24 Pianet OF THE ARTS / FEBRUARY - MARCH 1996 YScou wens vbie’ An Exhibit of: HaHaist, NeoHaHaist, Minimal "..Art is so much about questioning order that every artwork almost has to have something in it that denies its own validity.” -Mike Kelley We thought of Mike Kelley " when we saw "Whatever Happened to Baby Jane" (Jonathan Wells) with its Kelley-esque owl-eyes and cro- cheted slipper. Kelley is the "High Priest" of Stupid Art, art that sets out to fail, art that laughs at itself. "Introjocular" or HaHa art was the subject of Gallerie HaHa. Kelley seems to have been an inspiration for many of the HaHa artists. Quin Martins definitely cites him as one of his main sources. We asked Quin ("Not Real Trendy Art, Just Real Good"), about what he thought Gallerie HaHa was all about. Quin Martins: It's about Art as Failure. Duncan & Hadley: Why would you want to fail? That's why I'm interested in art. If | was interested in success | would have a carreer that would make me rich. If | was looking for success | wouldn't be at art school. What is your work about? My piece is a symbol of high art, which is considered beautiful, juxta- posed with a symbol of low art, which is ugly. At least | think it's low art. You see, the White Spot™ symbol HaHaist, Post Hahaist Art. (ECIAD Concourse Gallery, Jan. 2-11, 1996) everywhere. Someone told me it was designed by a student from Emily Carr. Haha! Does your work succeed in failing? | think it does. A canvas traditionally hangs in a gallery to represent beau- ty and perfection, but life is not beautiful and perfect. | see my work as critical of art in museums being seen as beauty. My art is successful for me because it's what | think art is. A lot of artists are saying these days, “life isn't perfect, it is ugly, | don't want to make art that is per- fect." “@® -BY DUNCAN JOHNSTONE €& HADLEY Howes Nick Hewitt Salon HaHa The Salon HaHa, or the Interjocular show, was an appealing idea: a stu- dent-organized show about humour, or at least about trying to be funny. It was a healthy break from the usual explorations into angst and deeper mean- ing that we often see at ECIAD. In general. | really didn't know what to expect. Well, | suppose | did, but | was hoping to be surprised.It was an ambitious idea, really. From my experi- ence, art has never been particularly funny. Art is serious. Art is high culture. If art were funny, the tasteless masses would like it and it wouldn't be high culture anymore. Humour is reserved for low brow entertainment like comics, heavy metal, and popular culture. Art needs to be high culture so that it can comment on popular culture. Otherwise, it wouldn't have any subject matter. Art is never funny. Robert Rauschenberg's painting & bed should be funny. But no, it was in fact a significant artistic statement. Marcel Duchamp is almost funny. But he's been lionized to such an extent that he's just not funny at all. Duchamp’s ready-mades would be very funny, had they not been understood as significant artistic statements. There are also practical problems in keeping art from being funny. Viewing a painting hanging on a white wall in a spacious gallery is quite often a very cold experience. Galleries tend to be very stark, oppressive places. Humour involves an exchange, a mutual understanding of what is funny and why it is funny. A painting hanging there in its own obscure, exclusive exis- tence doesn't offer much in the way of humour. : If art is funny, therefore, it is so by accident, such as when the artist's ambitions are so pretentious that he or she produces work that is completely ridiculous to the lay viewer. : But a show about funny art? And some of it actually was very funny. The Jeff Wall mat, Semiotics, and the Nosy Cabinet (sorry, I've lost all the names) were all brilliantly funny. In fact, they were not only funny, but they even looked like art! _ Aside from these and a few other pieces, the show was more successful at raising the question, “What is funny?" than actually being funny. There was a work entitle Tasty Morsel (a turkey jumping out of a pan) that was inviting with its friendly comic-book image, but upon closer inspection there was nothing to the piece - it was just decoration. Whether intentional or not, this Tasty Morsel made clear the distinction between humour and art. It was a painting, not a comic. The two are not the same. To say that the show wasn't funny is perhaps unfair, and far too subjec- - tive. Most pieces were interesting in their own right. The White Spot™ painting ~ was enjoyable, if not particularly funny. Wrestling in general is funny, but the wrestling prints in the show were not. | enjoy obscure humour ( it's the funni- est of all ), but some pieces were baffling in their lack of humour. A painting of an oar - what is that about? And Landon Reading...{a painting of a woman's legs).? I've become too accustomed to giving the benefit of the doubt to flawed but well-intended pieces to truly understand them. Pieces like / see them everywhere - why anyone would do such work is a complete mystery to me. There were also a few sloppy, seemingly thrown-together pieces that under- lined what was otherwise quite a good show. Overall good show, nice idea. “®& =NicK Hewitt 24. rower oF re 0s | FEBRUARY - waROH 1996 *scouvtie” An Exhibit of: HaHaist, NeoHaHaist, Minimal HaHaist, Post Hahaist Art. (ECIAD Concourse Gallery, Jan. 2-11, 1996) ‘everywhere. Someone told me it was designed bya student from Emily Care Hahal ‘Art sso much about questioning order that every artwork almost has to have something init that denies its own validity” oes your work succeed in fling? Mike Kelley We thought of Mike Kelley J think does A canvas traditionally when we saw "Whatever Happened to Baby Jane™ Uonathan Well) with its Keley-esque ow-eyes and cro- cheted slipper. Keley i the “High Priest of Stupid Art, at that sets out to fall art that laughs at itself. "Intrjocular” or HaHa art was the subject of Gallerie HaHa, Kelley seems to have been an Inspiration for many ofthe Halla artists. Quin Martins definitely cites him as one of his main sources. We. asked Quin (Not Real Trendy Art, Just Real Good"), about what he thought Gallerie HaHa was all about. thangs ina gallery to represent beau- ty and perfection, but life is not ‘beautiful and perfect. | see my work 25 citcal of art in museums being ‘seen as beauty. My arts successful for me because it's what | think art is Alot of artists are saying these ays, “life isn't perfect, itis ualy, don't want to make at that is per- fect” -e ay DuvcaN Jowstone & HADLEY Howes ‘Quin Martins: ts bout Art a5, Failure Duncan & Hadley: Why would you want foil? That's why Im interested in at If ‘was interested in suceess | would have a carrer that would make me ich. If was looking for success wouldnt be at art schoo. Whats your work about? [My piece is a symbol of high at, hich is considered beautiful, juxta- posed with a symbol of low art, which is ualy. Atleast | think ifs low art. You see, the White Spot™ symbol Salon HaHa The Salon HaHa, oF the Interjocular show, was an appealing idea: a stu- {dent-orgaized show about humour or atleast about tring to be funny. t was a healthy break from the usual explorations into angst and deeper mean ing that we often see at ECIAD. In general. really cid't know what to expect. Well | suppose | dd, but was hoping to be suprised it was an ambitious idea, really From my experi= ‘ence, att has never been particularly funny. Arts serious. Arts high culture. If art were funny, the tasteless masses would ke it and it wouldn't be high culture anymore. Humour i reserved for low brow entertainment like comics, heavy meta, and popular culture. Art needs to be high culture so that itean comment on popular culture. Otherwise, it wouldn't have any subject matter ‘Artis never funny. Robert Rauschenbera's painting & bed shouldbe funny. But no it wasn fact a significant artistic statement. Marcel Duchamp is almost funny. But he's been lonized to such an extent that he's just not funy at al, Duchamp ready-mades would be very funny, had they not been understood as significant atstic statements. There ate also practical problems in keeping at from being funny. Viewing @ painting hanging on a white wall in a spacious gallery i quite often 2 very cold experience. Galleries tend to be very stark, oppressive places. Humour involves an exchange, a mutual understanding of what i funny and why its funny. A painting hanging therein its own obscure, exclusive exis- tence doesn't offer much in the way of humour. If artis funny, therefore, its so by accident, such as when the artist's ambitions ae so pretentious that he o she produces work that i completely fiiculous tothe lay viewer. But a show about funny art? And some oft actualy was very funny. The Jeff Wall mat, Semiotics, and the Nosy Cabinet (sory ve los all the names) were all biliantly funny. In fact, they were nat ony funny, but they even looked tke art! ‘Aside from these and a few other pieces the show was more successful at ralsing the question, “What is funny?" than actully being funny. There was ‘2 work entitle Tasty Masel a turkey jumping out of a pan) that was inviting ‘with its friendly comic-book image, but upon closer inspection there was nothing to the piece = it was just decoration. Whether intentional or not, this Tasty Morse made clear the distinction between humour and art. It was 3 painting, not a comic. The two are nat the same. To say thatthe show wasn't funny is perhaps unfair, and far too subjec- tive, Most pieces were interesting in thelr own right. The White Spot™ painting ‘was enjoyable, if not particularly funny. Wresting in generals funny, but the resting prints inthe show were not. enjoy obscure humour i’ the funni= st of ll), but some pieces were baling in their lack of humour. painting of an oar - what is that about? And Landon Reodling.(a painting of a woman's legs)? Tve become too accustomed to giving the benefit ofthe doubt to flawed ‘but wel-intended pieces to truly understand them. Pieces like Isee them everywhere - why anyone would do such works a complete mystery to me. ‘There were aso a few sloppy, seemingly thrown-together pieces that under- lined what was otherwise quite a good show. ‘Overall good show, nice idea. “® = Nick Hewitt