Zoo
Zoo openned at the grace-gallery in Vancouver on October 23, 2008.
It was an exhibit of a series of 13 Cintra-mounted digital Lightjet prints.
With tongue in cheek, I present a collection of black and white prints. Created from found photographs of animals, the creatures have been consciously altered, possessing human faces that gaze directly at the viewer.
If Zoo brings to mind the following ideas, then you have been graced (sic) with some knowledge of critical theory, making you part of the dying culture of the intellectual. That said, if nothing that follows these words makes sense to you, just enjoy the funny pictures.
There is some inherent narcissism in creating and exhibiting art. Zoo, in the context of art exhibitions, is both reflective and critical of most exhibitions. Not merely in the literal sense of calling most shows a total joke, but also participating in the post-modern discourse that anyone with a paintbrush can call themselves an artist.
It seems everyone seeks a certain level of fame, consciously or not. Creating “art” seems to be one of the easiest ways to demand it. We are a generation of children, taught to express every feeling and concern, regardless of how minute and privileged they may seem to others. Unlike other self-gratifying endeavours, art does not technically require hard work, an education, training or accountability.
As an exhibit, Zoo could be viewed as a satire on urban folk-art, made without much more direction than that of the aesthetic. Lacking any semblance of subtext, it tenuously clings roots in street art. Though seemingly personal and vacant, it does not fall under the umbrella of Outsider Art, if that term is still valid in current culture.
Though I acknowledge the fetishism of the process, subject and image, I assure you that this is the wrong road to go down when considering the work. Simply, this preciousness in technique is due to an archaic sense of craftsmanship. Not even the choice of source images was well considered. The combination of images has little to do with any personality or character trait, and most have been paired out of convenience.
I hope some will be moved to hold a discussion on the nature of digital reproduction and its most recent effects on Baudrillard’s hyperreality. We could discuss the dichotomy in creating a portrait by vandalising its subjects with childlike malice. One could see the exploitation of animals for the purpose of entertainment and commercial purposes. Perhaps violence and outrage will ensue, and the streets will run red with blood. None of these things will happen. People will just smile and nod.
Nothing has value, apart from that which we choose to place on it. It is up to the viewer to create their meaning, while at the same time creating the possibility or option to destroy the opinions of all others.
I chose to drop some significant words in a statement, not to describe what this exhibit is about, but simply because I rarely have the opportunity to do so. Like most art, exhibits, and statements, this is a joke…
…Zoo is just a little more OMG WTF.
Zoo would not have been possible without the support of grace-gallery Director, Rachel Zottenberg, Zoe Peled (who edited the statement), and Macartney Tonello-Greenfield (who actually got the prints made). Thanks.