Installation view of Reflections: Surface and Substance. Courtesy of the Mary M. Torggler Fine Arts Center.
By Betsy DiJulio
Immediately on the heels of the opening of the Torggler Fine Arts Center’s current exhibition, I was fortunate to catch up with curator Lucas Matheson via an email Q & A to probe beneath the shiny outer layers of Reflections: Surface and Substance. His answers have me scanning my calendar for my first opportunity to head across the water to CNU and dive into this exhibition. I hope the same proves true for you.
Betsy DiJulio (BD): First, Lucas, I understand you have been at the Torggler as associate curator and exhibitions manager since March 2023. Will you share an overview of the Torggler’s curatorial direction to date?
Lucas Matheson (LM): The Torggler is a non-collecting institution with a focus on contemporary art, and our curatorial direction has engaged the breadth of art today. Painting, sculpture, mixed media, moving images, textiles, readymades – one of the main characteristics of contemporary art is that everything is on the table as a potential subject to make art about or a material with which to make art. Our curatorial direction is aiming to respond to that and communicate that breadth and creative license to our audience. We make occasional forays into historical presentations of 20th century art, as with our most recent show of sculptures by Anna Hyatt Huntington, but shows like Reflections are our bread and butter.
BD: I am a fan of, especially your “bread and butter.” As for the most current “taste” of that, Reflections: Surface and Substance, was this exhibition your brainchild or was it on the books before your tenure began? And, regardless, why did this seem to be the right moment at the Torggler and within the larger contemporary art world for an exploration of both reflective surfaces and reflection as a thought process?
LM: This exhibition was organized by executive director, Holly Koons and me. The majority of our shows are organized in-house, and that’s a standard we work hard to maintain. However, we do like to bring good traveling shows to our space when they’re available!
Reflections is part of a series of group exhibitions with a material focus that Holly initiated with Flora/Fauna/Fiber in 2022 and continued with The Possibilities of Paper in 2023. As for the timeliness of this exhibition, there are a few reasons. The first is that a number of artists we found interesting were working with reflective materials that intersected with big questions of contemporary art: questions of value, of taste, of the elevation of the commonplace. The second is that shiny, smooth surfaces (particularly machine-made) are one of the hallmarks of contemporary material culture. The third reason is that as an art space, particularly one at a university, we want to show people that one of the greatest potentials for art is to unify the manual with the intellectual, and considering reflection felt like a great entry point.
BD: I remember those previous materials-based shows well. And the intersection of the “manual with the intellectual” really resonates with me. When I look online at the work of some of the artists in the show, there is quite an enticing range of subjects, styles, and approaches from what appears to be artists in varying stages of their careers. What were some of the factors that drove decisions related to what artists and what work to include?
LM: A significant part of my responsibility is traveling to see art, and this past year has taken me to London, Venice, Copenhagen, New York, Los Angeles, and Miami. I’m getting the pulse of what’s going on out there, good and bad. So, the show emerges from what I’ve seen and what Holly has seen. Beyond that though, there are a variety of factors to manage: artwork availability, artist calendars, spatial limitations, etc. Ultimately you want a show that rings true, that responds organically to the state of contemporary art, particularly for a show that is aiming to be a survey. And one of the truths about the art world is that artists work across media, that everything is on the table in terms of possible methodologies, style, materials etc. So, capturing that breadth, as much as is feasible, was certainly a priority.
ADVERTISEMENT
BD: I appreciate the way you balance both focus and breadth. It could be argued that virtually all art is “reflective” in terms of the artist’s thought process. So, it seems that “reflection” could be a rather thin premise for an exhibition. Knowing the Torggler, though, I’m sure that’s not the case. Do these artists “reflect” in ways different from other artists? Or do they “reflect” in much the same ways only using reflective materials? If you would, please share what constitutes “reflection” for this exhibition, providing some examples for VEER readers.
LM: I would push back on that point because there are plenty of artists that make entirely optical work and artists that work in an intuitive or even anti-intellective mode. Those modes are not necessarily better or worse than others, but for this show we were interested in teasing out that interesting dual meaning of that word “reflection” in English. Put very simply, the practices here have an intellectual and art historical depth that makes for interesting art. To give two examples, Paul Mpagi Sepuya’s work layers mirrors, fabrics, and physical space to question the trustworthiness of photos as evidence. His work isn’t literally reflective, but it originates in a physical reflection, and we wanted to play with that tension between reflective materials and images of reflection. One of Trevor Shimizu videos, Lonely Loser Trilogy: Skateboard Videos, has us see through the artist’s eyes as he sits on the couch watching skateboard videos on an iPad while wearing Google Glasses. Watching with the artist, when his screen goes blank, we briefly see his reflection, another moment of rupture. I’ve had that experience myself, and it often makes me feel embarrassed! What at first almost feels like anti-art or a joke over time becomes a meditation on art itself, on the passive pleasures of looking.
BD: Sounds like a rich topic for a future conversation! Maybe we define “reflection/reflective” differently, but I would posit that one paradox of artmaking is that some brand of consideration or “reflection” enters the artmaking processes of even those artists who are primarily engaged in the optical, intuitive or anti-intellective approaches that you reference. As Nabokov said in a way far more engaging than me, “There is no science without fancy, and no art without facts.” To be continued over coffee, I hope!
From your perspective, what are some pieces that are absolutely not to be missed in this show and why? For instance, I am eager to see the work of Ebony G. Patterson up close and personal and recently used it as the prompt for a journal entry for my upper school students. Is my intrigue warranted?
LM: Your intrigue is certainly warranted with Ebony G. Patterson. There is an abundance to her work that is a delight to behold in person. But the artist has said that beauty is “a trap,” so visitors should be mindful about their experience of being lured in! I can’t play favorites, but it is special for us to have Liang Hao’s The Dark Side Surges on view. It’s no small thing for a painting to travel from Shanghai to Newport News, and he is an artist that hasn’t shown very much in the US, so I hope people will take the chance to see the work.
BD: Yes, in the video we watched, Patterson did share that she uses the “trap” of beauty to entice the viewer into going deeper, as we did. But there is still more!
Some of these artists’ bodies of work seem fairly conceptual, which is not a criticism. But, often, even those well-versed in art need an entry point into the work or assistance reading an artist’s “language.” What kind of expanded labels, didactic panels, or educational materials will be provided for visitors who want to dig in but aren’t quite sure how?
LM: We have labels that explain every artist’s practice in our show, and I take the explanatory aspect of my job very seriously. I have very little interest in showing inscrutable work or preaching to the art choir, so to speak. I won’t deny that some of the works are certainly more challenging than others, or might be more rewarding to those with more art historical background, but my job as a curator is to increase visitors’ knowledge about what’s going on in art. I hope folks give the work a shot. On top of that, Holly and I give free, bi-weekly exhibition tours. Check our website for dates!
BD: I hope they do too. I look so forward to seeing the show and, as a former museum educator, I bow in your direction for walking the curatorial tightrope of wanting to provide intellectual access to every artist without over-explaining.
In closing, what else would you like to share with our readers about these artists and their work?
LM: The art and artists that I am drawn to make their work with the spirit of the gift. In making art these artists give something to the world with the aim of it being understood, of being in dialogue with viewers’ lives. Whether or not the artworks are successful is always debatable of course, but what we are presenting here is ultimately one person’s attempt to reach another through an object. To me, that’s a special gift.
BD: To me, you, Holly, and the Torggler are a special gift. Thank you.
WANT TO SEE?
Reflections: Surface and Substance
Through February 23
Mary M. Torggler Fine Arts Center
Writer Betsy DiJulio is a visual arts educator at Norfolk Academy and an exhibiting artist in her own right. She lives in Virginia Beach and Atlantic Shores.
