Havana born artist, Jorge Pardo, recently had his first comprehensive exhibition in the United States at the Miami Center for Contemporary Art. His show, titled House, is a re-instillation of past works dating from his first solo exhibition in 1988 through 2007. Pardo’s past and present styles merge and are not categorized or recognized in the exhibit. Pardo combines mural sized photographs, ornately fashioned light fixtures, hand crafted furniture, geometric wall paintings, and everyday objects to create a unique interior space structured around the concept of a house.
Postcard for Workshop at Miami Center for Contemporary Art
Image: Jorge Pardo, Living Room, 2007
Pardo’s House is both familiar and oddly disconcerting. At the exhibit, viewers will be reminded of the interior space of a house; there is a living room, a kitchen, a dining room, a bedroom, a library, and a backyard complete with a swimming pool. The house lacks a bathroom, attic, or basement, but oddly has a café and a studio space. The vast open space of the rooms, the household items stripped of their usefulness, and the gallery setting, create an overall feeling of perplexity in House.
Floor plan of exhibit for Jorge Pardo: House
The different gallery spaces of the Miami museum have been opened up and connected for Pardo’s exhibit. The open floor plan, with rooms divided by partitions, allows visitors to meander through the various spaces. The rooms are large and loop into each other without obvious entrances and exits. This lack of a predetermined pathway creates the effect of disorganization and disorientation within the gallery.
Pardo’s House feels strange because it is so large. The rooms are sprawling and the ceilings high. Because the partitions do not enclose any space nor reach the ceiling, none of the rooms feel cozy. The sparsely decorated rooms are very open and create a feeling of vulnerability. The gallery has high ceilings and an emptiness, which makes Pardo’s House feel like a cold and sterile warehouse.
Another factor contributing to the unsettling feeling of Pardo’s House is the lack of privacy. In a normal house there is a hierarchy of space; some rooms are public space and others private. For example, living rooms or kitchens are public and designed to entertain company, while a bedroom is usually a private room. In Pardo’s House, all rooms are open and public; there are no intimate spaces allowed for privacy. The lack of privacy and vastness of space produces a sense of vulnerability.
Several of the rooms in Pardo’s House contribute to the idea of an all-inclusive exhibit, but don’t fit well into the concept of recreating a house. The café and studio are particularly out of place. The café is created from photos of the “Mountain Bar” in L.A.’s Chinatown which Pardo owns. It is separate from the house and fills a long hallway, which leads to nowhere. Red, plastic, spider-like light fixtures hang from the ceiling.
Mountain Bar -Wall Mural for Hallway
The studio area is created by a photo mural of both the interior and exterior of Pardo’s studio, a work bench with a computer, and some of Pardo’s early photographic work.
Jorge Pardo Studio -Wall Mural for Office
Untitled 2005 – Work Table and Computer in Office
These two spaces seem most incompatible with the exhibit because they are locations not usually associated with a home environment. The café and studio spaces remind us that we are not in a house but in a gallery transformed.
One concept Pardo revisits in each room is to question how the viewer reacts in gallery setting where familiar objects are arranged in a way to indicate rooms in a house. In House, Pardo has removed the functional and practical aspects of a real home; none of the rooms can actually be used for their regular purposes.
The most obvious way Pardo strips his rooms of their functionality is by completing them with photographic wall murals. In the kitchen the only real objects are a refrigerator, an inexpensively constructed island, and an espresso machine. The refrigerator works, or at least is plugged in, but there is uncertainty about working state of the espresso maker. The rest of the kitchen is completed by wall photographs of the sink, cabinets, and countertops. The wall murals suggests a kitchen, yet also draw attention to the fact we cannot use the cabinets or sink because they are only photographs. Like his kitchen, Pardo’s exhibit borders being art and being everyday.
Sea View Lane -Wall Mural for Kitchen
Pardo has a reputation for reconstructing everyday objects and making them impractical. The most obviously impractical items in House were Pardo’s beds and couch. The beds were suggested by large, yellow pieces of cardboard folded into the shapes of mattresses with polar fleece pillows thrown on them.
Wolfram 1997, Max jr. 1997 (left), Max 1997 (right) -Cardboard Bed Forms
Pardo’s couch is unusable as it is made solely of welded, copper pipes. Pardo’s furniture is art only after he removes its functional qualities, and Pardo does well. Museum guests have to carefully inspect Pardo’s objects to decipher whether they have been altered and whether they are an object d’art or an everyday item. All of Pardo’s objects are innovatively constructed and have a modern aesthetic.
Le Corbusier Sofa 1990 – Couch in Living Room
The gallery setting for Pardo’s exhibition also adds confusion to his work. Pardo’s earlier exhibitions have taken place in less traditional settings such as, peoples’ homes and garages, which further blurs the line between art and commonplace. Bedroom furniture is familiar when in a home, yet made strange when arranged in a gallery setting. “Do not touch” signs prohibit the viewers from feeling at home in House, as do the overly attentive museum guards.
Visitors have the option of taking a brochure listing the dates and titles of Pardo’s work, but no titles are displayed in the gallery. The lack of labels in the gallery makes the exhibit feel more like a house than an exhibit, but also poses questions. Which items are art? What is this artwork about?
Pardo’s exhibit is successful; it forces viewers to question their relationship to his work. Pardo’s House is certainly not a comfortable, cozy house or a house at all, yet it suggests rooms in a home. Like most real homes, House has furniture, walls, rooms, and even decorations on the walls, yet House bewilders viewers by denying some of the realities of a house. Aficionados are not sure if they are seeing art or seeing a modern and artistic home, which is disconcerting. When seeing Pardo’s work, one is not entirely convinced that they are experiencing art or the everyday, but something in between. Visiting Pardo’s House is an inclusive, aesthetic experience, and branches many areas of art and design, while its overall effect is oddly perplexing. House is not a home, but an interesting, thought provoking, and well-rounded art experience.
8 comments:
Hello,
The intro is great, concise and tells me a lot in a little space. You say the exhibition House was not at all like a home, it was very open and household items were stripped of their usefulness. It was interesting to see that the café and studio spaces were treated as if they were in a gallery and not a home. I felt there was room for more analysis in the reasoning behind this notion. I wanted to hear more from you about this topic. I could not help thinking of Alice falling through the rabbit hole into wonderland; this wonderland happened to have the nametag of “ exhibition”. Towards the end you say “ which items are art, what is it about?” I would have liked to hear your opinion on these questions. You make some great insights “yet House bewilders viewers by denying some of the realities of a house. When seeing Pardo’s work one is not entirely convinced that they are experiencing art or the everyday, but something in between” I felt that these issues could be addressed earlier in the essay because I want your analysis on this. I felt this could have been a strong analytical element to the article. Over all you write really well, it is a good clear thorough quick read. You gave a great overview of the show and I got the picture with out having been there myself.
Eva
You are able to bring up many interesting observations of this show but I would caution you in so short a review to check your writing for redundant statements. In going through each room you effectively describe the tools (murals, photos, fixtures - hand crafted and everyday) that Pardo uses within the body of the paper. Enumerating these qualities in the first few paragraphs does not seem necessary, your discussion of the oddity of the installation and its conceptual negation of the idea of home while titling itself “House” is the important point of the introduction.
There are a handful of places I’d also urge you to check the specifics of your word choices, like “gallery spaces [that] …have been open up and connected” or “contribute to the idea of an all-inclusive exhibit”: I frankly have no idea what these words are trying to express even within the context of the complete sentence I’ve extracted them from. Sometimes less is more; the paragraphs in which these two quotes occur function very well without these two confusing phrases. Items like this become distracting given that overall your take on the show is so very thoughtful and well described.
I thought your review was concise and quickly leads the reader to the point of the art and the feelings it would evoke. Your writing style is such that allows the reader to draw conclusions as if they were seeing it themselves, yet you are still able to add in an opinion of your own here and there in a subtle manner. Because of this, I am not certain if you have any strong feelings about the work one way or the other, but I don't know that it is necessary to. Sometimes its refreshing to not be "hit over the head" with someone elses opinions all the time. Nice job.
I thought that your review was well written, clear, and to the point. I was however wondering what sort of challenges it proposed to you. What about the show was difficult for you to understand, find answers, and take back to your own work? I felt that you did a nice job reviewing the show and making some good points I am just wanting a little more questioning and analysis about what you experienced from seeing this show. I did have a good sense of what the show was like and would have liked to have seen it.
Hi, Alex.
Among all these reviews, this is one that conveys quickly and accurately the space where the exhibition takes place. You managed to bring the whole thing across and dispel doubt very quickly. I think I understood the look of this show right away. It left me with my chin in my hand, saying, "OK, sounds interesting, but what the hell.....?"
Right now I'm wondering what the elaborate presentation of a house/not-house in a museum means. You use the expression "familiar and oddly disconcerting," and it's more than welcome, considering the subject. All your other descriptions follow this thread of disorientation. I don't see anything particularly strong or evocative coming out of this show, which isn't a crime—and indeed, if that were true, it's a testament to your restraint in writing about it. What I want to know is whether this strange-because-large-and-impractical ethos is enough to build a show on, or a career.
In our program at UArts, I see a lot of people reaching beyond what I have traditionally considered to be the confines of pure painting—and doing it unconstrainedly, naturally. But does Pardo represent the endgame of artistic adventure in this work, or has he merely traveled down the driveway and sat down? The whole thing seems a little teasing, but ultimately empty. Perhaps this is what Pardo is after.
If I'm missing something, it could be that Pardo is working a comment into the easy wastefulness of American design into his art. I hope I'm getting it, but your review doesn't make me feel secure in this. Again, I'm looking for a sociopolitical spin on your review—something that helps it make sense in the context of our expensive, demanding, exciting struggle.
Thanks.
Sally Eckhoff
Hi Alex,
I too felt like some areas were repeated and that some of the review could have been trimmed down right to the interesting points you had. I would also watch how often you write “Pedro’s House” this only adds to the feeling of repeating something you already said.
I’m glad that you explained the open space and where everything was placed, by looking at the floor plan I was under the impression that there were walls and the space was somewhat divided. (which would obviously changing the experience) Your strong parts of the review include the easy flow and your descriptions of the work, photographs, and use of space. I was able to visualize the space and understand the vulnerability you spoke of.
I would have liked to read more about your thoughts on the concept behind the show. You said the show asked questions like “Which items are art? What is this artwork about?” but you didn’t voice your opinion to these questions. What is the point of having specific objects that appear to be functional like the refrigerator and then objects that could not, like the bed and couch? Yes, the viewer had to decipher useful and not useful but why these certain objects? Do you think any of his decisions were arbitrary? Why was the couch made of copper pipes? Why not slabs of concrete?
You stated that, “All of Pedro’s objects are innovatively constructed and have a modern aesthetic.” how are they innovatively constructed? What insights did you have about this? I think you have an appealing way of leading the reader from one paragraph to the other but that you just need to make sure that you state your opinion and back it up with the whys.
Hi Alex,
First of all, I like that you call your blog, “blog.” It doesn’t mess around, just like your writing style. You make your point like crystal, and back it up so thoroughly. I almost wish you left some room for play, or at least a second guess. You seemed to hit an appropriate amount of detail, describing what you saw, but balanced, very nicely, your reading of it all. I think that maybe you simplified it a bit too much, or at least I hope, for the sake of Pardo that is. It seemed like you had your thesis down in the first or second paragraph, Pardo’s show = blurring the lines between function and art. You back up this proposal incredibly well, both through your descriptions as well as your photos. I just wish there was more to his work, or at least more to your consideration of it.
Hey Alex,
Remember Gilles and Deleuze, the Rhizome guys from the summer class that cannot be named? You know, heavy into disembodyment, particularly when it came to describing pathological disorders- using Schizophrenia to support the literary and philosophical concept of a "body without organs". The various states of disorientation described were supposed to be freedom enhancing: emerging physical states with the environment into continuously liberating and novel forms. It may seem like I'm rehashing things best left forgotten, but in reading your review I couldn't help but feel that the impracticality of the house you so well described may have had some affiliations with a desire for a structure free from conventional usage.
A house that doesn't distinguish between private and public space much less one that refuses to cater to biological needs such as food, a washroom or even a place to sleep demands more from the viewer/occupant than they can reasonably comply to. I'm curious as to whether in retrospect you came to appreciate it's ambiguity and open-endedness as liberating or informative on a conceptual level. Each facet of the exhibit you wrote about was interesting, if disconcerting, and your own sense of uneasiness followed both the parameters of the exhibition (this is a guess on my part in terms of the artist's intentions) as well as the assignment. Mission accomplished -well done.
Jason
Post a Comment