with the artists, summer camp and the like. The full list is here.

32 comments:

  1. I am a Muslim and offened by the crosses in this so called art work.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I am a cross and am offended by the muslim not being open to seeing me.

    ReplyDelete
  3. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  4. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  5. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  6. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  7. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  8. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Let each person cherish his--or her--concept of art. The fact remains that dioramas featuring defunct insects are reminiscent of the cleverly-clad stuffed mice and gilded beetles favored by Marie Antoinette and her clique on the eve of the French Revolution. Prior to their fall from power, decadent elites often tout gimmickry as aesthetic excellence. The exhibits at RAM and the capitalist oligarchy's enthusiasm for them tell me that we may be closer to major socio-economic upheaval than we think.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Historically speaking, soon-to-fall ruling classes indulge in outrageous art as a means of fending off boredom. Nic Noblique's dictum that "art is whatever you can get away with" says it all. Were I to address The House of Wax and its lackeys, I'd have to inform them that, for their sensation-seeking class, history's clock soon will strike the final hour.

    ReplyDelete
  11. I read some of the deleted comments before they vanished into oblivion. Please tell me: since when is it a crime to criticize Modern Art or express less-than-obsequious opinions anent RAM? We all know why that institution is here and which wealthy woman employs it as a tax shelter. Silencing those who fail to worship The House of Wax won't alter the facts of existence in Racine.

    ReplyDelete
  12. When we research Marie Antoinette, we learn that she deemed ennui her greatest enemy. Reportedly, the doomed queen said that she could endure anything except tedium. Today, her epigones go ga-ga over dead bugs as a form of aesthetic self-expression. Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose...

    ReplyDelete
  13. Given the warped, gimmick-oriented mentality of our oligarchy and the mercenary mindset of its pet artists, we're lucky that RAM isn't worse than it already is. Nic Noblique's dictum that art is whatever someone can get away with should tell us more than we want to know about the stuff collected by the eliteniks and displayed in their museums.

    ReplyDelete
  14. None of the above message should be deemed an insult to the sincere people employed at RAM. Like most members of the upper-middle class, they view art and anything connected with it as good for the community.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Perhaps if our oligarchs and their lackeys would read Allan G. Johnson's "Privilege, Power and Difference," they'd understand why elitist Modern Art isn't precisely what their victims want. Until we build a cradle-to-grave social safety net for all our citizens, most rank-and-filers won't have much sympathy for solvent aesthetes and their hobbies.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Although I have nothing but respect for the folks at RAM and their genuine belief in their mission, what happens at that establishment is of little interest (and less use) to ordinary citizens. Modern Art has always been--and is likely to remain--a gigantic elitist scam.

    ReplyDelete
  17. To most working class people, dead insects aren't art. If the beautiful dreamers out in Wind Point want to see bugs, the poor of Racine will show them plenty of hovels swarming with roaches for free.

    ReplyDelete
  18. With all due respect to the good and decent people at RAM, our oligarchy's fixation on outre art has rendered Racine the laughingstock of the Badger State.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Amen! Between our atrocious minority infant mortality rate, a certain corporation's notoriously unethical labor practices and our kleptoplutocrats' obsession with bizarre varieties of art, Racine has a raunchy, reptilian reputation of national proportions. I've got friends on the faculty of Princeton, Stanford, Harvard and Yale who can't comprehend my reasons for residing here. (In all honesty, sometimes I have a tough time figuring out why I've remained in The Dumbbell City.) For our own self-respect as a community, we've got to reduce the minority infant mortality rate, rein in the corporate criminals who exploit our most vulnerable toilers and convince our billionaire business bullies that art is no substitute for heart.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Coming soon: an end to the tax-deductible status of donations to art museums.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Ditto the confiscation of privately-held wealth in excess of ten million dollars per person.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Why $10 million? Why not confiscate anyone's wealth over 48 cents, so even YOU don't feel deprived?

    ReplyDelete
  23. Dear Simon, As a Christian, I'll forgive and forget your insult. Sparring aside, ten million seems to be a fair cap for individually-held fortunes. With ten million dollars, a person can live comfortably in a decent home and indulge in hobbies as well as charity work. Once wealth accumulates beyond that level, however, the richie-poos get greedy and gouge the less-fortunate as part of their competitive games with other plutocrats. I saw the pattern all-too-clearly in my Father's family, where a moderately-successful kinsman morphed into a monster who'd exploit illegal aliens and other desperate people for every buck he could grab. Although the wretch couldn't help the Salvation Army or anyother charity, he could come up with greenbacks for every status symbol his warped mind could imagine. Since his evil quirks escalated exponentially once his net worth crossed the ten million dollar barrier, that became the maximum amount I'd advise the government to allow individuals to retain.

    ReplyDelete
  24. The same thing happened on the maternal side of my family. An oilman who struck it rich actually shared some of his good fortune until the value of his assets soared above $10,000,000.00. Once he got his mitts on what he called "serious money," he craved more and more of it to finance a collection of contemporary paintings and two totally-unjustifiable art fairs. Although he splurged on pictures a fourth-grader would have been ashamed to show his parents, my ritzy relative was reluctant to give anything to charity. So a wealth cap set at $10,000,000.00 or less sounds good to me.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Furthermore, inasmuch as art is a non-essential item, contributions to art-related institutions should NOT be deemed deductible expenses on income tax returns. (Don't worry about the arts and their survival. Because they're status symbols in our culture, the oligarchs will continue to support them.)

    ReplyDelete
  26. Sad to say, you're right. If the privileged classes have a choice between giving two hundred dollars to charity or spending ten times the amount on a must-have art object, the latter will win every time. I have relatives who blow several million per annum on Modern Art but can't--or won't--donate a dime to humanitarian causes.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Racine's impoverished people need HEART, not art. When a certain museum ceases to be a big buck babe's tax shelter, we'll rejoice.

    ReplyDelete
  28. After the dollar-sign dame moves to the pen, there'll be celebrations galore. For roughly a century, a certain arty oligarchic clan has ground our paup-ulace into the muck to fund nonsense of every description. Subsequent to the aforementioned predatory pack's exposure to an amoral architectural charlatan, it intensified its urge to splurge on trash while exploiting wage slaves to the max. Needed: an end to the art and architecture cult in Racine. We've had it with an elite whose members lavish loot on objects while ignoring the pain of capitalism's victims.

    ReplyDelete
  29. People are more important than things, including works of art.

    ReplyDelete
  30. I absolutley adore RAM and everything it does for the community. I'm NOT upper-class, and you don't have to be rich to appreciate good art. Without tax deductible donations, people would simply sell their art and it would not be accessible to the community. Great job RAM, and keep up the great work!!!!!!!!!!

    ReplyDelete
  31. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete