I thought that O'Donnell's Memory Maps exhibition was set up very well. The pieces all worked together very cohesively. From the first to the last piece, her work took you through her life, her memories, and how she associated or interpreted them into maps, codes, and narratives. The entire show was really a narrative self portrait, both literally and interpretively. Some pieces were very clear visual messages or representations of specific memories. Others, such as her Relationships ultrachrome prints, which I'm including a not so great photo of, were more ambiguous where nobody except the artist and perhaps a few close friends [or boyfriends] would be able to fully understand. This I like, personally, because it's an example of good art that doesn't have to necessarily make sense to anyone else except the artist. The memory blocks are another example. We see that she's associating certain things but we don't know why.
The photo I included is the "Boys, drugs, and sex." piece. It is from a series of 5 Ultrachrome prints. It is a time line, measurement, map sort of thing, beginning early in her life and going on until 2006. The levels of boys, drugs, and sex vary throughout the different years. It has a black background and white lines and text. The different levels of each idea are indicated by the first letter so, b, d or s, each inside of its own hexagon shaped key thing. The bottom is the earlier years and as the lines move up we move more into the present. I know there is a real name for this sort of chart or graph [axis?] but it escapes me.
I think that after reading O'Donnell's bio, boys, drugs, and sex, were just more elements in the concoction that is her life. They may have been things she struggled with, or things she could always enjoy-I don't know; that's the beauty. It isn't for me to know. I think all of her work is a way for her, herself, to organize and make sense of who she is, who she was, and why she is where she is now. I think it was a way to take a lot of memories, experiences, little pieces of her life, put them into a some sort of chronological and associative composition so she could then take a step back, and see it from an outsider point of view. I don't think personal works like these are for the spectator as much as they are for the creator. Her exhibition is a map and I think to be O'Donnell standing inside of a room that is a map of her own life is to experience the show so extremely differently than any of us would, even if it is laid out to be seen from the outsider point of view. It's almost like putting the pieces together just so they can be taken apart again, be it by the viewer, or possibly the artist herself.
"Others, such as her Relationships ultrachrome prints were more ambiguous where nobody except the artist and perhaps a few close friends [or boyfriends] would be able to fully understand.This I like, personally, because it's an example of good art that doesn't have to necessarily make sense to anyone else except the artist."
ReplyDeleteI also really liked that about Professor O'Donnell's work. I remember her saying during the lecture about hiding and revealing things at the same time. I think all of her pieces did that effectively, in that we could learn some secrets about her through each piece, but it was only a tiny bit of the larger picture that she didn't share. I also think you're right that it sort of is more meaningful for the creator than the spectator, but I also feel that the spectator can enjoy it by incorporating their own experiences into their appreciation of the pieces.