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.

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.

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”.