My review of this review:
In critiquing artwork, a review that is favorable can easily fall into the trap of one dimensionality. That is, the reviewer, whether working for a paper or a student in a classroom, is unable to articulate why they like a work beyond very basic ideas. The focus is put on the conceptual, emotional aspect or the technique and the craft. For a positive review to have real substance, it must address both of these sides of art. Zebrowski-Rubin’s review of Stephan Talasnik’s exhibit Panorama: Monolithe intime is very complimentary of the work. However, underneath his praise, Stephan shows insight in the connections between the work, the work in the context of the work, the technical virtuosity, and the significance of the viewer’s emotional response. He continually returns to these threads in his article, making it a well-executed piece of writing, as well.
Stefan’s observations about the connections between the pieces go beyond the fact that they are similar in appearance. Such surface level observations are obvious in a curated exhibit. But he dives into ideas about the conceptual similarities, the ideas that might be driving the artist to repeat these forms. Zebrowski starts this by citing the audience’s reactions to the pieces, noting that they identify the art with architecture, technology, and weaving. From there, he turns to the context of the work in contemporary art (Herzog) and in art history (Escher). Zebrowski’s article repeatedly returns to the idea that these sculptures and drawings are rooted in these pre-existing structures, yet the artist has manipulated them so that they become fantastic, universal forms. Stefan Zebrowski- Rubin explains why the works are fantastical by using visual language to describe the works “precise pencil marks to atmospheric smudging…. certain fluidity…faded contours…definition in erasure and precision.”
It is, in fact, this use of visual language that saves Zebrowski’s article from becoming mindlessly effusive. His praise is heavy handed at times, “modern-day Da Vinci.” However, he is able to day why he is praising the pieces, why he is so drawn to them, in an intelligent way. Going back to the idea of one-dimensional praise, he doesn’t focus on one trait of the work. He observes them as a whole, noting the context of the work and the actual construction not as separate things, but as working together to intrigue the audience. In the quote in the above paragraph, he is describing the hard and soft, intricacy and definition of the works. The visual language supports the claims he makes about the reality and fantasy in the art, and the praise he heaps onto it.
I can understand why Zebrowski- Rubin is so complimentary of the work. The images in his article of Stephan Talasnik’s exhibit make me wish I could see the art in person. I had never known this artist before reading this review, but I have had an interest in taking the structure and ideas of architecture and translating them into art. I feel, as Zebrowski does, that Talasnik does this extremely successfully, partly because he has allowed the forms of his sculptures to move beyond the typically rectilinear forms of buildings and into the organic, while retaining the idea of infrastructure. In choosing an article to read for this, I was mostly influenced by my opinion of the art being reviewed first, and the article itself was a secondary consideration. I enjoyed reading this article, as a refreshing example of a positive art critique that, while Zebrowski may have gotten carried away at times, was able to draw back and support his opinions articulately and with concrete knowledge.
