Richard Rezac at The Art Institute of Chicago
by Robin Dluzen
Visitor with Rezac's installation.
The Art Institute of Chicago is featuring Chicago-based artist, Richard Rezac with an entire room in the new Modern Wing, because for displaying Rezac’s work, installation is everything. The gallery contains a mere six sculptures of various scales, but this limitation is necessary for accentuating the artist’s consideration of spatial details and relationships when composing his pieces; it is crucial that Rezac’s minimal, material sculptures have room to breathe.
I do mean “minimal,” in describing the work. The sculptures in this exhibition consist of one or two materials each, and are often simple, cohesive geometric forms. However, these are not simply “minimal” following in the Minimalist tradition. Though Rezac’s
"Untitled" 1993.
exhibition contains the large painted wood piece, Untitled from 1993, and though his practice often includes large scale works, these are decidedly not the cold, macho Minimalist objects of art history. Rezac’s works are absolutely powerful in their presence, but they also exude a harmoniousness that is welcoming, instead of intimidating. When the pieces in this show are large, they stay low to the ground so as not to aggressively invade our space; when they are suspended above us, they are light and airy, and they don’t threaten; Sometimes they stay in the corner waiting to be discovered upon approach. Perhaps the inclusion of an intuitive nature in the mathematical practice is responsible for a read of geniality over calculated-ness. In the statement on the wall of the gallery, it cites the artist as explaining, “I try to read the characteristics of the form, what it needs to be—heavy or light, what color, what method of construction it needs to have.”
"Veil" 1987.
Rezac’s sculptures are effortless to look at, though not to say they make viewers passive. Often hinting at familiar forms of the everyday, like the cast iron and silk, Veil (1987) which suggests, possibly, hair comb or telephone receiver forms, Rezac’s abstractions are still able to communicate universal content. Though looking is easy, the sculptures certainly are not breezily conceived or crafted. Of the objects in the exhibition, some components are cast through a labor-intensive and often dangerous process (like the iron of Curtain (1997)), or they are meticulously formed through processes just as complicated (like the glossily-painted cherry of the circular concave/convex forms of Untitled (08-08) from 2008). Even the installation choices are instances of decisions made through extensive consideration, like Curtain,
"Untitled (08-08)" 2008.
whose shape mimics the architecture of the wall that doesn’t quite meet the ceiling, on which it is installed. And though this effort is evident to us as viewers, somehow it doesn’t burden us with its laborious construction; is it cliché to say that perhaps this is because it is a labor of love?
Richard Rezac’s work is on display on the second floor of the Modern Wing of the Art Institute of Chicago, 111 South Michigan Avenue. Museum hours are Monday–Wednesday 10:30–5:00; Thursday 10:30–8:00 (Free Admission 5:00–8:00); Friday 10:30–5:00; Saturday–Sunday 10:00–5:00.
Rezac’s work can also be viewed at www.richardrezac.com and www.rhoffmangallery.com.
Rezac’s work couldn’t look any more complete. Wonderful.
It has been pointed out to me since the time of writing this article that the room severely segregates Rezac and his work from the rest of the art history of the surrounding museum. In fact, I believe that it has been used since the time of the Modern Wing’s opening exclusively for Chicago artists in the collection (Kerry James Marshall before Rezac).
Perhaps the room was meant to highlight Chicago artists, but is it doing more harm than good by presenting them as marginal, and separate from art history?
First, let me say that I really love the writing in CAM. You guys do a great job of keeping things straight-forward and comprehensive.
Regarding the “Chicago Room”: I see your point, however, as an artist myself, I will just say – it would (to me) only be the most tremendous honor to ever be highlighted in a place like The Art Institute of Chicago. It is not charity that they would showcase any artist’s work. It is based on merit and critique, and surely any artist who is shown there has earned every bit as much admiration and attention as any other within those walls. Media often has the ability to diminish the positives by asking these types questions. But the Art Institute would not show anything marginal or that would not be worthy of becoming a part of art’s history.
I very much agree that being highlighted with a museum show is an incredible honor for incredible artists, and (in my personal opinion) no one deserves it more than Rezac. And also, I do not believe that the Art Institute has any intention of marginalizing Chicago artists. But I do believe that context heavily influences meaning, and in this case, it cannot be ignored. All artists need to be aware of how our work is contextually framed when it leaves our studios, even if it happens to be in a prestigious institution.