Andrew Imm: The System of Chance at Eyedrum
Installation view of The System of Chance. All photos by Mike Germon.
I saw Andrew Imm’s The System of Chance again this week in the late afternoon, with the overhead lights turned on and the black lights turned off. This second view was less Information Superhighway, and more “a series of tubes“—20th-century wonder replaced by 21st-century disillusionment.
Installation view from the Small Gallery's doorway.
Imm’s exhibit is built from old computer parts and found photographs of missing children. The children’s photographs are either framed in small groups (as seen on the left wall), or mounted on long, foil-wrapped boards in much larger groups. The only individually framed photograph is displayed on the Small Gallery’s central pedestal. Most of these photographs are partially obscured by holographic tape or internal keyboard circuitry (a thin, see-through sheet traced with copper wires).
The distinction between framing method and presentation is puzzling. While Imm’s decision to alternate between small frames, large frames, and neon-backed x-rays (the fourth wall, to the right of the door) has the advantage of breaking up the exhibit’s potential visual monotony, it also draws attention to the sameness which surrounds visitors. As Imm notes in his statement, this is a “collage of missing identities.” Like these strips of collage, these children lose their individual identities when they are categorized as Missing Children—the antithesis of Imm’s desire to draw attention to the plight of missing children.
Ceiling view. There's something about Eyedrum's Small Gallery which compels installation artists to hang things. (Ex: Michi, Plastic Aztecs)
Dozens of keyboards are hung above The System of Chance. They’ve been gutted of circuitry, keys, and the pressure sensitive buttons which register keystrokes—these ancillary parts are incorporated in the show below. The small circuit boards which control keyboard lights hang from the empty keyboards like entrails. Looking up, I’m reminded of the Plains Indians and their legendarily complete bison harvest.
Perhaps the most mentioned feature of Imm’s show was the holographic glasses visitors were given in the Small Gallery. Like a prism, the glasses break light sources and reflect light into faint rainbows. Imm’s room, filled with a magpie’s selection of circuitry, foil, mirrors, and shiny paper, became wonderfully overwhelming when seen through his glasses (even in daylight).
Given the “neatness” of the effect, I’m still left to wonder how the glasses advance Imm’s central thesis. In his statement he explains, “Holograms create aura energy that transcends time, bringing forward the vibrations of the lost …. Reshaping our ritualistic nostalgia forms lasting connections.” Would it be more honest to say, “This looks cool, so I used it?” After seeing The System of Chance again in the light of day, with the black lights and strobes turned off, I have that question for the entire exhibit: How much of this show is a concerted effort to make a point, and how much of it reflects the happenstance of objects found and displayed as decoration?
Andrew Imm’s The System of Chance closes August 8. You can see more of Mike Germon’s photographs here.
I guess you failed to make the connection between nostalgia and these children and their lost lives. I mean they must be lost if not ended, who knows. It’s a happy way of dealing with a sad subject. I remember my first 3D movie and trip to Sci Trek and all these kids will miss that, we presume. There’s quiet nobility in digging these children out of dumpsters and junk mail and showing them these things.
Thanks for the critique Ben. Awesome, shots Mike!
Just to clarify:
How much of this show is a concerted effort to make a point, and how much of it reflects the happenstance of objects found and displayed as decoration?
There’s a grand scheme here through, “The System of Chance”: giving everyone a fair shot. According to Andy Warhol’s comment of “fifteen minutes of fame”, a second chance is provided in fancy ultra-spectra form. As a society we can band together our many colors to discover alternative ways of exploring our worlds and those teeming around us. This meditative displayed array is a call for changed social involvement. Under the right circumstances, these found “objects” that you write about can be found “people”.
In light of recent circumstances surrounding Eyedrum’s future, I feel this show in ways epitomizes something.
Is it… experimental?
Is it about-in a removed extra understood layer of context- an educational process? Letting things happen (by selective indications of talent) in a sort of process oriented manner,one that exposes,or allows for occurances that reveal a nature to creative processes that would never be allowed to be revealed in another venue.
is this a truth?
and if so-is there merit to this?
The show itself:
When first walking into it, it does create a “wow..this is kinda…uuum..weird.” reaction. it is intriguing and has an immediately felt alien continuity. it is fun,which is also disturbing-given the repetitive imagery of the show. (why not use adam walsh’s skull as a center piece to hold tootsie pops & baby socks while yr at it?) wheres the spilt milk jug sympathy cards and where is waldo comic pages- interpolating seriously boring criminal investigation internet printed paperwork?
but..with all that said-(confession time)an overwhelming sense i get after about one(okay two) minute(s) of inspection is reduced back-settles down to a medium scale of interest. there’s a felt clumsiness that is both endearing and emasculating. Further thought stays on the surface. yes,still enjoying looking and made to feel a bit lost,but as far as expecting or sensing a cohesion beyond a visual intrigue-is simply buried or suspected to not be there at all.
which brings me back to my original observation about eyedrum.
why…. is it endearing and emasculating? why do i suspect nothing beyond a certain point? is it because of the context surrounding the show? Meaning of course-where it is being shown? this is where it becomes slippery for me.
art itself should challenge us.
is that a fair statement?
but on what level? where does that challenge begin? many,when considering an “art experience”-where does their mind go? what preconceived notions exsist? Where does the experience have to take place to command that?
what ultimately makes one decide that-regardless of whether or not they “got it”-it was of worth.and-how do we go about presenting (defending?)that acknowledged worth? ben’s willlingness to ask questions about what would be a more honest claim in a reason for a manner of creating is great.I actually agree with his suggestion of a better more honest reason….((or do? it seems to become political somehow…the positioning of things in anticipation of what it will provoke? to simply say it was for fun might shortcut the whole thing-even tho it “was”)lies within lies..a quote a read: of all lies,art is the least dishonest. etc blah…
this show confronts thoughts for me in an awkward way. my opinion? no-it isnt work that is entirely together yet.
an important point though is this: this doesnt mean the artist being presented was a poor choice. His work is there for a reason.
(hell-the comment made by the artist above-the theme of the show almost addresses what i address…
but for different reasons.
or …is it for a different reason?
intentions mean nothing.
we go to see work elsewhere. i almost want to draw out thoughts on intangibles. questioning sensations that hit sensors when we experience something that say “yes”. why does my own interest in andy’s show settle back down to a medium scale of interest? what elevated it in the first place?
apples n oranges moment (or maybe apples and widgets)but stay with me as i air my comment section quality thoughts: emily amy gallery.
what elevates interest in this?
what happens for who? is it beauty? technique? an “i want that on my wall” factor? a “wow-look at the skill,the tenacity…how’d they do that factor? what is the felt continuity?
is this kind of thought process challenging us? i suppose it does. human eye sees this kind of talent and they are thrilled and ,perhaps one day will aspire to do their own seeking.(and im sure anthropomorphized human imagery means something to somebody-fine. okay.)
was andy’s show clumsy? was it work of a person learning?
i say just as much as many of the persons showing in a place like emily amy. but the work in there feels of a simple continuity. emily’s show asked what one+one =’s……easy to answer with a felt wholeness.
i felt a sense of exploration in andy’s show that will walk hand in hand with a development of technique. And Exploration. work like his ultimately suggests a mindset of creation that is important to support,for vastly different and arguably more important reasons- than decorative technique seekers.(which also support)
so yes.
support local emerging art.
and demand expectations.
i propose they have not been demanded- in the same way i question the questioning Of Questioning the use of prism glasses.
a way of seeing things
has to be changed
to illuminate value
where it is
and expose the veneer
on what is just that.
scale down
and focus
schools of thought.
i just vomit in a wine glass
or no.
i just let it achieve room temperature.
the vomit. and
in attempting to drink
the vomit
i “snarfed” it.
would you guys like a poem about andrew’s show?
here it is::::::——->
as a sort of response to eggtooth’s self-important delusional diatribe…diatribe? missive? vitriol?oh who cares.
i am not a writer
here’s a poem
for andrew’s show with a slight swigue into mandie’s drooling liver of hair:
Organ blough gout per lighght
purple bottle slalom wall eyed
pantry manimal electrode tone
repeat clink moo moo tear duct
harry dean stanton
drippy chains sheath molting condom
buddy roomer’s coolness transformer
ballast
mercury sperm dermal alien zombie
flashlit kiddie teeth and gargle bark
binary hairless memory less summer
he who walks behind the rose.