Noé Gaytán

I think the idea of a group show that brings together young artists from institutions across Southern California is a truly fascinating idea. It can be pretty easy to get caught up with what you’re doing, and seeing what you’re peers are doing, and learning what you’re professors are teaching you that you tend to forget there are other things out there. Other artists, other works, other styles, other agendas.

The show itself was pretty much what I expected. A few good works and many not so good works. Among those that stood out as interesting was a collection of free couches organized into volumes by Joe Yorti. Assuming that the archive of couches comes from Craigslist, I like the clash between 21^st century dumpster diving with old school presentation. I was also intrigued by Christopher Reynolds’ drawing transcribing dinner table conversation into a flow chart consisting of arrows pointing in all directions. However I did notice that it was a bit sloppy considering it was posing as a cold and mechanical illustration. The idea may be at the forefront of conceptual art, but that doesn’t excuse bad mark-making. Among the works that were less than interesting a stack of twinkies and neon light signs not offering anything new from the previous dozen neon signs I’ve seen at art exhibits.

Accompanying the GLAMFA exhibition was the Open Studios, which offered a look into what the MFAs of Long Beach were doing. Coming from a “thinkers” school it sure was interesting to see how things were at a “makers” school. My friends and I were truly blown away by all the facilities available. Things that get one or two classes at UCI get entire departments dedicated to them at CSULB. The art school there is huge, and it actually took a while to walk through the maze of studios. My personal favorite of the day has to be Natalie Hribar-Kelly’s egg-related sculptures. A smooth-finished wooden box attached to the wall had a very inviting button which lit up a clear egg that sat on top. Next to this, a screen in front of melting was created an eerie womb-like image. Whatever the artist’s fascination may be with reproduction, it certainly makes for very evocative works. The figurative painting department also boasted some pretty amazing paintings. From the relief-like three-dimensional paintings near the figure drawing room (which by the way has the coolest drawing horses I’ve ever seen), to the Dutch-like classical painting (skull and all) where the guy appeared to be checking himself out, all these paintings were pretty jaw-dropping. Unfortunately the same can not be said for the contemporary painting department which was so out of the way that it left me truly disappointed when I finally saw the works.

The mission of GLAMFA is something that I think needs more attention. It’s not simply a chance for people to show their work, but to really see the differences between institutions and what kind of artists they are pumping out. Despite its diversity though, it does all read as “contemporary art” in a weird way. These are definitely artists that I can see exhibiting in well known galleries throughout LA (many of them have). I personally am more interested in seeing the actual development. How did these artists come to make what they make? I think undergraduates need to be more ambitious in launching similar projects. If the caliber of the work at GLAMFA is what can be expected from the rest of the MFAs, then an undergraduate show can certainly be just as compelling. As a good friend once commented at the CalArts Open Studios, “This makes me totally think I can get in to grad school.”