Art review: Nathaniel de Large at Cirrus Gallery

The odd assortment of stuff that makes up the 13 pieces in Nathaniel de Large's first solo show, at Cirrus Gallery, would not be out of place in a dumpster, or piled in some dusty corner, awaiting disposal.

The devotion the young L.A. artist brings to such unremarkable things as chicken wire, cardboard shipping tubes and chunks of asphalt, however, has much in common with the specialized work done by high-end manufacturers of one-of-a-kind items or by uber-skilled restorers of valuable antiques: It is precise, purposeful and labor-intensive, almost but not quite obsessive, compulsive, monomaniacal.

This combination of cast-off objects and exquisite attentiveness reveals De Large to be a true eccentric: a light-handed junk-picker whose search for quirky stuff is only the beginning of an out-of-step quest to refashion the world into a playground for the imagination. Wonder, spiked with a shot of gentle absurdity, is the Holy Grail he coaxes into existence with his DIY inventions.

Draftsmanship matters to De Large, whose works are often made up of delicate lines. In addition to pencils and marking pens, he traces lines through space with carefully placed rubber bands, a broom handle, a potted plant and a string of silver necklaces. Some of his lines are fragile and tenuous, barely hanging in there to get the job done. Others are crisp, geometric and persistent, to the point of being relentless. But most are relaxed, as casual as happenstance.

To make the two largest works, De Large used a blade to cut through layers of cardboard, paper and laminate. "Blind Snake," a sprawling collage-cum-wall relief, is filled with nervous energy. "T-tube" is the sculptural equivalent of nail-biting anxiety, its simple form shot through with intractable bad habits.

Destruction and creation come together most forcefully in the smallest piece, a pocket sketchbook with pages worn through by overwork. Set on a pedestal in the corner, the easy-to-miss piece is a treasure trove of doodles and noodlings that pays homage to Lucas Samaras as it does its own thing.

A short video is also exemplary. On a scavenged TV resting in a shopping cart, "The Body as a Bubble Wand" shows De Large lying on his back in a homemade pool filled with soapy water. His legs occasionally emerge from the bath, ankles crossed, knees apart. The wind does the rest, blowing big, lumbering bubbles that travel a short distance and pop.

It's utterly silly. But its pace is relaxing, its set-up endearing, its modest drama enchanting. You find yourself rooting for De Large's bubbles, hoping that each one lasts  longer than it does. With a deft touch, De Large gets viewers to experience the world as a loopy adventure, a meandering journey filled with serendipitous twists and wonderful turns that keep us on our toes, almost dancing.

– David Pagel

Cirrus Gallery, 542 S. Alameda St., (213) 680-3473, through Jan. 30. Closed Sundays and Mondays. www.cirrusgallery.com

Image: Blind Snake. Photo credit: Gene Ogami.

Comments

[William Wray]

As far as work goes of the found object hewn into something whimsically clever Nathaniel de Large is rather good at it. What attracts me to a lot of these mutating household items is that beyond the humor there is a sculptural skill level and sense of composition that’s missing from many of the gathering and gluing types that dominate contemporary art. The manifest weakness in the show comes from the crowded field of lesser junk arrangers overpopulating the art world. Repetition lessens the impact on this form when the good examples come along. Less is more; weed out the garden. Plant variety so we can all eat balanced meals for our collective soul.

[Donald Frazell]

Sorry William, dont feel anything here but irritation. No depth I can see. Smeared paints in free form worked when in scultptural forms for Stella, but this has no structure, no organic life i can see, or again more importantly feel. you may be where i was with Hockney on this one. Just not interested enough to go see, got bigger fish to fry. But will look again later, great art takes at least three viewings in person to prove and get. I dont think this deserves a second.

Still just illustration of an idea instead of using theory as a basis to work FROM, towards life. And mearly seeking career, to create a signature for marketing purposes, not art.

art collegia delenda est

[Cate]

DF, it's true that this artist might be creating this work in search of a career, but you have said more than once, "Get a job."

WW, if you can bear to address my skeletal remains after the verbal gore fest between us a couple of nights ago, I'd like to raise a white flag in your direction and ask a question.

You don't completely trash this artist's junk. (You see, I do listen to what you and DF have to say.) Your comment helped me remember a painting I saw in person, and not just a digital image of one on a computer. It was Edouard Manet's "The Ragpicker." Is it possible that Nathaniel de Large is expressing every ragpicker's dream?

If you want to hear a good Christmas song, listen to Mark Knopfler's "Ragpicker's Dream." There are far too many ragpickers out there. I think I can agree with you on that point.

[William Wray]

Donald as the reviewer understood: “Draftsmanship matters to De Large” and I concur that there is the strength (beyond being just clever) in his handiwork here. So despite my feeling that he is working in a bankrupt category of art, I will cling positively to anything where I see skill is employed in some part of the execution of the work. Does the result have a passion that will help guide the public to a healthy interest in art again? No, it’s too cerebral for that.
As much as I’m frustrated by the prejudice of traditionally based contemporary art work, I can’t take a flamethrower to everything that doesn’t fit into my agenda, it makes it to easy for the brainwashed to dismiss a strict form of doctrine. I want to plant a seed of doubt that the modern art world has narrowed itself to the precipice of the public giving up on art that’s too impenetrable to communicate to them.

[William Wray]

And Cate should take your lack of reply to my last comments to you to mean your have no real passion for the arts, just a need to snipe and run? I look forward to a reasoned reply to my basic questions to you from our last encounter. I’m saddened and hope your silence doesn’t mean embarrassed acquiescence. I need reasoning thoughtful opponent who will defend the compulsive world of rag picking art.

[Donald Frazell]

Have our expectations, ambitions, and spiritual needs of creative art fallen so low? Apparently. The key purpose of the artist is to create a mythology of all, of a common humanity. Not pseudo intellectual games of splintered and myopic arrogance.

The Academic world gave up on the purpose of art as they believe it has no more to offer. THEY have nothing to offer, yes. Which is why humanity has looked eslewhere. If artists do not expand and evolve our definitions of humanity, nature and god, who will? Scientists can only do that of nature, they stil have not of man. And god is outside their realm, god being the ultimate and only true evolving and important "concept". As nature is outside of religion, and philosopy fallen into academic sophistry also. Artists took over this field, combining the three with Cezanne. The field of combat and growing interplay the canvas, sound and blank page.

We apparently have given up, or at least, the art world has so decayed into strict careerism. They are only of themselves. So puny, so small, so cut off from life. Creative art has its task, its purpose within humanity, we must get back to it, instead of looking for an angle, a hook, an Ism. Perhaps the time wasnt right, I certainly had given up on art as far as its relevance as an industry my entire life, having grown up around it.

But times have changed, now is the time. It has always been here, but wholesale changes of who we are and our common human purpose are at hand. It is time. This is but remnant of a decayed past, as surely as a Bouguereau was of his Gilded Age. It is time for a Salon de Refuses, though all salons are inherently evil, as a beaurocracy must be in place to judge. However, the purely intellectual(sic) art of today must at least be given an equal counter weight of passion, of a binding of humanity rather than glorifcation of the invdividual. Which has been now proven false.

Art hsa always been attached to religion, philosphy and politics, The art of today completely subsumed to the economics of corporate life. Where is the balance? Where is the masculine yang to this effeminant distorted yin? This is what we must pursue, in all forms, as but a few Monets and Cezannes and Gauguins crushed that earlier decadence, so would this. And that the museo/gallery/academic complex will not allow at all costs, as their very careers are at stake.

So be it. The war has begun. For they have been proven false concerns. And not of humanity, but as a parasite, sucking off the will to grow and evolve as a species. Balanced in mind, body and soul, our health has been compromised. Retarded, devolved, decayed. For the few, rather than the all.

art collegia delenda est
Save the Rodia/Watts Towers, tear down the Ivories

Now if I can just get my voice back, damn strep throat, must have gotten it hanging with the young trendies at the BeDesign party. I must say we do look damn good in the Vampire bed, me and my chocolate Suki, silly false decadent children. Its their parents who have perfected corruption, but they are on their way. As most looked terribly bored. And idle hands are the devils tools. And believe me, there are a lot of tools in Hollywood. Good to have an emergency room doctor as a sis-in-law.

[Cate]

William, I responded to your comments. I hadn't seen them until today. It seems odd that our exchange is after that Hugh Grant story, but I wasn't sure where else to put my reply.

Donald, I've been meaning to ask you something. Are the Watts Towers architectural follies? I wondered after reading about the concept of a "folly" here on Culture Monster. I had never heard of such a thing until then. If not considered a folly, are the Towers sculptures?

I hope you recover from the strep throat in time to enjoy the holidays.

[Donald Frazell]

They are spiritual sculptures, though they do have a non functional gazebo built into them. It is closely related to Gaudis work, and though I am tired of architects wanting to be sculptors all the time, an artist can be an architect, witness Michelangelo, but seldom if ever works the other way around.

Most architecture these days are folly based. There is no color, no room to put anything on walls, bad movement of people and sense of ease , they are built only for themselves, and the names of the patrons who financed them. On my blog i have shown how to easily rectify the LA Times Court and all of the old buildings at LACMA, using that ancient technology known as paint. But the lack of imagination and creativity in todays art "scene" insists on huge absurdist architecture, again, for the sake of Mausoleum, not for a common meeting and intermingling of ideas and people that Museums are supposed to be.

I am going to drop by the Towers today on the way to work, i am better, thanks for asking. Havent been there in a few years, since my son was young and took him to the Day of the Drum Festival from time to time, when he didnt have basketball tournaments. A young man i work with, practically another adopted son, lives a couple of blocks away and looking to buy a home there, but didnt mention any of the home fix up to me. It would be a good idea, but would rather they make them creative houses, not stencil backgrounds for butterflis and ponys, come on now.

Cant we do something a little more grown up? I would far rather seem a well designed botanical garden, with local shrubs and palm trees to complement the Towers, not attempt top match them with cutsiness rather than rhythmic spirituality. These are not Latin based designs, as Rodias were. Good idea, bad execution from what i am seeing, and totally unlivable for any males in the homes, who will paint the stuff over. Kinda, dare I say it, er, effeminant?

Color baby, color, style and livibility, and that means plants and trees that are maintained. Homes in these poor areas are usually rented, and not maintinaed by the landlords as they are rich old fools in the hills. Those who own property are far more likely to have pride in their homes and take care of them, and absentee landlords dont want to pay for tree trimming and are down for the Police helicopters to shine down upon.

In LA one can easily tell the wealth of a neighborhood by the amount of greenery they have. Long Beach looks like a forest from Signal Hill, we are a well balanced city, the rich not too rich, the poor not too poor. Though the damn teenagers want to think they are Snoop Dogg, who was bagging groceries before his first CD came out, Calvin all front. But thats another thread.

art collegia delenda est
Save the Watts Towers, tear down the Ivories

[Donald Frazell]

Went by the Towers, damn things werent even open at 11am when supposed to be at 10. one BMW sitting in the parking lot of the Art Center. May go by and get a tour this weekend, if there is anyone there, havent in quite a while. Only this one house is painted, and for $50k a house, they should be to rebuild the whole damn tiny things if using less than standard wages. Cute butterflies aint gonna cut it, gotta be pure Latino colors and festive yet livable designs, no white girl and metrosexual boy pony's and butterflys. Have some juevos already.

[William Wray]

Cate I read your patient and civilized reply and thank you for taking the time to write it. I think we got off on the wrong foot as I assumed you were out for a scrap with your "Bloody Shower" comment. I've been told that in England that bloody is the equivalent for the "f" word in America and combined with my sensitivity about my poor grammar equaled "Game On," no prisoners for me. In hindsight I folded your comments into my own agenda indiscriminately firing rapidly before listening. I apologize for that. By the way CK can be a bit obtuse in his analyses try the Rembrandt article written by Suzanne Muchnic on the same show, it’s a bit simpler and clearer. I talk about it a little on my art rant blog on nothing art.

[Maurice Fontaine Thibideaux]

De Large must be doing something right to catch the wrath of these luddites.