404/912 @ MINT Gallery, 5/24/08

A quick preface:

I don't believe the quality of a show is determined by how closely it matches a theme or artist's statement. In an ideal world, themes and statements provide the viewer with a glimpse of the artists' processes and goals. But I think it's fairly unrealistic (especially with small gallery shows) to expect a statement or "theme" created weeks or months after some works in a collection have been created to come close to accurately matching a good sized span of an artist's work.

(I'd really like to hear input on this idea from curator/artist types)

This photo (and all others used in this post) courtesy of Thoughtmarker's Mike Germon.



With that preface in mind, take a look at a few of these shots:


McCalla Hill demonstrates the "Till Death Do Us Part" board game, which continued to draw a good sized crowd throughout the evening.


Scott Raffield's "Army and Artist Survival Kits." Probably one of the most "gimmicky" pieces in a show full of gimmick pieces. Still, I couldn't help pawing through the suitcases' contents, so Raffield must have been doing something right.


I believe this one was put together by all the Savannah SCAD students. A "for 404 from 912" pedestal stood nearby.

Almost all the show's pieces were in some way touchable or interactive. In more extreme cases, pieces could easily be "destroyed" by their observers; one artist drew a map of the United States onto a whiteboard - markers and erasers hung at hand level just below the board. McCalla Hill invited us to mail wedding invitations to friends and strangers. Another artist displayed letters mailed to strangers, and the pictures and replies those strangers sent back.

Was this prevalence of interactive art a reference to the crossing of boundaries suggested by "404/912"?

Maybe. I'm more inclined to ascribe that prevalence to a specific stage in the SCAD student's artistic development. Dipping a bit into pop psychology, I wondered if the students' desire to make interactive art might be traced to their desire to create a dialog with a world which has only become changeable in the last few years of their lives. As artists mature, they seem to apply more finesse to the idea of creating dialog, and require less overt proof that their work is impacting the wider world.

That's my pet theory anyway.

Overall, a good show. Not perfect, not great, but a good snapshot of a group of artists at the cusp of their careers. Definitely the best show I've seen at MINT so far.