Steven Baris Richard Bottwin Rob de Oude Edgar Diehl Gabriele Evertz Kevin Finklea Enrico Gomez Brent Hallard José Heerkens Gilbert Hsiao Gracia Khouw Sarah Klein & David Kwan Stephen Maine Joanne Mattera Gay Outlaw Mel Prest Debra Ramsay Albert Roskam Karen Schifano Iemke van Dijk Henriëtte van ’t Hoog Ruth van Veenen Don Voisine Nancy White Guido Winkler Patricia Zarate
DOPPLER SHIFT September 28, 2014 – January 18, 2015
Visual Arts Center of New Jersey
IN THE EYE OF THE BEHOLDER A Look at the Works in Doppler Shift by Mary Birmingham Doppler Shift presents two- and three-dimensional works of art that explore perceptions of color and space. This exhibition also examines the relationship between the viewer and the work of art by investigating how shifting perspectives alter the visual experience. As various factors change—the viewing distance, angle of vision, lighting conditions, duration of looking—forms and objects seem to shift between two and three dimensions, creating spatial ambiguities and visual disorientation. Further, the interaction of color and line may prompt optical sensations in the viewer, as stationary lines and forms appear to move. The exhibition appropriates a scientific term as its title: The Doppler effect, also called the Doppler shift, is the apparent change in the frequency of emitted waves relative to an observer. It is named for the Austrian physicist Christian Doppler, who first identified it in 1842. Doppler observed that if the source of a sound (such as a train whistle) is moving toward or away from an observer, the perceived pitch of the sound changes. Although the whistle blasts at a constant frequency, the train’s speed causes the sound waves to hit the observer’s ears faster or at a higher frequency than the whistle is producing them. The resulting pitch will be higher as the train approaches the observer, and lower as it recedes. In a way, the Doppler effect describes a situation in which the observer hears something that’s not really there, as the sound heard is different in pitch from what is emitted. Similarly, the viewer’s visual perception of objects in Doppler Shift may differ from their reality, prompting unexpected results.
Although the twenty-seven international artists in Doppler Shift do not belong to any formal movement, they share an interest in reductive palettes, straightforward materials, geometric forms and patterns, and repetition and seriality. More than a third of the works in the exhibition are three-dimensional walloriented pieces, which often look deceptively flat. As viewers move and observe these works from different viewpoints, their volumetric depths become more apparent. opposite: Albert Roskam, 4 vanishing points in a square #3, 2014
A walk past the shaped paintings of Edgar Diehl and Henriëtte van ‘t Hoog reveals their bent and angled surfaces. The same repeated colors in Diehl’s Jupiter Landung IV take on different shadings as light reflects across the folded aluminum support. With either concave or convex surfaces, van ‘t Hoog’s cubic forms collapse perspective, creating a contradiction between perception and form. Debra Ramsay interrupts the straight linearity of her drawing The effects of a fold on a Pink line by folding its vellum support, creating diagonal facets and shadows. At first glance Richard Bottwin’s Yellow Façade appears solid and even architectonic; observed from different angles, the planes shift, reshaping the object in the viewer’s eye. Kevin Finklea’s elegantly reductive wood constructions explore ideas of color and balance through the relationship of paint to structure. He often situates his works at varying heights on the wall, presenting unconventional views. Patricia Zarate’s Sweet Spot is specifically oriented to an interior corner. Its repeated pattern of triangles painted on wood at right angles flattens out in the eye of the viewer, becoming a vertical stack of diamonds. With the only freestanding sculptures in the exhibition, Gay Outlaw undermines cubic solidity by perforating and dematerializing her forms. Camo Cube (Blue) is a hollow perforated cube whose surface is covered with a silkscreened pattern derived from photographs of the holes. This hybridization converts three-dimensional spaces into two-dimensional images, dissolving the barrier between dimensions. A similar paradox occurs in Untitled (Stuffed Cube), in which a cube is filled with hexagonal elements made of hollow wood and solid ceramic. Several works in Doppler Shift occupy the region between two- and three-dimensional space. Debra Ramsay’s cut Dura-Lar pieces with inked edges generate a nebulous glow that confounds the eye. In Stations of the Cube #4, Steven Baris layers painted forms on Plexiglas panels that lean at an angle against the wall. A hidden underpainting is visible only as a red hue radiating from the edges of the forms, creating the illusion that they float in space. Similarly, van ‘t Hoog’s Triangle I also appears to float in front of the wall, with reflected color from the back of the piece activating the space behind the object.
top: Gay Outlaw, Camo Cube (Blue) (detail), 2006 bottom: Steven Baris, Stations of the Cube #4 (detail), 2014
In drawing attention to the edges of objects or forms and their peripheral spaces, these artists permeate the boundaries between dimensions. In Pent Up House Karen Schifano uses tape to extend the lines of a form directly onto the wall next to the work, creating an ambiguous spatial depth that disorients the viewer. Drawing directly on the wall, Iemke van Dijk achieves the illusion of a floating object that casts a shadowy halo. For the viewer, this work presents perhaps the most dramatic opportunity to perceive something that is not really there. A spectator in motion may find dynamic visual possibilities in two-dimensional works. Walking past van Dijk’s wall drawing, the viewer will witness its metamorphosis from an oval to a circle and back. New patterns emerge on Rob de Oude’s Proximities and Parameters when the painting is viewed obliquely, and this same angled point of view transforms Guido Winkler’s painting from a rectangle to a trapezoid, distorting its interior rhomboid shapes. (The title of the work is an open invitation to active viewing: One of the endless possibilities of seeing a particular rectangle a little different XII.) With many of the two-dimensional works, the viewer’s perception shifts with durational looking. Lines, colors, and forms may appear to flicker and move across the flat surfaces, or seem to advance and recede. Painters Rob de Oude, Gabriele Evertz, Gilbert Hsiao, and Mel Prest explore the optical effects that occur through the interaction of color and line. For Hsiao, the viewer’s active contemplation is crucial; his monumental mural dazzles the eye with its seemingly endless columns. Both de Oude and Prest approach color intuitively and allow elements of spontaneity and chance to enter their work.
above: Guido Winkler, One of the endless possibilities of seeing a particular rectangle a little different XII (multiple views), 2011
De Oude, Hsiao, and Prest utilize repeated overlapping lines that create somewhat disarming shifts in color, moiré patterns, linear distortions, or phantom shapes. For Evertz, the juxtaposition of colors with gradations of black and white creates a push and pull, with vertical and angled stripes advancing and receding at varying rates. These artists construct spaces that are arresting and elusive at the same time. Although some works have an optical immediacy, they may also benefit from a slower read—what de Oude calls “a visual time delay.”1 At first glance Stephen Maine’s painting HP 13-0909 imparts a visual kick with its trio of saturated colors, but a longer look produces optical sensations in which the fractured fields of color float back and forth, obscuring any discernible sequence in their layering. Sarah Klein and David Kwan explore the perception of light over time in their collaborative animation Lone Star. Three hundred printed video stills, which were embellished with colored pencil and used to make the animation, are displayed alongside it, enabling the viewer to “slow down” the sequence and experience the individual abstractions that the finished work comprises.2 Artists working within the two-dimensional formats of painting and drawing sometimes convey illusionistic space through drawn perspectival projections; in Doppler Shift these forms are often visually ambiguous or implausible. Using line and shadow, Enrico Gomez builds cubic forms that shift between two- and threedimensional representations of the letter E. By omitting one section of the font, Gomez forces the viewer’s eye to complete the image, composing and dematerializing form at the same time. Steven Baris’s meandering drawings on Mylar disorient in an almost Escher-like way. The heavy black outlines simultaneously resemble floor plans and elevations, or suggest a series of intersecting planes in space. The eye wants to complete the picture, but is confounded at every turn. Similarly, two small shaped paintings on aluminum by Brent Hallard initially read as cubes, but a second look reveals that they are geometrically impossible. These works provide dynamic visual experiences while challenging the viewer’s perception of space. top: Brent Hallard, Green Candy, 2011 bottom: Brent Hallard, Orange Candy, 2011 1 Conversation with the author, June 13, 2014. 2 Klein has also curated a related selection of time-based media works by seven other artists that runs concurrently with Doppler Shift at the Visual Arts Center of New Jersey.
The shard-like forms in Albert Roskam’s 4 vanishing points in a square #3 appear to float in space, but this illusion results from the laser-cut aluminum support he employs. In a related drawing, a strictly linear format creates an illusion of a deeper space with intersecting trapezoidal planes. José Heerkens also uses line to suggest space, but she depends on color to create movement. Her watercolor Travelin’ Light places several horizontal bands of color across an expanse of negative space to create the illusion of a modulated surface. Ruth van Veenen utilizes similar components—ordered bars of color—but her forms are more tightly compressed, interweaving horizontal and vertical elements and leaving little negative space. Gracia Khouw often works with letterforms, paying special attention to the in-between spaces of letters. In Closed Circuit series / CC# (yellow/black) five G letterforms are linked in a circle to enclose these spaces, which become graphically arresting visual elements in and of themselves. The overall repeated pattern of seemingly abstract shapes initially obscures the individual letterforms, which come into focus with a look of longer duration. For Joanne Mattera and Nancy White the relationship between negative and positive space is elusive and harder to determine. In their predominantly monochromatic works in this show, the shift of forms is subtly masterful. The triangles in Mattera’s Chromatic Geometry 21 waver and coalesce into diamonds that float in a chromatically divided field. The space in White’s paintings is murkier—perhaps even mysterious— and her forms are harder to pin down. She works at an intimate scale that requires close looking and contemplation; with adequate time the viewer may begin to detect shifts of color and movement of the shapes. Slow looking is also necessary to fully appreciate Don Voisine’s paintings. Usually consisting of centered black planes bordered on the top and bottom by bands of color, his forms waver between negative and positive spaces, never fully resolving as one or the other. Seen from varied angles the surfaces of the black planes vary between matte and glossy in finish. Voisine uses this subtle shift as a way to activate the space of the painting. Voisine has also contributed a wall sculpture, plus/minus, to the exhibition. A marble carving of a plus sign, this work is symmetrically divided, with half of the composition comprising forms that protrude and the other half containing voids. It is tempting to interpret this work—with its visual references to absence and presence, solidity and void—as a statement about the nature of negative and positive space.
above: Don Voisine, plus/minus, 2003
Doppler Shift is not my curatorial invention; rather, it is the reinvention of an exhibition conceived and organized by Mel Prest, a San Francisco-based artist and curator (whose work is also included in the show). Prest—for whom the term Doppler effect connoted ideas of motion and speed—began the show in Amsterdam in 2012; it has subsequently traveled to several countries since then. Although the show’s essential concept remained the same, new works were rotated in, and the roster of artists grew with each iteration. The original show, called Doppler Stop, traveled through Europe in 2012 in the curator’s suitcase; another version, titled simply Doppler, inhabited Brooklyn’s Parallel Art Space in the summer of 2013, where I encountered it. Prest agreed to let me expand on her idea and create a new version of the show for the Visual Arts Center of New Jersey. Crossing borders and boundaries for the purpose of cultural exchange is a compelling reason to travel, and it was one motivation for this wandering show. With its metamorphoses and movements, Doppler above: installation view of Doppler, curated by Mel Prest, at Parallel Art Space, Ridgewood, NY, 2013
Shift can be seen as an apt personification of travel. Traveling requires flexibility and a willingness to place oneself in new locations and situations. One of the greatest benefits of travel is that it compels us to see ourselves differently in each new contextâ€”altering our self-perceptions. As this exhibition has traveled and evolved, it has encountered new visitors. Information and ideas emanate from the works like ripples across a pond, or sound waves through space. Like the phenomenon of the Doppler effect, the exhibition has created sensations and altered perceptions wherever it has found viewers.
Mary Birmingham is Curator at the Visual Arts Center of New Jersey I am grateful to Debra Ramsay, who first introduced me to the Doppler exhibition, and to Stephen Maine, whose patient explanation increased my understanding of the Doppler effect. I thank Sarah Klein and David Kwan for their work on the program and DVD of time-based works that accompanies this exhibition, and Guido Winkler for his invaluable help in expediting the works from Europe. And finally, I extend a special appreciation to Mel Prest, who generously entrusted me with the stewardship of this interesting project and so graciously offered her assistance and support at every turn.
THE ANTI-HISTORY OF OPTICAL ART by Thomas Micchelli In 2007, the Columbus Museum of Art in Columbus, Ohio, held an exhibition called Optic Nerve: Perceptual Art of the 1960s, which was the first major American museum survey in more than twenty-five years of Op Art—the upstart hybrid of Pop, Minimalism, Color Field painting, graphic design, and carnivalesque illusionism pioneered by such artists as Bridget Riley, Edna Andrade, and Richard Anuszkiewicz. The critic Dave Hickey wrote the introduction for Optic Nerve’s accompanying book, an essay titled “Trying to See What We Can Never Know,” in which he makes the following assertion: Under the auspices of optical art, the single prerequisite for looking at art resides in our willingness to try and see it.1 The simplicity of this statement masks the complexity—and radicality—of its sentiment. Like Werner Herzog, who once famously said, “Film is not the art of scholars but of illiterates,”2 Hickey is telling us that we need to know nothing about art—its history, techniques, or social context—in order to receive what perceptual art has to offer, even if we would prefer that it were otherwise: Optical art introduces us to an order of experience that is less voluntary and less dependent on education and conscious knowledge than one might wish.3 That sentence demands a brief bit of parsing: The experience of Op Art is “less voluntary” and “less dependent on education” and knowledge “than one might wish.” We may first want to ask “What can be voluntary or involuntary about viewing a work of art?” before we grasp the obvious, which is that to take in a painting or sculpture almost always entails an act of will. Whether our eyes are entering the deep space of a Paolo Uccello fresco, feeling out the bulges and voids of a bronze nude by Auguste Rodin, or tracing the calligraphic brushstrokes across one of Willem de Kooning’s abstracted landscapes, we are actively seeking the unique pleasures that visual art holds in store. The snap and buzz of Op Art, on the other hand, grab us as soon as we glance in its direction — its effect is immediate and irrepressible, like a strobe light flashing in our eyes. opposite: Gilbert Hsiao, Lucky Strike, 2013 1 Dave Hickey, “Trying to See What We Can Never Know,” in Optic Nerve: Perceptual Art of the 1960s, ed. J. Houston (London, New York: Merrell, 2007), p. 12. 2 Leticia Kent, “Werner Herzog: ‘Film Is Not the Art of Scholars, But of Illiterates,’” The New York Times, 11 September 1977. 3 Hickey, op. cit., p. 12.
The second part of Hickey’s claim, that Op is less “dependent on education and conscious knowledge” than most other art, is more slippery and uncomfortable in its implications, because it undermines the authority of connoisseurship, which has been the governing principle of aesthetic judgment for the past 100 years. As developed by art historian Bernard Berenson, the idea of connoisseurship has nothing to do with the airs of elitism that have since gathered around the term; rather, it rests on the concept of the educated eye, which is equally dependent upon a wide knowledge of cultural history and a highly developed sensitivity to the subtleties and resonances of the art object. In other words, every work of art carries its histories within itself, even when it marks an extreme break with the past. The real test of a connoisseur, then, would be the ability to recognize the cultural value of the utterly new. There are no other academic or financial requirements: Two of the most perceptive connoisseurs of the postwar era were Herbert and Dorothy Vogel, a postal worker and a librarian, who amassed one of the most important collections of Minimal and Conceptual art in the world, which they donated in full to the National Gallery of Art in Washington, D.C. What is extraordinary—and not a little queasy-making—about Hickey’s refutation of education and knowledge in the context of Op is that he is knocking down the last gatekeeper between the artwork and the viewing public. We don’t need anyone to tell us what we are looking at, or why. All we need to do is look. But what of Hickey’s ominous parting shot, that education and knowledge are less necessary “than one might wish”? Is he here acknowledging the inherent snobbery of the art world, in which an invisible but very real divide stands between those who “get it” and those who don’t? If there are no prerequisites other than “our willingness to try and see” optical art, then what is art history for, why do critics struggle to tease out the wheat from the chaff, and how on earth will we ever be able to distinguish “us” from “them”? Or is he in fact conceding a suspicion that perceptual art, at bottom, means nothing at all? That it is all surface theatrics and retinal pyrotechnics, and that summoning up education or knowledge in its presence is a fool’s errand, an inquiry into evanescence? In the end, is Hickey, as a seasoned intellectual, edging away from the inherent anti-intellectualism—in essence, the decorativeness—of the most resolutely visual of art forms? As indicated by the title of his essay, “Trying to See What We Can Never Know,” Hickey doesn’t retreat from the challenge, but instead finds something metaphysical, for lack of a better term, in the opticality of Op. Citing the historical and critical record that has accumulated around Abstract Expressionism, he laments the way that style’s canonical narrative, which he describes as “a fictional mythology...centered on the ‘story’ told by the ‘artist’s hand’”4—i.e., the critic Harold Rosenberg’s concept of the canvas as a psychological “arena in which to act”5—gets in the way of seeing the art with fresh eyes: “The critical 4
Ibid., p. 12.
invention of the ‘artist’s hand narrative’ allowed us to read Abstract Expressionist paintings rather than look at them.”6 Op, on the other hand, “proposed that our pleasure in art derives less from knowing what we are looking at than from the anxiety of not-knowing just this. So we take pleasure from the object’s singular selfpossession, from its resistance to being internalized as a legible, conceptual entity.”7 And so the meanings, or anti-meanings, that we glean from Op reside in its refusal to be mythologized, to be anything other than a thing to look at. And as a thing to look at, it is insistent and profligate: It captures us without our permission, and its pleasures are available to all.
The artwork presented in Doppler Shift sits on a double paradox. Marking a half century since Op first burst upon the scene, it is in many ways a generational renewal of an anti-historical moment (which has since entered the history books). And with generational renewal comes reflection and critique: an assessment of what made the first wave of perceptual art right for its time, and what, if any, significance it can accrue in the second decade of the twenty-first century. The exhibition is in itself a form of assessment and renewal. In 2012, the artist Sarah Klein curated an animation series called Stop and Go 3-D, which presented films dealing with visual perception and abstraction in relation to time and space. A tandem exhibition curated by the painter Mel Prest, titled Doppler Stop (taking its name from the visual and aural changes brought about by objects in motion), showcased two- and three-dimensional works by many of the artists in Stop and Go 3-D. The contributors hailed from the United States, the Netherlands, Germany, and France, and the exhibition and screenings traveled to Amsterdam, Rotterdam, Berlin, and Zagreb. In the catalogue for Doppler Stop, Prest notes that the artists chosen for the show “have created work that optically straddles this un-locatable perceptual space where static objects move and shift or trigger simultaneous sense-readings.”8 The optical art that was big, bright, and splashy in the sixties, mirroring the revolutionary decade that engendered it, has since ripened into an expansive field of shimmering multiplicities and shaded ambiguity. Doppler Shift, curated by Mary Birmingham, is a revisitation, with some variations, of both Doppler Stop and a subsequent exhibition, rechristened Doppler, which was held in 2013 at Parallel Art Space Harold Rosenberg, “The American Action Painters,” Art News 51, no. 8 (1952): 22. Hickey, op.cit., p. 12. 7 Ibid., p. 13. 8 Mel Prest, Doppler Stop (Blurb, 2012), p. 1. 5 6
in Bushwick, Brooklyn, and featured many of the same artists as the earlier show along with several new ones. A historical reevaluation of Op is perhaps something that Hickey would decry as antithetical to the uniqueness of the style. But the youthful exuberance of perceptual art was bound to mature, and it would be a missed opportunity not to compare the similarities and differences between then and now. For one, as both Doppler Shift and the catalogue for Optic Nerve make clear, optical art is not synonymous with optical illusions. Rather, it is rooted in the scientific study of visual perception and its artistic applications, from Renaissance perspective to the color separations of Georges Seurat, the surface fragmentation of Analytical Cubism, Piet Mondrian’s distilled forms and restructured grids, and the systematic approach to color theory formulated by Josef Albers. The conceptual thrust of Doppler Shift and its earlier incarnations is perhaps most clearly articulated in the works that demand our interaction, that undergo perceptual transformations as we move left to right, forward and back. In the sculptures, shaped paintings, and variegated textures of Patricia Zarate, Don Voisine, Henriëtte van ’t Hoog, Karen Schifano, Debra Ramsay, Gay Outlaw, Gracia Khouw, Brent Hallard, Kevin Finklea, Edgar Diehl, Richard Bottwin, and Steven Baris, light scatters across the surface, differentiating matte from sheen; shadows and wall space function as adjunct shapes; three dimensions mysteriously dissolve into two and just as mysteriously return. The other works in the show, however, provoke the eye with no less intensity. The paintings of Nancy White, Ruth van Veenen, and Joanne Mattera probe the retinal kick generated by interlocking planes of color, while Rob de Oude, Gabriele Evertz, Stephen Maine, and Mel Prest cram their surfaces with clusters of marks or densities of line, defying the eye’s ability to comprehend the multiple factors populating the visual field. The brash illusionism for which Op is best known is served up by Enrico Gomez, José Heerkens, Gilbert Hsiao, Albert Roskam, Iemke van Dijk, and Guido Winkler, and the exhibition’s genesis in filmmaking is represented by Sarah Klein and David Kwan’s Lone Star, along with hundreds of stills from the video. Klein has also curated a standalone program of time-based works by seven artists, three of whom are included in Doppler Shift. The current crop of optical art is decidedly less bald-faced and pseudo-psychedelic than the first generation. The illusionism, when it occurs, is more understated and sly, playing with perception rather than bending the viewer to its will. There is less razzle-dazzle and more deliberation, but the artists, while taking themselves and their art-making seriously, are also infected by the same sense of unpretentious fun that made Op such a popular hit and critical threat. The most characteristic element that the two generations share is the refusal to ascribe an emotional narrative to the making of the object. Although there is evidence of the hand in Doppler Shift, in contrast
to what Hickey calls the “handless-ness” of Op, all of the work seems to have arrived in its current state fully formed, as if sprung from the brow of Zeus. It betrays no anxiety, no backtracking or reworking. It meets our gaze, perfect in its thing-ness, with confidence and audacity. If, as Hickey claimed for Op, everything we need to know about perceptual art is on the surface, then the works in this exhibition are engaging in a similarly direct connection with the viewer. That is easier said than done: A corrosive, market-driven irony, which has increasingly dominated the cultural conversation in the intervening decades, has complicated that simple concept to the extent that it is now practically a source of embarrassment, an ideal illegitimate in its naïveté. But the forthrightness of this work, and the irresistible intensity of its designs and pigments, erase such misgivings and restore that connection before we even realize it’s happening. All we need to do is look.
Thomas Micchelli is an artist, writer and co-editor of the online critical review Hyperallergic Weekend. His paintings, drawings and videos have been exhibited in New York, Philadelphia and elsewhere. In addition to Hyperallergic, his essays and reviews have appeared in Art 21, Bookforum.com, The Brooklyn Rail and other publications.
Somewhere Beyond or Behind D4, 2011 Oil on Mylar, 24 x 24 in. (61 x 61 cm) Courtesy of DM Contemporary, New York, NY
New York, US
Yellow Façade, 2013 Maple, ash veneer and acrylic, 20 x 17 ¼ x 7 ½ in. (50.8 x 43.9 x 19 cm) Courtesy of the artist
Rob de Oude New York, US
Proximities and Parameters, 2014 Oil on canvas, 54 x 54 in. (137.2 x 137.2 cm) Courtesy of the artist
Jupiter Landung IV, 2014 Acrylic on aluminum, 19 5/8 x 19 5/8 in. (50 x 50 cm) Courtesy of the artist
Gabriele Evertz New York, US
Messenger Spectrum, Door to the East Series, 2013
Acrylic on canvas over wood, 18 x 18 in. (45.7 x 45.7 cm) Courtesy of Minus Space, Brooklyn, NY
Pelikan for Palermo #8, 2014 Acrylic on laminated poplar, 22 Â˝ x 3 x 2 Âž in. (57.2 x 7 cm) Courtesy of the artist and Pentimenti Gallery, Philadelphia, PA
Enrico Gomez Jersey City, US
Hope Break Beat II, 2014
Charcoal on paper, 18 x 14 in. (45.7 x 35.6 cm) Courtesy of the artist
San Francisco, US
Rim, 2014 Acrylic on anodized aluminum 14 x 17 in. (35.6 x 43.2 cm) Courtesy of the artist
José Heerkens Zeeland, NL
Travelin’ Light, 2013-P21, 2013 Watercolor on paper, 25 5/8 x 19 ¾ in. (65 x 50 cm) Courtesy of the artist
Gilbert Hsiao New York, US
Similar Motions, 2014 Acrylic on wall, site-specific, dimensions variable, approximately 13 x 11 ft. (4.9 x 3.4 m) Courtesy of Minus Space, Brooklyn, NY (above: study for Similar Motions)
Gracia Khouw Amsterdam, NL
Closed Circuit series / CC3 (yellow/black), 2014 Acrylic on Dibond, 28 3/8 x 28 3/8 in. (72 x 72 cm) Courtesy of the artist and Galerie Hein Elferink, Staphorst, NL
Sarah Klein & David Kwan San Francisco, US
Lone Star, 2013 Single-channel video with sound, 2:05 minutes Courtesy of the artists (above: installation view of 300 video stills of Lone Star at Jentel Artist Residency Program in Wyoming, February, 2013)
Stephen Maine New York, US
HP13-0909, 2013 Acrylic on canvas, 40 x 40 in. (101.6 x 101.6 cm) Courtesy of the artist
Joanne Mattera New York, US
Chromatic Geometry 21, 2014 Encaustic on panel, 12 x 12 in. (30.5 x 30.5 cm) Courtesy of Elizabeth Harris Gallery, New York, NY
San Francisco, US
Untitled (Stuffed Cube), 2011
Ceramic, wood, 10 ½ x 10 ½ x 10 in. (26.7 x 26.7 x 25.4 cm) Courtesy of the artist and Gallery Paule Anglim, San Francisco, CA
San Francisco, US
Vielen Danke Schoen, 2013 Acrylic and fluorescent acrylic on panel, 36 x 36 x 2 in. (91.4 x 91.4 x 5.1 cm) Courtesy of the artist
Debra Ramsay New York, US
The effects of a fold on a Pink line, 2013
Colored pencil on vellum, 10 x 10 in. (25.4 x 25.4 cm) Courtesy of Minus Space, Brooklyn, NY
2 vanishing points on 2 opposite diagonal lines #1, 2014
Ink on paper, 21 5/8 x 21 5/8 in. (55 x 55 cm) Courtesy of the artist
Karen Schifano New York, US
Pent Up House, 2014 Acrylic on canvas, paper tape, 84 x 40 (+5) in. (213.4 x 101.6 (+12.7) cm) Courtesy of the artist
Iemke van Dijk Leiden, NL
Untitled Wall Drawing, 2014 Graphite on wall, site-specific, dimensions variable (above: installation view of private commission, Leiden, NL)
Henriëtte van ’t Hoog Amsterdam, NL
Triangle I, 2012 Acrylic on zinc, 17 3/8 x 11 x 5 ½ in. (44 x 28 x 14 cm) Courtesy of the artist
Ruth van Veenen Haarlem, NL
Untitled, 2012 Oil on linen, 11 他 x 11 他 in. (30 x 30 cm) Courtesy of the artist
Don Voisine New York, US
Oil on wood panel, 32 x 32 in. (81.3 x 81.3 cm) Courtesy of the artist and McKenzie Fine Art, New York, NY
Redwood City, US
#48, 2012 Acrylic on hand-tinted paper mounted on 8-ply board, 11 x 9 Â˝ in. (27.9 x 24.1 cm) Courtesy of the artist and Jancar Jones Gallery, Los Angeles, CA
Guido Winkler Leiden, NL
One of the endless possibilities of seeing a particular rectangle a little different XII, 2011 Acrylic on wood, 17 他 x 13 3/8 in. (45 x 34 cm) Courtesy of the artist
Patricia Zarate New York, US
Sweet Spot, 2014 Acrylic on wood, 48 x 2 ½ x ½ in. (121.9 x 6.4 x 1.3 cm) Courtesy of the artist (above: Sweet Spot with detail on right)
EXHIBITION CHECKLIST Steven Baris Somewhere Beyond or Behind D4, 2011
Oil on Mylar 24 x 24 in.
Stations of the Cube #4, 2014 3 acrylic on Plexiglas panels, shelf 13 x 11 in. (33 x 27.9 cm) each shelf length: 37 ½ in. (95.3 cm)
All works courtesy of DM Contemporary, New York, NY
Richard Bottwin Yellow Façade, 2013
Maple, ash veneer and acrylic color 20 x 17 ¼ x 7 ½ in. (50.8 x 43.9 x 19 cm) Courtesy of the artist
Rob de Oude Double Take #9, 2014
Acrylic on wall, site-specific Dimensions variable
Proximities and Parameters, 2014
Oil on canvas 54 x 54 in. (137.2 x 137.2 cm)
Spectral Quadrant / 1, 2014 Ink on paper 12 x 12 in. (30.5 x 30.5 cm)
Spectral Variation / 2, 2014 Ink on paper 12 x 12 in. (30.5 x 30.5 cm)
Spectral Variation / 3, 2014 Ink on paper 12 x 12 in. (30.5 x 30.5 cm)
Spectral Variation / 5, 2014 Ink on paper 12 x 12 in. (30.5 x 30.5 cm)
All works courtesy of the artist
Edgar Diehl Jupiter Landung IV, 2014 Acrylic on aluminum 19 5/8 x 19 5/8 in. (50 x 50 cm) Courtesy of the artist
Gabriele Evertz Messenger Spectrum, Door to the East Series 2013 Acrylic on canvas over wood 18 x 18 in. (45.7 x 45.7 cm) Courtesy of Minus Space, Brooklyn, NY
Kevin Finklea Dolores Street, 1963, 2011
Acrylic on anodized aluminum 14 x 17 in. (35.6 x 43.2 cm)
Acrylic on laminated mahogany 5 ¼ x 9 ¾ x 5 1/8 in. (13.3 x 24.8 x 13 cm)
All works courtesy of the artist
Parakeet for Palermo, group 2, 2010 Acrylic on canvas and acrylic on basswood Large disc: 8 x ½ in. diameter (21.5 cm diameter) Small disc: 2 3/8 x 2 in. diameter (5 x 6 cm diameter)
Pelikan for Palermo #8, 2014 Acrylic on laminated poplar 22 ½ x 3 x 2 ¾ in. (57 x 7.5 x 7 cm) All works courtesy of the artist and Pentimenti Gallery, Philadelphia, PA
Travelin’ Light, 2013-P21, 2013
Watercolor on paper 25 5/8 x 19 ¾ in. (65 x 50 cm) Courtesy of the artist
Lucky Strike, 2013 Acrylic on shaped panel 21 x 22 in. (53.3 x 55.9 cm)
Hope Break Beat II, 2014
Similar Motions, 2014
Charcoal on paper 18 x 14 in. (45.7 x 35.6 cm) Courtesy of the artist
Brent Hallard Green Candy, 2011
Acrylic on aluminum 9 ½ x 9 ½ in. (24.1 x 24.1 cm)
Orange Candy, 2011
Acrylic on aluminum 9 ½ x 9 ½ in (24.1 x 24.1 cm)
Acrylic on wall, site-specific Dimensions variable, approximately 13 x 11 ft (4.9 x 3.4 m) All works courtesy of Minus Space, Brooklyn, NY
Gracia Khouw Closed Circuit series / CC3 (yellow/black), 2014 Acrylic on Dibond 28 3/8 x 28 3/8 in. (72 x 72 cm) Courtesy of the artist and Galerie Hein Elferink, Staphorst, NL
Sarah Klein & David Kwan
Lone Star, 2013
Vielen Danke Schoen, 2013
Single-channel video with sound 2:05 min Installation of stills (adjacent wall) Courtesy of the artists
Stephen Maine HP13-0909, 2013
Acrylic on canvas 40 x 40 in. (101.6 x 101.6 cm) Courtesy of the artist
Joanne Mattera Chromatic Geometry 21, 2013
Encaustic on panel 12 x 12 in. (30.5 x 30.5 cm) Courtesy of Elizabeth Harris Gallery, New York, NY
Acrylic and fluorescent acrylic on panel 36 x 36 x 2 in. (91.4 x 91.4 x 5.1 cm) Courtesy of the artist
Debra Ramsay The effects of a fold on a Pink line, 2013
Colored pencil on vellum 10 x 10 in. (25.4 x 25.4 cm)
Two Equal Lovers with Yellow Green, 2013 Ink on Dura-Lar 6 x 6 in. (15.2 x 15.2 cm)
Two Equal Lovers with Yellow Green 2, 2013
Ink on Dura-Lar 6 x 6 in. (15.2 x 15.2 cm)
All works courtesy of Minus Space, Brooklyn, NY
Camo Cube (Blue), 2006 Coroplast, silkscreened paper, glue 16 x 16 x 16 in. (40.6 x 40.6 x 40.6 cm)
2 vanishing points on 2 opposite diagonal lines #1
Untitled (Cube Study after Donald Judd), 2005 Coroplast, paper, acrylic ink, aluminum tape, glue 8 x 8 x 8 in. (20.3 x 20.3 x 20.3 cm)
Untitled (Stuffed Cube), 2011 ceramic, wood 10 Â˝ x 10 Â˝ x 10 in. (26.7 x 26.7 x 25.4 cm) All works courtesy of the artist and Gallery Paule Anglim, San Francisco, CA
2014 Ink on paper 21 5/8 x 21 5/8 in. (55 x 55 cm)
4 vanishing points in a square #3, 2014 Enamel on aluminum 24 x 24 in. (60 x 60 cm)
All works courtesy of the artist
Karen Schifano Pent Up House, 2014
Acrylic on canvas, paper tape 84 x 40 (+5) in. (213.4 x 101.6 (+12.7) cm) Courtesy of the artist
Wrench, 2014 Oil on wood panel 32 x 32 in. (81.3 x 81.3 cm) All works courtesy of the artist and McKenzie Fine Art, New York
Iemke van Dijk
Untitled Wall Drawing, 2014
#48, 2012 Acrylic on hand-tinted paper mounted on 8-ply board 11 x 9 ½ in. (27.9 x 24.1 cm)
Graphite on wall, site specific Dimensions variable Courtesy of the artist
Henriëtte van ’t Hoog Core IV, 2012
Acrylic on zinc 7 ½ x 7 7/8 x 5 1/8 in. (19 x 20 x 13 cm)
Triangle I, 2012
Acrylic on zinc 17 3/8 x 11 x 5 ½ in. (44 x 28 x 14 cm) All works courtesy of the artist
Ruth van Veenen Untitled, 2012
Oil on linen 11 ¾ x 11 ¾in. (30 x 30 cm) Courtesy of the artist
Don Voisine plus/minus, 2003 Lasa marble 8 7/8 x 8 7/8 x 2 5/8 in. (22.5 x 22.5 x 6.7 cm)
#61, 2013 Acrylic on hand-tinted paper mounted on 8-ply board 11 x 9 in. (27.9 x 22.9 cm) All works courtesy of the artist and Jancar Jones Gallery, Los Angeles, CA
Guido Winkler One of the endless possibilities of seeing a particular rectangle a little different XII, 2011
Acrylic on wood 17 ¾ x 13 3/8 in. (45 x 34 cm) Courtesy of the artist
Patricia Zarate Sliding Up, 2014
Acrylic on wood 144 x 1 ¼ x ½ in. (289.6 x 3.2 x 1.3 cm)
Sweet Spot, 2014 Acrylic on wood 48 x 2 ½ x ½ in. (121.9 x 6.4 x 1.3 cm) All works courtesy of the artist
DOPPLER SHIFT: EXTENDED PLAY A Program of Time-Based Art
This program of time-based art runs concurrently with Doppler Shift. These animations examine perception, effects from the interplay of geometric forms, light and shadow and their afterimages. Undulating images emerge when Johan Rijpma repeatedly tears and reassembles a sheet of paper. José Heerkens instigates a poetic dialog between her paintings and a casual conversation. Lon Godin reveals dynamic patterning in her painting process. Iemke van Dijk plays with common materials to find order within chaos. Jen Stark layers paper to create an experimental color collage. Benjamin Ducroz’s rigid drawings find their home in a natural landscape. Gilbert Hsiao fixes our gaze on a discovered zoetrope. Sarah Klein and David Kwan take up the basic but problematical challenge of drawing light. Curated by Sarah Klein. Compiled and produced by David Kwan. Johan Rijpma (Amsterdam, NL) Division, 2012, 1:16 min.
Jen Stark (Miami, US) Believer, 2011, 5:21 min. (not included in DVD)
José Heerkens (Zeeland, NL) Meet Me in Brooklyn, 2012, 3:03 min.
Benjamin Ducroz (Melbourne, AU) Pin, 2007, 0:32 min.
Lon Godin (Amsterdam, NL) Fluid, 2013, 3:00 min.
Gilbert Hsiao (New York, US) Castro Valley Jump, 2012, 1:00 min.
Iemke Van Dijk (Leiden, NL) Under Influence, 2012, 0:51 min.
Sarah Klein & David Kwan (San Francisco, US) Lone Star, 2013, 2:05 min.
The Visual Arts Center of New Jersey is pleased to include a DVD supplement with this publication, featuring nearly all of the time-based works that were on view during the exhibition’s run. This DVD was made possible by the generous support of The Golden Rule Foundation. For more information, visit goldrule.org. above: Jen Stark, Believer (video still), 2011
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The Visual Arts Center of New Jersey is proud to present our newest exhibition, Doppler Shift, featuring works of twenty-seven internationally-acclaimed artists. Using as its springboard the visual translation of the phenomenon of the Doppler effect – commonly heard when a vehicle sounding a siren approaches, passes, and recedes from an observer—the result is truly a “retinally-intoxicating” show. Viewers will find themselves caught up in the optical peculiarities inherent in the relationship between two- and threedimensional spaces. The result is a show that startles, provokes and inspires, and one that embodies the power of the Art Center’s mission of “bringing art and people together.” Doppler Shift is made possible through the work of Curator Mary Birmingham. Mary consistently presents exhibitions that provoke, inspire, and engender new interest in the work of contemporary artists, and this exhibition is particular proof of her vision and expertise. On behalf of the Board of Trustees, I extend our sincere gratitude to Mary and to the twenty-seven artists represented here. In addition, I want to applaud Exhibitions Manager Katherine Murdock, Design & Publications Manager Kristin Maizenaski, and former Exhibitions Registrar Justin Hall, as well as, of course, the entire Art Center staff for their contributions in developing, supporting, and fundraising for this important exhibition. I also thank Thomas Micchelli for the remarkable essay “The Anti-History of Optical Art.” Finally, special gratitude to the Board of Trustees and the newly-launched Exhibition Support Team for their generous support and leadership in helping to sustain the Art Center as a leading cultural resource. Derek K. Mithaug Executive Director
68 Elm Street, Summit, NJ 07901 908.273.9121 www.artcenternj.org
Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday & Friday: 10 am – 5 pm Thursday: 10 am – 8 pm Saturday & Sunday: 11 am – 4 pm Cover artwork: Gabriele Evertz, Messenger Spectrum, Door to the East Series, 2013 Design by Kristin Maizenaski Printed by Prestige Color © 2014, Visual Arts Center of New Jersey ISBN: 978-0-925915-48-1 Major support for the Visual Arts Center of New Jersey is provided in part by the New Jersey State Council on the Arts/Department of State, a Partner Agency of the National Endowment for the Arts, the Wilf Family Foundations, the Geraldine R. Dodge Foundation, The Horizon Foundation of New Jersey, the WJS Foundation, and Art Center members and donors. Additional support is also provided by the Art Center’s Exhibition Support Team: Helaine & John Winer and Elisa & Louis Zachary.