HIVE AND DOUBLE ELEANOR ALDRICH + BARBARA WEISSBERGER
GRIN
difficult, difficult, lemon, difficult
HIVE AND DOUBLE ELEANOR ALDRICH & BARBARA WEISSBERGER MARCH 26 - APRIL 23, 2016
In Hive and Double, Aldrich and Weissberger present a collaborative body of work
about
the
installation
or
exhibition
between production and product.
of
large
work
that
blurs
the
lines
Touching on the tension between the possi-
bilities of the studio and the singularity of the installed work,
their output is
about artistic production and labor in post-industrial studios and DIY exhibition spaces . In addition to the physical labor involved in dealing with substances, there is a consideration of preserving space for mystery, the unexpected, and the phenomenological. "The
work
comes
together
through
Skype
chats,
emails,
individual
material
investigations, and the final in-person negotiation of the works in relation to each other and in space. In this way, our work explores the nature of collaboration and authorship, and challenges the assumed autonomy of the physical art object by allowing it to be borrowed for different configurations, to live in multiple contexts. We are curious about perception and reality. Together our work forms structures within which the actual (real) thing, abstraction, pictorial space and physical space freely circulate and mingle. Material and substance are mutable. Idea and matter, belief and doubt, are framed in terms of a fluid, multidirectional exchange. We make (or alter) all the objects in the installations, and even the flattest parts (photograph and canvas) are called out as physical objects. The
most
obviously
physical,
the
so-called
real
things
(hand-made
chair
or
shoe for example) also hover at the edge of image. Ultimately mysterious, our work harkens back to a time when the in-situ nature of painting and sculpture put them in close proximity to the actual objects of church and home, and architectural features and physical object guide the transition from the actual to the implied space, and encompasses conversations of metamorphosis
and
transubstantiation,
Aldrich + Weissberger eleanoraldrich.com barbaraweissberger.net
belief
and
the
nature
of
reality."
//
hive and double
eleanor aldrich united paint buckets. oil, enamel, paper and silicone, approx 8" x 6" x 6" e. 2016
barbara weissberger hammer nose, archival pigment prints, custom shaped frames, 21.5� x 36� 2016
ELEANOR ALDRICH + BARBARA WEISSBERGER IN CONVERSATION WITH CHARLIE SMITH ON THE OCCASION OF HIVE AND DOUBLE AT GRIN
Charlie Smith: Both of you mentioned to me that you like puns. This makes me
think
about
specifically,
the
doubling,
or,
idea
something
of
more
“doubling as”. For example, this exercise bicycle washing machine pictured here.
This
exists
for
is
a
the
phenomenon
sake
of
that
efficiency
-
literally doing two things at the same time. Knowing that you work remotely but your individual practices are intricately can
woven
you
with
speak
a
the
collaboration,
little
on
how
the
nature of making an object is or isn’t
What
influenced
was
by
knowing
that
it
will
brought that
we
us
together
had
a
originally
natural
affinity
need to be a part of a dialogue that
towards each other’s work. I think we
you can’t see until you’re on site?
are still in sync, as far as the rather banal
objects
we
are
with,
our
interest
Eleanor Aldrich: Usually we start out
working
with a vague idea of what we will be
considerations
working
space,
with.
Our
installation
at
the
Drawing Center started with the idea
and
like
our
interested
the
shared
in
in
formal
illusion
of
conviction
in
the autonomy of the object.
of something that would be displayed on the floor, so that got me thinking
Barbara Weissberger: I love the idea
about rugs, and we already had the
of the pun as double, or doubling as.
loose idea of a mop. But, I think it
It resonates with our discussion about
is
our
the edge between image and object,
collaboration that we both have auton-
material and image, individual mark or
omy
are
gesture, and representation. For Hive
us
and Double we arrived at the conceit
doesn’t
of a show within a show. Among the
critical over
making are
in
to
the
(or
with)
the
studio.
executors.
precede
success
the
The
object.
what
of we
Neither idea But,
of
there
is
objects
in
it,
mostly
hand-made
by
some necessary consideration of how
us, some would refer to the tools of
it will fit together. What I do is make
the
or gather up more work than we will
would
need, and then edit in the space.
exhibition.
studio be
and the
gallery,
finished
and
works
some of
an
The audience will be left
to piece together what is extraneous
BW:
and what is the final product. In The
spiritualize the banal objects either. I
Ecological
have
Thought,
Timothy
Morton
I
wouldn’t always
say
been
The
I
drawn
to
abject
at the end of its whiskers or at the
sad quality that interests me. Some-
end of a beaver’s dam?” Our installa-
thing about pathos in humble things.
tion would express the “phenotype” of
There’s
the work of art; how it extends from
photographs and much of what I set
artist or tools or studio, to viewer or
up is on the floor - a humble, abject
gallery space.
place, but also solid and grounding. Eleanor,
The
answer
is
it
stops
at
the
I
a
tools
to
things.
always
and
want
asks “Does the beaver phenotype stop
EA:
mops
that
lot
believe
of
you
have
dirt
work
in
a
my
on
the
floor a lot too.
beaver’s “damn!”. Eleanor had been playing around with CS: Hahaha! Of course!
portraits,
This makes me think of performance,
seemed that portraiture - rooted in art
or,
history,
so
also makes me question what we can
can
taken
or can’t call “making”. I’m not particu-
as raw material - would be a useful
larly interested in the Beuys model –
subject for the internal show. Because
as in, let’s all get together and watch
anything
this grand spectacle where the Artist
often is, a part of my images, I start-
enlightens
what
ed by thinking about tools. Within the
your collaboration is doing. It’s closer
fluid space that I like to work in, the
to,
tools became part of loose portraits -
perhaps
let’s
these
performative
us. all
get
people
recycling.
But,
do
What
objects/actions
making.
that’s
together dishes is
that
not and
or
watch
sort
it
about
you
refer
It
the
these to
as
and
be
after
familiar
in
for
the
some that
time
the
granted
studio
portrait
and
can
it
used
be,
and
twin heads with an oversized plaster hammer that I made for a nose. While
we
are
both
and emails and talk on the phone, so
it
has
something
to
do
throughout
the
exchange
and
with the hierarchy of objects or prac-
happens
tice,
send
but,
speaking
for
myself,
it
is
on
not as much about wanting to spiritu-
sometimes
alize the banal as it is pointing out
work
the mystery and potential - the talis-
make,
mans
text
of
human
experience
that
the
objects are. The experience of seeing
a
photos in
process subtle
back
and
next
that
messages
level.
and to
would
As
each
loop
is
which
forth,
pieces
can
jpegs
there
influence,
respond the
exchange
our
tualize them as handmade, cared for? Maybe
we
in
separate
EA:
studios
working
“banal” that makes you want to spiri-
we we
other’s that
we
back.
Our
make
a
good
archive of our process.
the back of someone’s head is like seeing a mop with its head up. Even
CS: Putting a face on an object is a
in
strong statement about giving it a life.
the
most
sanctified
or
set
aside
places you have the banal, the tile,
Are
the cleaning products, the napkins.
people when you make a portrait, or
you
thinking
of
any
specific
is it more like you’re looking for the
selves
face
that
would
arrangement
of
belong
at
odds.
With
your
“Collage
to
this
Formations”, Barbara, our perspective
hammers/tools?
How
into your confusing spaces are totally
does a tool get anthropomorphized?
contained window sion.
by
the
looking
Eleanor,
frame
into you
-
like
another often
a
dimen-
break
the
frame to bring us out of that container
and
into
the
very
real
space
between our bodies and the surfaces we look at. How do you locate the frame when you collapse these logics, that
is,
if
it
can
be
located?
Is
it
extruded? BW: Collapse may be a good way to think about the frame(s), or perhaps expanded is better. One of the things that
happens
to
our
images
and
objects, in the context of the collaboration, is that the photograph, painting, or object becomes material. So, yes, the frame is critical to the experience BW:
Wow.
I
am
really
not
thinking
about a specific person. I don’t think I have a precise portrait in mind at all, although with the piece “The Saddest Clown” I did have the intention of making a sad clown. Mostly I go by feel. It’s really an improvisation. I think
about
a
face,
features,
and
poke around the studio for things to use. I like to use things in ways that take them outside of their usual functions
or
associations,
although
that’s
not even so conscious. There’s a lot of trial and error. I think I have a natural inclination to anthropomorphize things in a cartoonish way. CS: In each of your individual practices, the frame seems like an important tool, but the manners in which each of you employ this tool find them
of
graphs,
the
but
spaces
when
in
the
my
photo-
photograph
is
curled over an object or painting of Eleanor’s
the
paper-ness
and
the
edges of the print are in high-relief. I’m
not
feeling
sure of
if
an
this
image
intensifies held
the
inside
a
frame, or if it somehow acts against the pictorial. Maybe both.
Eleanor do
you think the interaction of our separate
elements
between
thing
shifts and
the
tensions
image
in
your
work? EA: Yes. I want my images to first be taken as objects, and then seen in
terms
of
image.
The
installation
gets rid of the fixed viewpoint, and therefore
the
frame.
But
I
like
the
play between actual light and shadow, and photographed or painted light and shadow. There are so many different realities couched in them.
BW:
Right!
I
think
that’s
critical
to
both our work - the tension between actual and depicted light. CS: I also am intensely focused on this phenomenon when I look at the work. I think that your collaboration is one
of
images
those
situations
and
where
documentation
the
of
the
work can be considered an extension of the making process. It’s one form of
experience,
experience This
is
in
of
the
definitely
to
person.
in
related
collage
formations,
coming
back
to
addition work
to
your
I
keep
Barbara.
the
the
image
of
the
“gloves” (?). I can’t tell if they are objects carved from foam, then placed on
the
surface
of
a
book,
or
if
they’re actually printed into the image IN the book, or both. I keep looking at the shadows beneath the hand and trying to discern if the shadow is cast on
the
object,
page or
if
of
the
the
book
shadow
is
by part
the of
the image. There’s
something
really
interesting
about trying to discern the “reality” of an object by looking at its shadow like
measuring
the
volume
of
an
object through displacement. I’m also interested in this idea of a practice that can continue to grow to encompass
more
and
more
of
itself,
its
“background labor”. Documentation is, perhaps, part of that realm. This collaboration is still in an infantile state, but it’s like The Blob… It’s GROWING…… IT’S GROWING!!!!!!! Will it ever stop? Are there boundaries in your lives that you are holding onto? As an extension of this question, is there an “adult form” for your practice?
BW: Oh that’s cool, I’m glad to
hear
about that uncertainty. EA: I like what you said about shadows
-
They
are
never
wrong,
are
they? BW: I’m not sure I would put it in terms of infancy and maturity, but I suppose there’s something to that. In the
relatively
been
process
and
evolved
a
happens.
It
in
short
working
time
together, what lot.
we’re
Eleanor
we’ve
think see
to
our
doing
We’ll
continues
progress.
that I
be
has
has what
a
work
described
the coming together of the parts to make a new whole as phenomenological. EA:
Yeah,
I
don’t
know
where
the
collaboration will go; if we can make it
through
years,
the
and
emotionally a
gap
raw
year
teen
finding
ourselves in Europe, we might have a chance at an “adult form.” But in all seriousness, I think something we are talking about and considering for the
future
is
collaboration
how -
the
we
document
types
of
our
spaces
we show in. Labor in a DIY space is different
from
a
non-profit,
which
is
different from a commercial or educational space. I think one boundary
that we hold onto is that most of the
portrait
objects
that might be out when putting up the
are
made
or
altered
by
us.
show,
as
well
as
So, if you unpack the photos all the
exhibition,
or
way down, you end up with objects
hammers,
buckets,
etc.
from a handmade parallel universe.
important
to
that
in
the
us
the
studio; It
stuff
ladders,
was
we
very
weren’t
making work with some false pretense CS: There’s so much distance packed
around it. We weren’t aping personas
into
of other artists to make the portrait
this
collaboration.
Both
of
you
work nomadically, alternating between
work.
different cities, states, even regions of
open-ended
the country. It’s interesting how both
from.
It
just
became
phrase
to
few
objects
another
make
work
of you then make things that are so focused on what’s immediately in front
There
of
a
actually made the trip between Knox-
any,
ville and Pittsburgh, and early on in
you,
but
possible
always
“coming
stay
tied
together”.
to
If
are
a
that
have
what is the role of narrative in your
our
collaboration
(a
whopping
year
collaboration?
and
a
we
did
each
Can
you
trace
the
half
ago)
send
evolution of an object from Knoxville,
other more objects to use in composi-
to
tions. There were some silicone mop
Montana,
to
Pittsburgh,
to
Provi-
dence?
heads that appeared in each of our work,
but
I
think
we
aren’t
as
agreed
that
EA: Well, no-mad is an island. Place
generally
doesn’t
the same thing changing mediums as
work
really
matter
goes.
Barbara
The
and
I
as
far
distance
is
always
as
my
between so
large
anyway, it doesn’t matter if she is in
we
we
were
in
distinct
interested
things
we
in
have
made coming together. Barbara?
Pittsburgh or Montana, our collaborative
process
emailing
BW: Agree. I think we do both work
is the same. The places that matter
with what’s in front of us, and have
are
together.
a DIY attitude. I myself like to work
Then, it matters how big the space
in various studios with a pared down
is, and how much we could mail/fit in
kit of tools and materials. I like how
our car, and how much time we have.
it
But I think we have always taken on
Eleanor says. This carries through to
limitations
the installation, where we try to work
when
of
we
as
texting are
part
and
actually
of
our
work.
I
know I am always working just on the
pushes
me
toward
invention
-
as
from a position of responsiveness.
verge of material deficit, and it makes me more inventive. Both our work has
CS:
that kind of DIY aesthetic.
your practice must radically fluctuate
I’m
from As
far
as
narrative
goes,
Hive
and
imaging
studio
frame
to
anything we have done so far. Work-
How
does
ing
change
the
idea
that
we
were
making “work” for a loosely defined
the
pace
installation
of
space.
You’ll only have a short, rigid time-
Double has more of a narrative than with
to
how
work when
once
your
you
decision
you’ve
meet
up.
making
entered
this
space of necessarily immediate resolu
tion?
Can
two
minds
tackling
the
same problems work them out in half the
time,
or
does
it
take
twice
as
long to reach two understandings with equal validity? The
the
installation
as
tight
we
time
frame
is
make
discrete
for
doing
energizing.
The
independently
exist
objects.
When
we
bring
them together for the installation they have a dual life (back to the double). Each object is a separate thing and also is material. This relates to the idea
of
bridging
the
studio
and
the
object
in
the the
flux.
space
between
gallery,
keeping
When
we
install,
our larger ideas provide the ground. I
think
we
both
make
a
lot
of
the
formal and conceptual decisions from instinct.
Probably,
because
of
the
at
least
deadline,
in
part,
momentum
carries the whole thing. We seem to find
a
synergy
Certainly clearly
in
working
have
working with
been
together.
objects
made
by
that
one
or
the other, we each have to be willing to
allow
some
distance
ourselves
and
the
made.
that
is
But
between
objects where
we’ve
things
get
interesting, where the pieces take on a second life in this third thing, the collaborative piece. EA:
Yes
-
that
thing!
I
think
work coming together is that we work in a way that is natural to how we each work individually. I know I am driven by the mystery in objects and combinations of objects, and I use all of
tive
plan
on
one
occasion,
and
it
didn’t work, so it really is just a lot of trial and error with the limitations
materials,
CS:
So,
found
and
other-
wise. I think Barbara is similar in that she makes photos, but also objects, and uses found objects. We both
you
both
make
work
with
what you have around you, and, time is
one
of
resource limited,
those
that but
resources,
is
totally
also
albeit
relative
somehow
a
and
useful
in
can
be
that sense? EA:
Yes
-
I
think
collage
incredibly paralyzing - the tyranny of endless
choice.
Time
is
a
good
constraint in that way, as is the practicality
of
bringing
only
what
fits
in
the car. So much of my work relies on constraints. I work with materials that are just out of reach of my ability
to
control
them.
That
is
what
makes it exciting, and where some of the
mystery
our
collaboration
comes
from.
goes,
As it
far
is
as
really
important to leave the work and come back to it, whether just for a coffee break, or overnight. BW:
Ha!
that
found
I
find
collage
material
-
liberating things
in
that
already exist, even if I initially made them
third
what is crucial to the success of the
kinds
installing work with a more prescrip-
we have.
BW:
objects
have an affinity for collage. We tried
as
parts
for
something
else
–
provide something to respond to. The
way
I
work
there’s
always
the
possibility of re-recombining elements into new configurations – aaahhh! And that
also
goes
to
some
extent
with
the way we’re approaching the installation. It may be somewhat arbitrary, but time constraints are a good catalyst for finishing a piece. CS: In an earlier text, you offer a
mop as a symbol for something you
Rcall O S“backstage S N O R labor”. M A N DIt’s I Na
phrase
that articulates how you’re looking for an overlap in actions that are directly tied to making an object - painting, photographing, sculpting
- with more
ritualistic actions that provide structure for working artists - cleaning, earning income,
maintaining.
In
the
newer
text, it seems like you’ve replaced the term
“backstage”
What
new
with
“domestic”.
understanding
about
your
collaboration led you to this change? How
would
you
articulate
the
differ-
or private/public partly comes out of thinking about provisional painting (a phrase coined by Raphael Rubinstein where
the
finished
non-product,
an
is
a
anti-masterpiece,
product
a
partially wiped canvas), Warhol’s Brillo boxes, and Jasper John’s objects from around the studio. BW:
I
would
Johns,
add,
to
Oldenburg’s
Warhol
Mouse
and
Museum
collection of small models, made fragments and found objects.
ence between these two phrases?
EA: Rubinstein describes provisionality
EA: Well, there is a long history of
task of painting - a kind of slacker
“domestic”
as
analogous
with
as
“back-
stage” in terms of female roles, and it is something I am certainly aware of.
Both
kinds
of
labor
deal
with
physical substances. It is also something that has to do with private and public. our
As
artists,
labor
and
or
object
action
is
makers, done
in
private, but the showing is staged in public. I am not sure if we changed backstage to domestic for a specific reason other than that we developed another
idea
for
a
more
literally
staged show. I guess we use “backstage” and “domestic” both to refer to the studio, and the implied authenticity that comes from doing something in
private.
studio, ence
Still,
we to
are
some
of
course,
thinking degree,
in
about and
the audi-
who
or
what the work is in conversation with, as
well
That
is
as
speaking
what
this
to
show
each
other.
plays
with,
the idea that the “backstage”, or the stuff
that
contributes
face,
can
be
staged
to
the
public
itself, and
can
painters
not
showing
up
for
the
cool, or Zen humility, or the flexing of
a
privileged
position.
On
its
surface, it is a kind of spill, a half finished job, something that traditionally
would
be
left
backstage
to
be
cleaned up later. In making the work for this show I have been thinking a lot about the history of painting and its
doppelgangers
example,
my
an-esque
tile
in
piece
the
with
being
home, the
for
Mondri-
cleaned
with
a
plaster rag. BW: “Backstage” and “domestic” both suggest labor that is hidden and in support
of
primary
-
something we
can
else
leave
that
it
to
is the
viewer to draw connections to labor, gender and other inequities. the
tension
between
For me,
private
and
public speaks to a condition particular to
the
object
studio
out
as
into
it the
goes
from
the
I
am
world.
always looking for a way to keep the play
and
studio
be interesting or valuable.
finished
The collapse of backstage/exhibition
objects.
always
an
open-endedness
of
active
in
work.
presence
What
interested
in
Eleanor the
the the said;
mystery
of
CS: Right, and so much of that mys-
boundary between exterior and interior,
tery seems to be coming from us not
that we call “blinds”, but we actually
being
can see through…
able
identifying
to it
contain or
the
labeling
thing it
in
by an
EA: Right - glad it reads that way.
all-encompassing way. On
the
can’t
subject
help
Landscape
but in
Eleanor,
as
element
about
of
private/public,
think
of
this
Front
of
Blinds,
embodying how
an
the
I
piece, by
important
collaborative
practice approaches this subject. I get emotional when I look at this painting.
It’s
choly.
beautiful,
Formally
and
there
very are
so
melanmany
reversals happening. We see a repre sentation of outdoor space, that would belong in an interior, in front of a
CHARLIE SMITH Charlie Smith, born in Copenhagen, Denmark, received his BFA from Massachusetts College of Art and Design in 2010. He currently lives and works in Hudson, New York. charliesmithartist.com
eleanor aldrich chicana, oil and silicone, approx. 30" x 28" 2016
barbara weissberger slant, digital photograph/archival pigment print, 2016
eleanor aldrich tile with plaster rag (detail), acrylic, enamel, plaster wrap, tile and pigment on panel approx. 28" x 34" 2016
GRIN GRIN
is
a
contemporary
art
gallery
located
at
The
Plant
in
the
historic
Olneyville District of Providence, Rhode Island. Directed by Corey Oberlander and Lindsey Stapleton, GRIN was founded in 2013 as a space for artists to develop and exhibit their work with a steady curatorial hand. Our intent is to develop an intellectually demanding yet aesthetically pleasing program, focusing on emerging artists working across mediums. Our hope is to stimulate fresh dialogue while continuing to promote the development of the local creative community. Our mission is to support the careers of underexposed artists with a devotion to craft and conceptual advancement. grinprovidence.com
CONTACT 60 Valley Street, Unit 3, Providence, Rhode Island
02909
e. contact@grinprovidence.com p. 401 272 0796 Open Saturdays 12PM - 5PM by announcement, appointment and chance.z