PhotoNominal 1994

..

.

,

1

•

·. '

· ...

.' . · nolTlin

.

.- I

.

I·

.'

•

..

...

. f"

,

..

".

- ~ Organized by the FORUiVl Cafle~v al jam eSlOll'11 Community College

january 29 through lTIarch 5,. 1,994 Selected by Charles A

Wright, Jr. I Susan Androff Rhonda ArntSf!?l Les Barta Jean Blackburn Heather Cox Mallory Crf!?nin DebA. Davis

JRF Dia7la Keller Rosemary Morris Tom Nyerges Vivian Selbo

Q.

The FORUM Gallery is extremely pleased to present PholoNominal '94, an exhibition examining a cross-section of approaches to both the content and methods of contemporary photography. Last spring we issued a "Call for Artists" to local, regional, and national artists, galleries, museums, and publications. That call generated 2,300 submissions from approximately 250 artists from across the United States

~

and Canada. As is the gallery's standard policy, submitting anists were not charged

Q)

entry fees and the entry process was open to all anists producing photo足 graphically based pieces (however, we

m

C m"'"

did encourage innovative approaches to 足

both form and content). -:- This years _ submissions were carefully reviewed by Charles A. Wright, Jr., an independent curator formerly associated with Hallwalls in Buffalo, New York, and

ArtiSL~ Space in New York City. Mr.

Wright is currently a graduate student in the Visual and Cultural Studies Program at the University of Rochester. Mr. Wright chose work by twelve artists to be included in this year's show. -:- Each year a different person has been invited to select the works to be included in PboloNominal.

The selection of Mr. Wright as our 1994 juror

.L.I ~

1911i _ W

continues that tradition. Past curators have included Carlos Gutierrez-Solana , director of Artists Space in New York City, Susan Krane, director of Modem and Contemporary Art at the High Museum of Art in Atlanta, Georgia, and Sandy Skoglund, internationally recog足 nized artist. Each curator has selecred an exhibition with a uniquely different character---{)ne that is defined by the range and quality of submissions as well as by the aesthetic predilec足 tions of the person selecting the work. -:- We are grateful to Charles for his curatorial commitment to this project and to the twelve participating artists for the resounding power of their individual artistic statements.

What's in a name' Although her placement within the Modernist literary canon may be highly suggestive, the impetus for such a query is not solel y to invoke Genrude Stein. I ask th e question, however, in order to come to terms with the task-or rather, the challenge-set to me as a juror for this year's Ph%Nomirwi exhibition: to delimit a frame for an address of the conceptual fissures and contradi cti ons that have influenced the selection process. For it is the act of naming prefigured in th e term "nominal" of this annual series' title that (along with its derivations) begs

""hat"s ina narTIe?

the question. Within the past two decades, photography has

held a precariou sly privileged position in dehates regarding the communicative efficacy of art work in generJI: either in alignment with trJditional art forms (painting and sculpture, in particular) and therefore associated with Modernism , or as a fOlm of Postmooernis[ critiqu e which seeks

[0

question ou r inherited Enlightenment assumptions of artistic authenticity and originality

as well as iLS institutiona l placement. This contest of ascription (of naming) in pho[()graphic prdctice not only, I think, pemlea tes much of the work presented here, but also raises significant consequences for various fonns of curdtorial practice of which the juried show is, in my estimation, the most curious genre. Like my predecessors in this endeavor, as juror the objective is not only to nominate artists to he exhihited, but by extension to present a judgment on, to risk naming, contemporJry photogra phy at this historical juncture. Yet, the authoritative discomfort that inheres to this prospect requires a fonn of skept ica l engagement with how art and photography have been historically configured and, in tum, named. Indeed, the breadth of that history was manifest in the diversity of work submined for consideration. During th e review rrocess, it became apparent that hoth I and each artist anemrted to struggle with a sim ilar question: What is entailed in a reconciliation of previous inscriptions of pholOgraphy-as-art, esrecially in light of its theoriza ti on in the last few years?

The Oxford English Dictionary prOVides a numher of definitions of the word nominal. Yet there <Ire two \vhich appear to he panicularly gennane to this discussion. [n the first sense nominal rert<lins to that "ex isting in name only, in distinction to real or actual; merely named, stated and expressed without reference to reality or fact; with limiting words, as mere(ly, only, but) or with imrlication of these denoting an entire contrast to something real or substantial." Second, it "contain[s] explicit mention of a name; consisting of, containing a set of names; giving the names of persons dealt with; [to] assign to a person hy name.'" On the face of it, this laner sense affords a view to the product of my so-ca lled judicial activity in this project, to present a collection of names assigned to art objects presented in the gallery. It might also be said that each of th e 261 hodies of work that were submined for consideration for Ph%Nominal '94 function as crea tive inscriptions in this naming of photography: each embodying a synthesis of critical and aesthetic rositions on rhOlographic practice articulated (named) in their work. It is, however, the fonner sense thal signals a profound torsion within the curatorial authority of the juror and within the medium of photography itselF, both of which initially assume an unproblematic relation to the real-to [act-\'"hich according to ou r first sense, exists in name only. I make this claim, in order to toreground hoth the 3nifice of curatorial practice and the evidential fallacy endemic to photography, for they function as iIIusolY stand-ins for the rea l or factual. On the one hand, as <I kind of naming of common tendencies among a group of artists, the claims to interpretive transparency rrotTereci by any exhibition is necessarily a construct ion, an interpretive fiction . On rhe other hand, as an indexica l image, the photograph presents itself as a telling of a real circ umstance, a Glrturing of ohjects and events that, as names for the conditions depicted, are also imrlicmed as illusory surrogates, meciiated by the photographer'S social, political, and

..

aesthuic interest. This is not a disavowal of my responsibility for the choices made in the selection of works for exhibition. And it is the sustained commitment to and responsihility to these questions that was m:mifest in the artists' work I encountered for selection. It is. however, an attempt to establish a congruence betw<.:en two practices (curatorial and photographic) that have been the objects of and mediums for a sustained historica l and philosophical critique that has sought to distinguish Modernity and Postmodernity.

We should be reminded that th<.: pn:sentation of photography as art is a relatively recent phenomenon anci has only come into preeminence roughly within the last thirty ye'lrs. While, dUling the nineteenth century, photographic t<.:chnology was endorsed by the progress center discourses of the industrial revolution, it was primaril y championed as an apparatus (a tool) for questioning the veil' tenns by which the world could be perceiv<.:d and understood. TIle veil' reprodu ctive nature of photograrhic technology, it was thought, would even alter, if not totally render, the art work and all ib material and icieologiealtrappings superfluous.

In marked contrast , the confluence of photography and an afforded by institutional embrace of the medium in the 1970s instigated stringent clebate among uitical art theorists (among others, Douglas Crimp and Abigail Solomon-Gadeau) regarding the consequences of this maneuver by museums and galleries. Arguahly, it was this reitkation 01' photogI<lphy as a contemplative site for aesthetic reflection that ",vas contested. Having at once atrained the privilege which had pr<.:viously heen ~ssigned to painting and sculpture. photography was absorhed by the ideologicall y weighted discipline of art histolY, with it:; fascination for notions of artistic mastery and authentiCity, and therefore pmmpted an evacuation ofthe medium's crit ica l function that had been ascribed to photography in opposition to the work of art. For these critics, Walter Benjamin's seminal 1934 essay, "The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction," which sought to question all's historica ll y embedded cultie rclation to viewer and audience, fOOlled the COOlerstone of the contemporalY argument. There is an emancipatory tone to Benjamin's work which sees photography, and particularly cinema, in the service of the masses: as a tool through which the proleta rian classes might foreswll the bourgeois pretenses to which works of art had been associated; instead, photography would produce a kind of democratiZing effect hI' dissolving the an work's rarefied placement in tradition. According to Benjamin, rhe advent of photographic technol ogy affecteci a displacement of

charles a. ""right, jr.

what he called the "aura" of the work of an. As defined by Benjamin, the aura as a "unique phenomenon of distance howeve r close it may he iand itJ represents nothing but the fonnation of cult va lue of the work of art in categories of space and time. "l This peculiar feature of the aura allowed that work to Ix: perceived under the shroud of creativc mystification; the work of the anist afforded a veneI<lble condition predicated on uniqueness, mastery, and vision. For Benjamin, photographic technology would supplant this circumstance

thai which lUithers a/(I{/Y in Ihe age ojmechaniwl rejJroduction is the aura o/Ihe work o/arl.

7bis

I~' a

Sl'mptomalic process wiJose signijiwnce points hevond Ihe realm ojart

the technique

a/reproduction detaches Ibe rf'prvduced ohjectIrvln tbe dania in ojtraciition. 8)' rnaking many reproductions. if suhstitlltes a pillrality o/wpiesjcJI- ({ ul1ique e.,perience-' As mcchanica l reproduction, photography would presumahly efFace the ~Urd and its atrcndant t.hemes and institutions. Yet, it was the I-einscription of this condition For photography by museum

and galleries in the 1970s that provoked Douglas Crimp

[0

ask, "How is it that phO[ography has

suddenly haci conferred upon it an aura"" 111is institutjonal inscription of photography for co ntemporary critics at the time seems to constitute nO[ only a relinquishing of the critical potential of the meciium but that elevati on of photography-as-<1n was a regressive adoption of the Modernist tradition: once the museum had named phO[ography as a so-called legitimate object of an historical study, it would serve as an instrument of the same internalized formalist mystifications and dogmas that had become familiar to other an fonns, panicularly painting.

Climp recognized the museumification of photography as an emphatic obfuscation of the critical possihilities presented in photography's inherent ability to question the very structures that burrressed the edifice of the Modernist tradition as suggested hy Benjamin's prognosis for th e auratic an work. The bestowa l of a kind of equal time for photography within the museum produced, for Crimp, an oven

sub/eclijicalion of pholography in whicb tbe wnlloisseurship of /be 'pholographs spark of chance路 is co/1Wrled il110 C/ connoisseurship ofthe pholograph 's slyle. For now, il seems, we WI! deteci Ibe pbolop,rapher's hand after all, except of course thai il is his e)!e, 1J1~路 unique 1'ision.

(Allhough Ibis can also be bis band; one need onl), lislen 10 Ihe pCl11isailS of photograpbic suhjectiuily describe Ibe myslical rilual pelformed by the pbotograpber in bis durkroom j This mystification of photography, its institutional san ctification, relegated the representational critique available to photography mute through its investment of an aura. Staking a close affinity with Benjamin's analysis, however, Crimp and others sought to recuperate the criticalli.mction of photography, suggesting that although it might have been instirutionally appropriated , its representational efficacy might still be employed to prohlem:1tize the very material and ideologica l prejudices th at are a by-product of the 3uraric inSCription of photography. In delineating an epistemological break with that past, however, Crimp proposed an alternative perspective for photographic practice, one [hat could actively and productively reinterpret the stru crural mechanisms which insisted on the presence of th e au ra : ra ther than lament alignment or absorption, a postmodernist photographic practice wou ld assume its critical position through its proximity to the auratic: to expose the rirualistic fallacy in tandem with the institution intent on its mainte1l3nce.

77Je phOlograpbic activil)' of pOSI111 odem ism operales. il1 complicif)! wilh Ihese modes of pbolography-as-arl, bul il does so in order 10 subuert and exceed them. And il does so preclsel), in relalion lo Ibeaura, nOI, bou'ever, 10 recuperale ii, /JUliO dl~plC/ ce ii, losbow Ihat illoo is now only al1 aspeC! oftbecopv, 1101lhe original. addressfil1g/pbolograpby 's claims to origina/i(y, sbowing flbrougb Ihis aclivilJl} images photop,mpby 10 be always {/ representation, always already seen.

Cl re purloinf'd. conjisCClled, appropriated, sio/en Ihe oliginal cannot be located, IS alwa)'s delened; f'l 路'ell Ihe self ll'hicb miJ:;iJl baue gel/erated an O1iRinal is sbowl1 ilselj 10 be (.j COpy 6 Despite the ironical nature of this fOnlllllation, it is a clear response to \"hat Benjamin would have considered the rather 路'reactionary anirude" manifested photography entry. It is a kind of second order displacement of that aura: w hile Benjamin perceived photographic technology il<;elf as the means for the dissolution of the aura , photography-as-an (for contemporary critics) would si111ultaneously expend that disp!acerne lll funher outside a total investment w ith the aura . Indeed, such a maneuver alters th e cond itions of auratic experience, both in tenns of how that photographic art ohject could be presented as well as its relation to the viewer. This resistan ce

.ft'

to auratic inscription, at the time, found its primary exemplars in the work of an emerging group of anists (most notably Cindy Shemlan, Richard Prince, Sherrie Levine and Martha Rosier, among others) whose address on photography's representational potential as critique produced a conceptual suppression of the aura, to redress quest ions of artistic authenticity and originality.

In the ahermath of these developments, how is photography to he named? Is it possihle to question photography within the institutional frame proposed by this ex.hihition? Cenainly, the challenge met hy many of the anists included in this year's exhibition have been influenced in some way by this critical legacy. Yet, today, how can anists and curators negotiate their relationship to this most recent renaming of photographic practice? Now that the linkage between photography and art has been institutionally established, what modes of address allow for the maintenance of photography's criticality) While one might recognize the value of the successive displacements of the aura, it remains nonetheless present. To look to Benjamin's and Crimp's essays once more, one nOles that with the appearance of photography the aura is not necessarily eliminated, but recedes or is displaced. The realization of these cha nges, I think, is evident in the concenedly self-conscious practice of photography among th e artists selected for this year's

PhotoNominal or by myself as a juror. Indeed, are nOl the very circumstances of jurying this exhibition a reinscription of an aurdtic experience, one which assumes that through my selection of artists some rela tion to the aura must necessarily be maintained? Despite my olYn desire to effect a displacement of the 3uratic double-bind, I might question the historical and philosophical implications of the actiVity: at once attempting to remain critical of and within the traditions that circumscribe photographic and curatorial practice, To even venture to ask, who am I to judge, to name) 1 do not believe that to broach such a question is antithetical to the types of issues and concerns engaged by the anists presented in this exhibition. The strength of the work I have selected for this show is in its unWillingness to take photography for granted,

Charles A. Wright, Jr is an independent curator jomler/y associated with Hal/walls in BulJalo, Nell' York, and Artists Space in New York CiIY. He is W1TI?17llya graduate siudent in the Visual and Cultural Studies Program atlhe University oj Rochester.

NOTES J. The Compact Ed/tio" oftbe Ol.ford E"gIisb Diet/OlUlr)" VoL 1. (()xford: Oxford University Press, 1971), p. 1936.

2. Walter Benjamtn, "lbe Work of Art in tbe Age of Mechanica/lleprodIiCliOIl, " in 111u",i"aliotls .

NalllUlh Arendt. ed., Harry 7.0/'", tralt<. (New Yarn: Scho(;ken Books, 1%9), p . 243.

3 Ibid., p. 221.

4. DoUR/as Crimp. "'{be Photographic Acliulty of Post Modernism, " 111 On tbe Muse"".'s R"i"s.

(CCl/rlbridge: lbeMITPress, 1993),p 115.

5. Ibid., Pl'. 1/5-117.

6. Ibid., PI'. 117-188.

I -

susan

androff

Des Plain es, Illin ois

Selected Exbibitiolls:

l-Iu,l!,h N. Ronuld Menwriu/ Cu ll€!I) !

PUrlltilld, IN, 1994.

My ideas are an exploration of the

Habitat: Then and Now ,

language of architeClu re. I use archi­

;1rllillk" , Inc', hm Waylle. IN, 1994.

tectu ra l spaces and manipulate the doors, windo\vs, furniture, and the noors of rooms. I am interested in the structure and space, the hala nce and order, and the sense of motion or journey through these spaces. ~ The concepts that I employ are psycho­ logica l in nature and interpreted Ed u cat i 0 II:

M.F.A., Mills O)II""e.

through domestic SlruC!ures. I \'\'ork with the duality of inside/ oLIIside,

Reelmt Wo,'k . COlllempora l)'

;111 Celller of ;1r/ill~/UII, IIIC .,

;1dll/~/OII Jlei~IJls.

n, 1994.

Recelll Work . I'nline SlarC'

Co[/er~e

Phulu GalielY.

Chicago Hei~bls. IL. 1994.

interior/cxterior, and intimacy/vast­

Oaklana, CA, 19119.

ness. I want to create a mixture of

Tull/hody Fine Arts Gal/ery .

MOII/~fJlIlel)',

Ij FA. UI/I,'Crslly of Illinol~'.

tension and stability in these places, to show a dizziness contrasted by a

ClJCllllpUl~II,

II. ] 986.

penllanence.

~

The collage process

M, 1993.

Pbotog,'apby: From Ou/side 111 .

is celllrallO the fOnll<ltion of my ideas because it allows me to blend, 10 Exbibition Cbeckllst:

juxtapose, and to create a sculpturdl

11 udilul1'Um Cullet)'.

Masull CilY. 1;1, ]991.

or three-dimensional looking space made entirely from two-dimens ional

Revi e w s, Public(4tio1ls

U"UUed . 1993. C-prilll.

materials. Each of these spaces is full

Catalogs:

]3 .\'

of incongru ities and contrad ictions.

16 illches

With the use of this process, I have adopted a surrealist method of work­ ing. By placing unrelat ed images 10­ UI/tltled . ] 992. C-plilll. ]8 x 20 il/ches.

gether I am creating a different rea l­ ity, one potentially true to the emo­ tiona l sense.

~

Technica ll y, these

colla ges are composed of found printed images. My source material is Ulltilled . 1992. C-p"'".

17 112.\' 2 I illches

largely magazine pictures that I col­ lect. dissect, and paste together. The collage is then re- photog raphed us­ ing a large fonnat camera. For the final image I choose to exhibit the

Untilled . 1992. C-p nlll.

II! 114 x 14 112 illcbe.'.

photograph, not the collage, because the photograph presents a seamless, more believahle doc um ent of a space.

U,lIl11ed . 1990. C-plll1l

21 :r 20 incbes.

Opposite page SIIStill ;1 l1amJI Ulllit/ed . 1992. C-jmlll.

IS.\' 20 illcbe.. :.

Still Alive: Co,lIemp01'a,J' StiU Life.

R(lck/o ,d College. Rock/ord, IL.

rhonda

arntsen

Chicago, Illinois

Sele c ted Exblbitiotls: 20tb A,lI/ivcrsalJ' Exbibilioll .

11 rlel1l1:<\i(./ (Julie,)!, ChictlMO, II.. 199j

DaVCl/port Museum of Art Showcase: Bi Slate .

f)tIll(,II/>o rt

J){m!lI/Jo rf. j().

Musellm O./Alt,

IY93 .

tvly work acJcJresses iss ues of icJentity through the question­

Altered Images. ().m tempOW1)' /l rl Ccllter oIA rlill~ lulI. Arlill~ lolI.

II.. 1991.

ing, defining, and redefining all that has constructecJ my own sense of self. With photo­ graphic se lf-portraits and ob­ jects constructecJ of mateliais such as my own bocJy hair, Educaliotl:

Naiio/Ull Exposu"e II. Aile GulielY. CiJicu.W.J.

n, 1993.

thefaCI ofb<>/"g the same p ersoll or Ibi"g as claimed . Gallery 4()().

O JiCURO. II..

1993.

wax, breacJ ancJ the remnants

ScboolwoI·k . New Works (,'(d/l'0'.

of my cJaily hOLlseholcJ respon-

CiJ iCURV. fL,

1993

M.F.A., /Jllil'CrsIlY

oI !IIil/uis.

sibilities, I am exploring issues of suppressed memories of

IL.

childhood , socia lly prescribed constructions of femininity

1993

and womanhoocJ, the cycles of domesticity that exist

Re

within my family history and the struggle that exists

PublicaliOlls

beriveen my desire to be a strong and independent

Catalogs:

Cbiw~U.

B.F.A, N()rtbern MicblR(1!1

Ii

ie

WS ,

University,

woman and the pu sh to accept an inherited position or

.I1arqllNIe..HI.

role, a role of domesticity and si lence that J do not desire.

1989

'nlrough this process of questioning and redefi ning I am

U IIIJ.{ /Jo rn(!, PA.

discovering my place within my family hi Story. By cJetin-

SlI mlller 1993.

ing my role in an inhelited Exhibit/Oil Checklisl:

domestic position I am taking responsibility for the continu­

blg.-ou'1l. 1993. silw r !!('/alill prilll, iIlWOII'1I bail'. follide, "'w d.

7x

7 x 3/4

illcbes.

jOIl/7/aI . 1993. w/or XelVx VII home made wbite h,wlt/' ,/ x 7) x () inches.

ation or temlinat ion of that position, therefore cJiscover­ ing my own voice, Ieaming to speak out loudl y ratiler than to whisper

VIII/lied (Nestillg) . 1993. lOlled silflC' r J.!,etalill/Nl l1l. IX'I bail'.

J700r SlI '(,(Jpillg.'i, /ll/II({ Ncl, 7 112 x 4 x 5 illcbe.'.

Opposite page Rhouda Arnls('lI, l"growlI . JCJ9.l sllv('r.~(!lall1llmll l. ;ll.~nm'll btlir. f,IIi( /e, h/oot/. 7 x 7 x 314 incb(1).

The Pbo/oRevlew,

I e

s

Incline

barta

Village,

Nevada

Selected £xbibitiolls: Pb%g,.apbic COIIsln.c/loIIs , Neu) Media

(;(1/1('1.1'.

\'('I/Iuru (,'ollej.!,(',

VeJlflira,C!1 , 19CJJ

Exhibilioll Checklist: Nul Fo,.est , I 99J, Iris /willi. cumputer ph(JIr)COllSll7rcti()1/,

76 x 20 /Ilches .

Nul

n-ee, 7993.

C-pn'llI,

j)/.JO!Oc..:UIlSI rU GI ion,

to x

2() illches

G'raillelJ'. 1992, C-priJll, pIUI/()OJIISlrtf Cl io}l.

16 x 20 inches Novato Flower , 1992.

C-/llilll, jJ/U)/()C()IISlnfClioJI ,

16.\" 20 illcbes.

Man), yea r.; ago a vision which I had heen trying to put together for a long time hegan to crysta lli ze. It had to do with a way of rearranging visual language to produce significant power. In the ,'ourse of determining the best means of expressing th is vision this restructuring of visua l language I settled upon photo­ graph ic constructions mack from the colbged elements of a selling. Ev<.:n­ ruaily I discovered that computers would provide an eve n more effec­ tive means. Accordingly, m)' work is very sim ple, It is nothing more and

Fractured 111lages . 'lZw Casements Clllilira/ Cell fer. ()rnlPud Beacb. /-1.. 1c)<)3.

The Altered Image , /jrollwd O"'e~(', /-i LUllChnlull', N" 199.j PbOloconstnlclio1ts. P(((Shlll;!.!."

h"immakers. 1);'f,\/)lll'J.!./J P;-l , IY92

Photoconst,·ucliolls , Nell I /:'Ilf.!,h{nd SCbori/ (if PIU)((),f.!,r(,lph,}J. nos/oll , /HA. 19<)2.

PbOlocollage, l'erm{/ Il/'l (;/lild It>()ric/, IL, 1.'),)/

nothing less than an al1istic vision ex pressed by the most effeCliv(: means, It is the vision not th(: means which provides th e [lower in al1, -:- I'ersona l empowerment is the most impol1ant thing that can be achieved by an, through it., transformative power. I\ea lity it~elf is a mea ns to this end: we can change our way of being by changing our way of seei ng. This is what my al1work seeks to do by reconstructing reality. It involves undemlining the fixed me;ming of "things" and replacing it with a different order. In the process, it hecomes apparent that the "fixed meaning of things" is arhit rary that "thing"" through the structure of th(:ir expression , are c~rriers of a more fundamenralmessage. Or. to put it another way, all things are metaphors for the

Reviews , Publica/ioTls

Catalogs:

"Central AI1/~ybihi's Alter I ma,l.!,('s. " OlJse1·v£'~·, N. Laliderd"le, n, ./(11111(11), 2(), J 99'-;. "l1lll'n,d 1II1(1/'W' (l113.CC,

,Jli(lmi Sun Se"Unei . /vlitlmi. F/"

,1U1I/"")' 20, J993 "\f/slI(/II<('(IIiI,l', " 8ay A,-IS & En.lertai1l1nent , PUIWnltI Cify, FJ.. Vulume 6. IIl1mher 3, NOl I/neG" 1992.

"I'b()"~~ ,'{.//)b,l'

""/)Ib/I, ..

Arls QUillCY, QII /IIC)', II"./U'" I<II), 1992.

expression of ahstract intent. -:­ The world expresses it.,elf met;/­ phorically. We see, we interpret, we under.,tand through mc:ta­ ph or, It is in metaphor that we have a common language w ith with abstract intent. the world Metaphor is our access to the universal. -:- My work is an alge­ bra of these metaphors. It is through their synth(:sis that I dis­ till power: not with symholislll , hut in th(: raw l;mguage of an y vielY, decipherable by ;lIl}'onC'

(,/\/ \ ,\'('1/ 'S, College A,.I

Associatioll Newsletter , ,veU' } (Hi.!.

NL Volum(' 16.

Jlllm/)('J"

1.

./IIII'I'AII~ 1l)')1.

".Husic ,\rIS

I)('ulia Art Cllild ..

Peodajou,.IIal Slm'.

I'ear/u. II. , 1,(,h1'(l"'Y III, 199 1

Opposite page Ie...· Uor!({. Nut. Forest.

/0!JJ Iris In-iJit . (fJHlI)f(/er

phU(()COlh('-flUiu}l. I() x

2{) filches.

ern,.

jean

blackburn

Brooklyn, New York

Exhibition Checklist:

5 Serrses, 7991, mirror, pbolOgrapbs, Sleel. 77 x 16 x 16 incbe.l.

Selected Exhibitions:

Much of my work has transparem

U,IlUled, 1991, mi1TUl', fi'm,

photographs of water or landscape

aluminum, 41 x 12x 12il/ches.

incorporated imo glass cubes. The medium has allowed me to work Illore conceptually with less evi­

Boundaries, Llgh4 Pal,1l and Constructions ,

748 Gallery, New York, NY, 7993

dence of the hand. With the trans­ parent film, the photographed im­ age becomes dematerialized, em­

The Gift , Dooley Le Cappellaine Callery, New I'ork, NY, 7992,

&tween Above and &ww , 1989, ~ /a"" film, aluminum, 76 x 16 x 16 inc"es.

phasizing symbol or metaphor rather than physicality. In rum, the cube,

Body and Soul, Wam?1l SIIt'<:1 Callery, Hudson, Nl~ 7992.

Night DrIve , 1990, 51 x 17 x /7 inches.

which occupies three-Dimensional

Room of &liefs , 1989, !:Ia.~<, film, pailll, aluminum , 78 x 78 x I ii iltches.

space, Illay be seen as a reference to Against the Tide, Pelbam Art CL~lIL"', Pelham, NY, 1992.

Cartesian logic or how Western cul­ lure has traditionally organized irs

Photo Projects , While Colum ns, New York, NY, 1991 .

Cross CurrenJs, glass, film, lead, 65 x 73 x 73 in.cbes.

understanding of the physical world.

-=- The box in my sculpture is a metaphor for head/mind as Manipulation and Photograpby , 1be Callery,

New York, NY, 7990.

container. It represents how the mind in dialogue with the senses gives rise to our knowledge of our surroundings. The

photographic inlages of water or landscape are from the outside

natural world. When we look at them, we stand outside of the

box looking in. Our normal viewpoint looking out at nature is

reversed. Nature is bounded and lim-

Reviews, PublicatioPls, Catalogs:

ited. Our view of nature is defined by

our own mental constructs. Ironically

we are part of it and we also define it.

"Arti,/ic Visions Make a Case for a Troubled J.~:IlVironmen l, "

by Vivian

My art expresses this tensi on.

Rayn01~ New YOI'k Times .

New York, NY, Sill/day, Ju ne 19, 1992.

"New York Di.scolJered, ,.

b,v Susan

Fellenu.m and

Peler ChamelZlt)', Zyma·Art Today . SII"'~al1, Germany. Nov/Dec 1991 .

Education: M.F.I1 " Vale Schoul oj 1111, Nel(' Naten, cr 1982.

HY.A. , Rhode Island School "f Des,!!n.

Pmvidence. III, 1979.

Opposite page Jean IJIacldJllm . U"tilled, 1991. mirror. film , aiumillllm, ,1 1 x 12 x 12 il1cbes .

EN.

heather

Reviews

Portland , Oregon

COX

Publications , Catalogs:

Photo Metro, San Fral/eisco, CA, May

1992

San Fra,lCisco Ba)' Gua,"dian I !:>tltl Fmncl~<co.

CA . November 1991.

This series of small boxes is designed to challenge preconception while encour­ aging the essential processes of interac­ tion, play and discovery. The pieces vary

Selected Exhil};l/ons:

in size, shape and weight. Each box is meant to be opened

Natkmal Invitational

and explofed. Kines­

Conlemporary Photography

thetic as well as visual

Exhibit. Samh Spurgeun An Callery. Ellensburg, WA , 1994.

participation is of pri­

Exhibition Cbeckllst :

5 Brusbes , 7993, siker Iwlalin paper. "",IIJeIl)' paper, bail; 2 x 3 x 1/4 II/cbes.

mafY importance in this Group exbibiUo,,) Commencement Art GalkN)'.

Tacoma, WA, ]991 ,

work. All of the pieces have been constructed using photographic

4 Instrument Boxes. 1992, color cUI/pier pbolUgmphie paper, mullx!I7Y paper, bail', 1 x 7 x 1 II1cb eaeb.

paper, glue, and Japa­ Tlppt"g the Scal£ , He1nll Museum. TU'in FaIL~ ,

nese papef, and filled

m,1992.

with various organic substances such as beans, salt, rice, focks, bone, and hair.

G,-;mace Box , 1992, silver Meialin phI/IS. mulbeny paper. bea ns, 2 1/2 x 5 x 2 inches.

In"er Ear Bo.~. 1992. color coupler pboloMrapb.<. mulbony paP"'; IJeans.

7 7/2 x I 1/2 x ] ]/2 inches

Box of Boxes , 7991, color coupler photographs, mu/lxmy paper. museum IJuard. 4 3/4 x Educat

9 1/2 x 7 ]/ 2 illches.

on:

BA , Mills College. Oak/ami. CA , ]988.

Eye Box. 1991. color coupler pholOWapbs, mlilberry paper. nce, 2 1/2 x 2 1/2 x 2 il/cbes.

Opposite page Heatber Cox. Eye Box , 1991. color coupler pholoRmph.<. mlllben), paper. nce, 2 1/2 x 2 1/2 x 2 il/ches.

mallory

cremin

LosAngel es, California

Selected Exhibitions: Food IJescendi"g the Staircase ,

Scullsdale Center fur Ihe I1rls, Scottsdale. 117, 1993.

Chandler IrlUitational,

Chandler Center for Ibe AI1S,

In this country we call our home, one

Chandl!!r, 112, 1992.

of the most advanced in the industrial­

ized world, most of the residents can­ Por1raits, NC{W/LA Women 's Celll'~', I.os Angel. ·" C4, 1992.

not afford the standard of living. Many don't even have adequate shelter. The

Ea11bbou"d, Arizona Wome-n's attraction for new versus old has over­

Caucus for Arl. P/)uenix, AZ, 1992.

built our countryside, and raised hou s­ ing costs out of reach. No one's home Educat/o,,:

kfFA ,

Fon" arId Object ,

is absolutely secu re. We are all on the

Universify of Wyomin,r: Ali Museum,

verge of being turned out if a bad tllrn

Laramie, IVY, ]992

of events occurs. Crossing boundaries Photo National I,

Arizoll<l Siale Ulliuersil)',

l)e[ween all and craft, interior treat­ ments and exterior views, is pall of

I

Mlc/)If!,an Fricnds oj Pbolot!,rupby, Adrian, .I'll, 1992.

recognizing that what's out there is Tempe,

connected to what's inside. We are not insulated from the

AZ, 7993

socia l and ecological web of our world. -:- Cloth ing is our primaly insulator against the environment. I use fabric as a

B..4 ,

suppon for my images for the tactile qualities and the added dimension relating to the way we live. Rauschenberg said

Kenyon College,

it better, that all relates more to life when it's raken from life.

Cambier,

The attraction to repairing what we do have is echoed in

01-1, 7984.

the use of patchwork qUilting techniques, and frequently,

the recycling of materials, An all fonn

Exhibit

0"

Checklist:

we can live with, lean on, cover

Tbe Last Resort,

(hese are impollant supportS for the

ourselves with , reuse, store easily; all

subject of the work.

7993, Vall Dyke Brown pbOlograpb

on uarirms fabriCS. qllilled, 30 x 124 incbes.

Opposite page

,Hol/ory ('I1!l11ill , The Last Reso,1 !detai/), 1993, \'01/ Dvke Brown fJl)()f{J~rapb VII l'allon.' fabrics, quitted, 30,\' 124 incbes.

deb

a.

d

a

vis

Pensacola,

Florida

Exhibition Checklist: Embodiments #/ 1993, pbotocoll£lge, C-print, wax, resin, milk, 5 x 7 illches.

Embodiments 112, 1993, photocollage, C-pn'nt, u'ax, resin, milk, 5 x 7 incbes

Even as my photographic works are multi-layered, so are the components Embodiments ;113, 1993, which define them, They are a mix of pbotoeal/age, ('pril1l, wax, resin, milk, 5 x 7 incbes. contrasts and comparisons. TIley are Embodiments 114, 1993, linked to memory and impression. TIley pbotocollage, C-prilll, [['ax, resin, milk, .5 x 7 inches. speak of the traditional and the contem­ porary, and of acceptance and rejec­ tion. They are at once fragmented and unified. Yet, they are not grounded in their polarity; their dichotomies fluctuate and shift in layers of interpretation. -:- Embedded in these Educalio,,: collages are visual icons and metaphors referencing my life experience and choices, Simultaneously seductive and MFA., repulsive, these collages draw the viewer closer, for further Ullil',,"ity oj Colorado, examination. In the act of looking, the viewer finds herself BOlllder, CO, 1991 or himself in a close, yet not closed, space, Once in the MS.l:d., NOr/henz '"inois University,

DeK"I", lL, 7984.

BA,

/v'or/hern Illinois UnilJ(!YSiry,

DeKol", IL, 1976.

space they may realize the dis­ comfort and pleasure of the scene; an impression or memory, -:- TIlese are intimate journeys and self-examinations, As each of us travel through our personal space, we are time and time again confronted with our relationships to others, the course in life we choose and the consequences of our actions, This work exhihits an interpre­ tation of my life and character, revealing contradictions, I hold a mirror to my face and those who look may recognize them­ selves at a distance.

Selected Exhibilio"s: Crossing the WiJile L;,w, Trammell Croll' Pavillioll, Dallas, TX, 1993 furled Photograpby Exbibitio", Arts CO/mection, Atlanta, CA, 7993.

Revlsirlg Bou"da,ies: SOlltbern Womer, Artists, Wasbinglo}/ Slate COl/vqa/on,

Seallle, IfIA , 7993.

Pro-Cboice Art Exvibiliorl, Sil>ell- Wolle Hall Cente,.,

B()u lder, CO, 7992.

So/J:)j01ll71eyS, BOlilder Art Cellter, BOlilder, CO, 1991.

The Seif-Po,1rail Sbow, COlltext Callel)" Oem'cr, CO, 1990.

PlJotog.-apby Sbow, 2C CalielY, Ow vcr, co. 7990.

Electro llic Callery, Naliunal Art I~JlI(ariuH As..". ocialiul1, Wus/Jing/on, DC, 19&9

Opposite page Deh II. Da vis, E",bodi",erlts Ifl 199 1. pb% co//{/j.!,(', C-/)Jll1l. Inn, re:::.in, milk. 5 x 7 HlchL's

'{lR!­

.J

R

S a van n a h

F

Ex bib

on

Georgia

Cbecklist:

Blue Square , 1992-93, /Oned silver gelalin prinL" tape, push pins, 80 x 80 x 1 inches,

Copper arid OHve DiPI)'cb, 1992-93, loned silver gelalin pn'l1Is, pllsh pins,

20x 32 x 3 inches,

Ephemeral and veracious, the externalized residue Cunc足

tions to proclaim and confirm the presence of the self in

time and space. It navigates a solitary course throughout

the psychological isolation symptomatic of an existential

position. It embraces mortality; it is the tangible evidence

that provides tactile substance in ex.istence.

S e lee ted

Ex bib it ion s:

JRE: Silver Conslruc/imlS, an inslallalion o/lIon足

"presentalional pholographs, Bel)len Hall

Maj" Gallery, Savannah College

o/,1rl and f)cs ign, Sa vl/nnah, Gil, 1993,

JRE: Silver Cons/mc/ions, an insllIlialiun 0/ non足 representalicJ110i pb%p,raphs, Sliver I louse Co-Opera/lUe Callery,

S{n'annah, Gil, 1993.

..

~

'" -'"

2

~

]

-2

'"

-

'"

~

~

tC "­ ~

"...

:2,z

'­ "~:::'"

~

""

:£ ~

,";::

2

''""

~

-.:::

~

.2:4

",.....

'6 "­

.~

~

S!

".2

~'

'" '"

~

'" .:::'"

"i?

-'" .2

.~

~

,;::

':0,

:2

c,

g

::

?'"

'/,

'"'

~

.~

-s'"

;2

"'­

20

-'"

cov

'"

"i?

~

'::;

:::;:

S ;::

~

'r;

,~

d

ian a

keller

Coo s Ba y,

Or eg on

Selected Exbibi t iOlls:

New Directions '93, Barrell !1ouse Cal/en'"-',

PO/'1~hkeepsie,

NY, 1993.

Solo exhihitim. , Gal/eM. Un iversifyof

Califomia at Berkeley,

My pho togra phs are inter­ Sail Francisco, CA , 1992.

n al ex pl ora tions -

silen t

dram as in w hich J discover hew" I commu nicate wi thout w ords. I n front of the

NatiOfUlI Art Review , SC/whil/ CC/I/ery, James kfadL<.:on University, 1-I"'TI~'o n hurg

VA, 1992.

camera [ create a theatre of

Educat i o n:

the se lf w hich unfo lds new

Solo exhibition , Ex"if Gal/ery,

UniversityafNevada. Reno, NY, 1991.

r ersonas, a m irro r of mul­ UniversiJy oj Mimleso/a.

Mill neapolis. MN.

1985- 1988

tiple minds. With Unspo­

ken Terms I am concerned

McKnight Fe/Jows '91, Pilm in the

with w hat is ex rressed and

Cities Callery, St. PC/ ul. MN, ]991.

w hat goes unex p ressed .

T he self-po nraits transmit

Solo exblbltion , Ilaw Scores & Broken VOices. W()rkspace. Unilx,,",ityoJ

n o n voca l ros tures and lfnil'ersily vj Cal!/()rl1itl,

In ,in". CfI. 1981.

Colorado. Boulder, CO. /990.

emotional de lays. At times the unexpressed is put on hold. Th e ca rdhoa rd, stri ng and w ire structures wo rk as te mpo rary ch am bers for

Orall!!,C! Coast C(}lIepJ!.

O)sta Mesa. CfI. 1980.

prevoca lizations. They house th e emo­ tional charge and the interlocki ng o f syllables w hich are pa rt of the o ngoing struggle.

8 .A ..

Co/i/o mfa 5/a/<, Ullill(!"si~) ' .

Revi e ws

1

Publica/lOll S

Catalogs: I.un.~

Beach. CA, 19 72. ·SIII7 /)ratl'irlJ.!,s arid Fclhricaled {}FO~'i.

hJ' Ditllw Kel/N. PI"bo le jollnwl , A"!!"st 1988.

ExblbiLi o tl C becklist : Ullspoken Tern,s. s ;/ucr,~e/(/!in prill !s.

-10 x 88 i ncbus (ouera ll)

Opposite pag e l)folla Keller.

U" spokel/ Tenl/s #15 Ide/ail O!illswlla/iol1l.

1491.siluNgelalill prill/s, 51/ 2 x 6 314 incbes.

roselTlary lTIorris

Los A ngeles, California

Selected Exhibltlo"s:

AIJegi<mces, RUllI/lila Arl G"IIel)" Glendale Community Co/lep,c', Glendale, CA 1993.

E I lip s e s N o. 1

3 1

A series of ink drawings on rhe 0., Sile at the Gate '93 , 'Ibe Gale Gallery,

Angels Cate Cultural Center, Scm Pedro, 01, 1993.

front pages of a pu hi ished news­ paper. The numbered

foll ows rhe front pages of each day for a peri od of one month.-:­ The

MenlO'}, InSe11S, FAR Bazaar,

~equence

aCI

of drdwing became part

of my reading of the newspaper each clay.-:- The process was very

Old Federal ReseIVe Bank BUilding.

simple. 1 scribbled . crossed our Ins AIIgeies, C4. 1992

Relliews, Publlcallolls , Catalogs:

"Alice's

ROQ"~ •

/;)' Rosema ry Moms,

Oversight ,

and circled -:- The placement of these marks borh locates and dislocates the existing ground of

Los Angeles, 0 1, Full 1993

Exhibition Checklist :

picrure andrext.

Ellipses No. 1-31, 1992.

ink,

1U!/IIspafX'1~

130 x 102 incbes (olJf:rclII;'

Education:

IJ. Anh., Scbool

nJC'

Cooper Unio ll, In'''" S. Chall ill

()J Arcbitf.'cwre, Neu' Vork. tY r.

JW5f.J

R.....·l., Queen:~ UniVC!r~ j ty, Killl!,S /OIl . Ollimio, Ctmw./o, ) 982.

Oppo s ite pag e /{memw)' Mlmis, Ellipses No. 4 , 1992. IIIk. nC'U '.'/XljJer, 23 x ill(bes. Phuto c()Url(!~T (?(I(JIl(, V

'1.vA

J-i

t

0

IT1

nyerges

Silver Spring, Maryland

Selected Exbibitio"s: Third A"",,,d Pbotograpby Exblblt, Mmylmul hldemliol1 of A 1'1, AllllapoIL" MD, 7993.

Growing up in the \'(lest, I was always cUlious ahout what kinds of imagery signify "art" in

17th A"nual Morllgomery Courtly furled Art Exblblt, ,I)ralnIOre /-Iall, Iluckville, MD, 7993

America. I am familiar with an from other countries and cul­ tures: African, Latin American,

Summer

Invitaliorla~

Pm), HOllse

Calle"es, Old TOUln Alexandria, VA, 1993.

Asian, and Native American. The questions that piqued my curios­ ity were: What is an "American" anist' What are the visual ele­ ments of an anist from the United Exbibition Cbeckllst:

States' Are there particular char­

Pbotograpby and New Ge"res, Arlington Arts Cr:nter, ArlingtoH, VA, 1993 .

POl1rails 011 tbe Street, J'vlonlgOnlelY

«)lIege, Takoma Park,

MD. 7991.

acteristics that are ident.ifiahle' Camouflage E,welope, 7992, Ihrl!('-dimensio na l pbotop, rapb.

9x

n illcbes.

These are questions that I con­ tinue to confront, intemalize, and

Portraits 0" tbe Street, Asman Ga llery, W,.,hi,,[:/oll , DC, /990.

anemrt to answer with my own Camouflage E'lVelope, 1992, IblH!-clim ellsioua l photograph, lOx 14 illcbes.

Camouflage E'lVelope, 1992,

an and rhotograrhy, I want my an to reflect my environment and my rersonalit)" -:- I am drawn

Educatio,,:

towards rorular images and Pop anists' sense of

thn:e-dimellsiuna l pbutug rapb,

enjoyment of their an work, 'nleir ideas and

4 7/2 x 6 7/ 2 illches.

concer!.s of tuming everyday objects into an

Camouflage E'lVelope , 1992, Ibrr:'e-dimensional photograph, 4 //2 x 9 1/2 II1cbes.

always keer me searching for new ways of presenting my rhotographs, -:- I see similarities

Smilbsonian Institlllion, Wash ill.~/ull, DC,

199U.

Co rcora n School afAn, Wasb in~ lo lI , DC, 1')88

bet,veen the envelope and the photograph, The

Camouflage Envelope, 7992,

lens of the camera is used to look through to see

AI1 Cel1ter Scbool o/ f)esl[!,lI.

//Jl'ee-dimellsiollal ph% )! rapb , 4 //2 x 6 1/2 ill ebes .

and comrose a picture. An envelore is orened

Pasadena, CA, 1980.

Camouflage E'lVelope , 1992,

from sollleone we love, or a hill frolll Visa. In

up and one looks into it for infonnation: a letter three-dimensional pbotog raph ,

4 7/2 x 9 //2 illebes.

both cases one is using one's eyes to perceive infomlation, The Camouj)age Envelopes are

Camouflage E'lVelope, 1992, tbree-d imensional pb% g rapb, 4 112 x 6 1/2 illcbes.

Camouflage E'lVelope, 1992.

Ibref.!-dimellSi()lIU/ p holup.rapb.

4 112 x 9 1/ 2 illcbes.

Camouflage E'lVe/ope, 1')92,

mea nt to he fun and serious at the sa llle time, One e nvelope might be decertive or subtle; another simple and direct. -:- \'(Ihat are the results when you sever a rhotograrh into sera rate pieces and then realTange it' The Camouflage

fl1uelupe is one sample of what can happen,

Ibrce-dimeJlsiolt-af pboJop, rapb, 4 112 x 9 112 illcbes .

Camouflage E'lVelope , 1992, Ibree-d iml:'Ilsional p /Ju/of.!, rapb.

1 1/ 2 x 9 7/2 illcbes .

Opposite page Tom I\:re l].!,('s, Camouflage Envelope, ] 992,

tb ret'-</imellslo }wl pbo/og mph,

4 1/ 2 x 9 1/ 2 illebes,

'iFf-.

s

vivian

e

I b

New

0

New

Yo rk,

York

Selected Exblbitlons: National '93 S,nalJ Works Exblbitlon , 5cboba rie CO//II~Y Arts OJ//Ilcil, O JiJle,kill, NY. / 993.

So/a e:cblbllion, Kodak (,'al/ery, Cellierior PholUgraphy, Woodsloc/!, N I', 1993 Womer,

111

the Visua.l Arts 1992,

(,,'001'

Sqllare

Gallery. New /fUllen, cr; ] 992.

Solo exbibilio1l , IIrll'ls

,Ij)(.lW,

New York, NY. 199/

Solo exhlbitio", 51 .VY i<()cklalld, Suffern, NY. 1991 .

Ponraitu re is the servant of vanity, seduction, nostalgia, and ideology. The aim of my work is to unpack notions of

the feminine through th e syn­ Reviews, Publications,

ecdoche of the portrait. Photographs of women,

Catalogs:

folded into boxes and reassembled into construc­ "Alle/ioll lots, "Center Quarterly #56 , Cf'"~ Woodslock, NY Voill me 14, nl/mlxr 1. 199.3.

the realm of traditi onal repre­ Exhi bit/on Checklist:

'Pb% p,rapby Now. .. hy Colleen Kenyon,

sentation and re-deploy their

Qmter Quarterly '54, CPW. WcxKi<lock, Volume 14, IlItnther 2, /993.

M:

"6/h and IJesl Sbow of Women:< 111'1, ..

ill't'. Flel:lcbmann, New Have1l

Register, New /lot'ell ,

kloreb 22, 1992

c-r:

tions, remove their subjects from

portra its as conta iners. Each image becomes package and packaged, mercantile object, or

f, That Is, 1993, RC siloer pn'/Us,

modular unit. They are pre­ p,lue. 18:r 8 x 8 inches. sented as ifon display, or await­ ing shipment. The subjects of

''Pelldulum Swillgs '7.3 '89," hy Vivioll

Selho, Tbejo"f7UIl , Whillley

,'vIuseum of Amen"can Al1,

,vew )'ork, NY, 1989.

As We K1Iow, ]99.3, IIC silwr prints, f!,/u'(!, 18 x 8 x R inches.

Re-co/kcted, 1993, IIC silver prints,

my work collude in their repre­ glue, 18 x 8 x 8 incbes. sentation, confront the viewer's gaze and erode not onJy the viewer's sense of mastery, hut

Barrier Series aO), 1991, silver gela/ill print, 19 x 14 112 incbes.

also their preconceptions of femininity.

Barrier Series (lK) , 1991, silver gelatin prim, 19 x 14 112 incbes.

Ed

Riddle of tbe Spb;,/Cter, 1989,

1/

cat Ion:

He silver jJl1nts.

IVbilNey Museum of AmerIcan Art

IndependeHt SIIU~V Prog ram,

Nell'

Y()r~~,

N }; 19..98 -R9.

8.5.. UllitJcr.;it.r of \Viscnns/ll, 11'7. 1982.

.IIO(/"SO Il ,

Opposite pag e lIi";all ScI/x ,. Barder Series (lK). 1991 . stil'er J.!,dalilJ p rilll, ICJ x J~i J/2 imjJ(-:;.

#@Ct·

while glll e.

S 114 x 4 ): 24 inc/u's.

a

c

k

o

n

vv

Gallery

I

e

g

d

e

IT1

e

n

t

hours:

Tuesday Saturday 11 a.m. 5 p.m

(Thursday 11 a.m 8 p.m)

G a I I e r y

s t a j j:

Dan R. Talley, Director Micbelle Henry, Assistant Student

ass

stants:

The FORUM Gallery presents sig· nificant and professionally ex­ ecuted solo and group exhibi­ tions of contemporary art and related programs, evenL'i, and services to both the artist and

Amy Rice

non-artist residents ofChautauqua

D. Clarke Smith

County, NY and the sUITounding

Unless otherwise

notcd, ,dl photogrd ph,

area. Our programs focus plima­ rily on the leading edge of today's art. Through our programs,

were rrovidcd

we stlive to stimulate discussion, to challenge assumptions, and

by the al1i:-.ts .

to present artwork relevant to the social and cultural life of the

All dimension . .

general and special populations within our selVice area. Pro­

an: listed in

grams of The FORUM G:tllery are funded in part by th e

inches with hdght preceding

Jamestown Community Colleg e

width, lhen

Foundation; the Faculty Student As­

dept h.

sociation at JCC; The Chautauqua

Gallery development

The FO IU I,ll

Region Community Found;nion; The

committee

GJlIery is In

Ralph C. Sheldon Foundation; and

A.. . sc)(i:..ttl'

Memher of llll' Nation:.!l A s soc i~llio n

our corporate and individual mem­ bers.

of

TI1is exhibition is funded in part hy

O rgan ization.".

the Fund for the ans in Chautauqua

FO~ tJM

Galle ry

Bargar

Renate Bob

William Disbro

Ani,"I"

© 1994 . The

NatlC)'

Mike Filzpatrick

County, which is managed by the

Robert Hagsl1'om

Arts Council for Chautauqua County.

Jobn Hiester

Catalog design: Icehouse Press

Cletus Johnson

B. Akselsen , P B. Hastings

Gloria Lasser

Ed itori a I/ pr od uction assista n t:

Albert.o Rey

Michelle Henry Catalog printing: Studio Printing, Jamestown, New York

Lois St.rickler

Mary Betb Zacber

The FORUM Gallery at jameslowli Comlllunily ColleUi! P. O Box 20 jamesloll'l1. Nelli l'ork 74702-0020 (716) 665-9707

TIle FORUM G'Clllel)lI~' lowled 011 Ibe call1pUS of

JUllleSIOl/'ll CO IIIIIl/il/ily Collef!.e (./{ 525 hi/COileI' Slreel.

s

•

,

,

•

I

...

,.

"

.