Series 1: Theme and Variations

By Guy McLain, Director of Springfield History Museums

What is an original? What do we mean when we say that an image is a
reproduction, and how does it change our perceptions? Why do we
privilege works touched by the hand of the artist, and how does it
effect perceptions of value and marketability? Since media saturation
is pervasive, how does that condition effect our perception of the
work of art? When we see images reproduced on television, or on the
internet, thousands of times, does this experience enhance elements
of the work or deaden our sensitivity?

Most of us see access to "information" as a benefit to our understanding of art. The internet and other media are often viewed as wonderful educational tools designed to enhance our understanding. But often that information means that we are showered with thousands of reproductions that may or may not properly represent the creative output of the artist. We also must ask whether the mediation of the camera, and those that control the camera, (directors, editors, producers, technical crews, etc.) disrupt a clear viewing of the image. In many cases, does the mediator, often influenced by the demands of the marketplace, or other social forces, even care if art is presented in a way consistent with the vision of the artist.

In fact, we have become so inured to seeing art routinely presented through other media that we have forgotten that not that long ago - almost within living memory - when we saw a work of art we saw the original. Furthermore, the interaction between audience and creator was largely predictable, and often took place in social settings clearly understood and anticipated by both groups. An artist producing a painting for the medieval church knew, and even controlled, how that work would be seen. This contextualization of a work in an environment that the artist anticipated, is an intrinsically different experience than seeing the same work (no matter how well it is reproduced) on an internet screen, or in a book.

Of course, other artists have explored this issue, most notably Andy Warhol in his series of paintings based on photographs of car accidents, electric chairs, etc. In these bold works he emphasized the numbing effect of images repeatedly seen. His work also commented on the relationship of art to the mass media.

Ruth Kjaer explores much of the same territory in her own work but
takes these ideas much further. Kjaer's unique insight is that the
problem lies not just in the repetition of images but in their
potential distortion as they are transferred to other media. A painting presented through photography may be "faithfully" reproduced but the longer we compare the photograph to the painting the more we become aware of how different the two images actually are. When a painting is transferred to a screen the transformation may be even more pronounced.

This condition not only influences the typical museum or gallery
visitor, but strikes at the heart of the art market. Sotheby's Tobias
Meyer observed, "I think that the spectacular painting which already
sells itself on the printed page is what you will see being most
successful in this market." Jeffrey Deitch, a gallery owner who once
represented Jeff Koons, commented that, "People will ask me to send
them a digital image of the next available thing by an artist... and
they will buy from that."

Clearly, many collectors (who supposedly are among those most aware of the latest trends in art) have become so inured to glossy catalogs, or the digital photographs sent via the Internet, that they are willing to spend millions of dollars on art without ever seeing the original. And artists know that presentation through these media can become a key factor in their economic vitality and success.

Kjaer explores these themes with insight and subtlety through a complex working process. From an original painting, which serves as a starting point, she generates copies by using digital photography. These digital images are taken to a commercial outlet where they are enlarged, given a new color tint, and are often cropped in a way which shows only a selected area of the original. In her final "manipulation" she takes the reproductions and transforms them back into "originals" by painting over selected areas. In essence, the final product is an altered reproduction, made through inexpensive commercial means, transformed back into an original (or hand-created work) by the act of painting on the copy's surface by the artist.

And this last step, where Kjaer again works directly with the
surface, is key, since she raises questions about the "valuing" of
work simply because the artist has touched it. We live in an age
where many artists have very little contact with their own work. The
conceptual artist John Baldessari has assistants create his collages
and videos. Sol LeWitt recruited installers to create "his" pencil
drawings. And Tara Donovan simply sends installation instruction on
how to construct her sculptures to museum curators. Kjaer, by re-
painting a surface that is essentially a copy, forces the viewer to
ask how important this last step is in the "valuing" of the work of art.

In the end, we are left with a series of pieces that are both alterations and corruptions, works that reference and comment on the original painting which generated the series, and yet stand alone as unique works of art in their own right. It is up to the viewer to identify those aspects that are reproduced and those that come from the hand of the creator. And even more importantly, it is up to the viewer to consider the potentially uneasy relationship between the reproduced surface and the "original" gestures imbedded into the fabric of the work.

Kjaer adds another "layer" to her exploration by inviting others to produce videos of the copies. She then shows these videos within an exhibit setting. These guest film makers, uncontrolled by Kjaer, are free to use the camera in any way they see fit. And as these videos are seen next to the art filmed the viewer begins to feel the loss of control suffered by the artist. This leads to a fundamental question about the "validity" of the video representations. Do these films present the essence of the paintings? Does the person manipulating the camera enhance or obscure the intention of the artist?

Kjaer's investigations don't end there. She understands that there is also an historical element to these problems. If we can accept the possibility - theoretically - that ubiquitous media reproduction obscure the original then we might be tempted to look with nostalgia upon a time when the reproduction wasn't such a powerful element in our interaction with art.

In order to explore this question Kjaer carefully selects content for her paintings that evoke this historical past. Often her work allows representations of ancient classical sculpture, set in an indeterminate historical space, to emerge upon a field of largely expressionist gesture. Historic representational styles are sometimes referenced, yet the vocabulary used remains unalterably modern. The viewer is forced to balance perceptions and feelings swayed between the nostalgia past and the starkly contemporary. At the same time the viewer is forced to wonder if it is even possible to "see" the "original" with eyes not corrupted by a world flooded with visual imagery.

In the end we are left with stunningly powerful paintings - colorful, expressive, and subtle - works of art that we feel we know and are comfortable viewing within the context of the modern art gallery. On the other hand we feel troubled by the implications of this work. Kjaer makes us consider the awful possibility that in our age of media saturation we have lost the ability to break through a strange social and technological fog and see the image given to us by the creator with clear eyes.

Guy McLain has curated a number of exhibits on American Art and Culture. He also teaches Music History and Trends in Contemporary Music at Springfield College. He currently serves as Director of Springfield History Museums.

Series 2: Fragments

(click images for larger sizes...)