ross-ho excerpts

Ross-Ho spoke about the “sculptural identity of the picture,” in one of her pieces, implying there are multiple characteristics of an image taken and that it is possible for a photograph to exist on multiple planes outside of a traditional representation or as document. This could be an example of the inner-connectivity Ross-Ho was mentioning throughout her lecture ­– the notion that all artwork, despite specified medium, and without a direct explicitness, can share a general access into other sub-mediums; the specified medium is only a representation and does not hold an entirety over the other. In Ross-Ho’s words, “nothing is fixed, everything is movable.” She is talking about language.  -bea

A sculptor or creator of game maps is in a similar business. They start with a chunk of raw data, and subtract to form an arm, a penis, or a boiler room. What Ross-Ho does is a bit more pointed. She created her own raw data a few years ago, and is now in the process of subtracting from it to the point that her “thing” is not so much the sculpture, as it is the space around it.

All this aside, I’m unsure as to whether or not her holes can be said to represent her, if the perimeter of past works are merely framing the gallery space, thus negating her intent, or if she is laying claim to the gallery space by artfully framing it. The likely answer is all three.       -matthew

She discussed that some subtle moments such as the single earrings used to mimic patterns in the cloths hung on the wall in one of her exhibitions caused viewers to get close to the artwork but then back up again to view it as a whole and I found this to be a nice notion of back and forth that she mirrored in a lot of other aspects of her work such as the constant reuse of objects and materials. I enjoyed the constant idea of revisitation and personal history. She displayed one show in a space that she had already had an exhibition in and so she tried to initiate specific echoes to the older show, once again adding in small subtle secrets that only a viewer who had seen the previous show would recognize and I found this notion very endearing.              -daryl

  Specifically, this gesture that I speak of is presented in one instance, with the piece that included a light box with an image of a painting she had done on one of the walls of her studio space, and facing it, a section of drywall of the studio itself.  This piece seemed to not just draw upon the relationship of the studio to the gallery, but more so the represent a sort of marriage of the document to a piece of artwork that was produced.  The connection that joins the two to be fitting for a gallery space is that they both are talking about how the presence of either a document of a work of art, or that of a work of art itself, demands this conversation to take place between the viewer and itself; asking, what is it that really defines the space in which the producer produces a product, (the studio), and the space in which it ultimately, or potentially, will inhabit, (the gallery).  The interesting thing is that either the piece of drywall, or the light box mounted photograph could not exist.           -billy

.  The viewer has to step into the space in order to experience what is trying to be said, or more so, the feeling that is trying to be created.  But once the presentation is over, the space is taken down then the experience is lost.  The experience of the room, of the space is temporary.  Can her work fulfill that outside of the space? Or does it then become about aesthetics, loss and gain, and decoration or presentation.

            She is quickly making connections to things.  Making sense of things.  Reusing past material shows this.  She is taking thoughts she once had and expanding upon them, meditating on them, seeing how they fit into new thoughts, making connections.  She talks about using the remainder of work, the periphery, and turning it into new work, how both are equal.  She refers to instruction books, how they can be seen as art, and then from them creating art.         -brandy

  
Quite literally, in fact her work is turning more into a personal tour of her studio and less of work created in the gallery.  The idea of her studio walls becoming the work leads me to question her thought process. She intended to bring the place of consummation to the space of show.  However her place of consummation has become the shown object, and I feel that this negates her works.  It leads one down a never-ending spiral.  If one wishes to show the place of consummation then there should be something consummated to be juxtaposed against the place of creation.  However, when all she is showing is her place of creation it really isn’t her place of creation anymore it becomes the created.  Where will it end?     -aaron