gallery339

my "opinions" of art seems to only ever go one of three ways:
1) i REALLY dislike it for reasons that i have trouble explaining and must sound vague.
2) i like it for reasons i can't explain or figure out.
3) i feel i don't know enough about the work/process/subject/etc to be comfortable enough critiquing it.

i just want to take this moment to say that when i dislike something (and i tend to dislike a lot), i feel somewhat bad. firstly, i worry that i am making this judgement without fully understanding something that i haven't learned in my nineteen years. i believe that if i do not truly comprehend something, i shouldn't have a right to express such negative opinions. i technically haven't earned that right. nonetheless, i find myself not liking a lot of things that i, at this stage in my life, could not create. i'm not sure how or why i choose things that could easily belong to group number three, yet i classify them as a one or two. this is just my little disclaimer i suppose. i don't think that things i can create are roses or my examples are the best and right way. it's not confidence or arrogance; it's that i'm too opinionated [as one of my teachers last semester put it, i'm "too opinionated" for art, and maybe i should be a doctor because then, my opinion wouldn't matter].


anyways, for time motion yesterday, our class took a field trip to gallery 339. however, i overslept and by the time i arrived to the classroom, they had left. i went to the website to check out the current exhibit and overall, i'm not extremely impressed.

i believe gallery 339 is located on 21st&pine. i know that it specializes in exhibiting prints and photographs (and has been doing so for some time). the current display is called "philadelphia masters: george krause, william larson, ray k metzker, ruth thorne-thomsen." i've never heard of any of these people (or yet researched them) and all i know is that ruth thorne-thomsen is a pretty fun saying name.




george krause
fountainhead, 1970
archival pigment print
i know nothing about krause, 1970, or archival pigment prints (to my knowledge), but i like this. the contrast is a-ma-zing. and the subject matter ever so slightly, sparks curiosity. poor kid whos only identification to the world at large is fountainhead... i like to think i would have given him a name.

george krause
breast, italy, 1988
archival pigment print
again, i know nothing of krause, 1988 (except i was born for that year), italy, or archival pigment prints. but i know don't like this. there is hardly any contrast. and the work [to take this picture] is insanly simple (and uninteresting). i do not like when a photographer "documents" something to use as art. something like this that will never change (or nudes- i strongly dislike photographers using nudes because then-- for the most part-- they seem less interested in making a good picture or whatever... it seems they're just trying to take the picture and let the taboo of nudity speak for itself. I DIGRESS). it's a statue. not even enough of a statue to create any kind of story or hint who it is (unless i'm unaware of the existence of who the statue is of. and the price is something that infuriates me even more... an 11"x14" print- $1000?! 36"x48"- $3000. that's just ridiculous. for a TOURIST picture of a statue.