Bohyun Yoon: To Reverse Yourself – Artwork Review

By Jesse Bowling

Yoons work “To Reverse Yourself”, is a mirrored work with a whole cut ¾ up the mirror for a participator to place their face.  This work is made from a freestanding wooden frame with a mirror placed on one façade.  This work is in reference to Giuseppe Penone’s work “To Reverse One’s Eyes”.


In a small write-up by Yoon on this work on his website he explains how he is interested in the relationship of self to others. This work starts to reflect a hybrid image that combines one, the viewer and two, the participator; the participators face is placed on the viewer’s body. This work is dependent on the interaction of two people, so that the full optical engagement can be realized. Yoon seeks to reverse the viewer’s perspective of one self and how this engages with the “other” or how one can see your self but the defining part of your identity is removed and replaced with someone else’s face.


Yoon also states “…my work speaks about illusional experience as a whole”. I find this statement quiet shallow, I do not feel that it’s an “illusion” it’s far more literal than a normal mirror. This work breaks the illusional aspects of the mirrors representation of reality and questions the Foucauldian notions I explained in my previous review of Anish Kapoor’s work.  As one is “over there” but not complete, the face of the participator is present physically, and replaces your reflection with a “real” face that is not your own.

Over all this is an interesting work when the representation of self is concerned and links to my thinking around my practice of the representation of self through a digital medium.

This can also been seen as another interesting selfie opportunity as there are apps that replace the face of you with another, with this object you can do it with out the use of a digital tool, and have a great photo with your BFF.


Fragmented Mirror Works by Anish Kapoor – Art Review

By Jesse Bowling

Kapoor’s mirror works are large sculptures by artist Anish Kapoor. They are large, concave stainless steel discs made from many shapes.


Fragmented mirrors reflect the institution literally upside down. As you approach the mirror it flips reality back to normal. This is to do with optics and focal points. The focal points change with the light reflecting as your eye comes closer, you narrow your focal point hence the image becomes clearer for your perception to obtain a “normal” reflection. The mirror, in Foucauldian theory, is a utopia and a heterotopia; in that the mirror reflects reality in its present form, through a physical object, but the reflection is not physical. A mirror is placeless because as we see ourselves “over there” we are not actually there. It is merely mimicking what is placed in front of its focal point.

Quote from Different Spaces, Foucault, 1984:

“In the mirror, I see myself there where I am not, in an unreal, virtual space that opens up behind the surface; I am over there, there where I am not, a sort of shadow that gives my own visibility to myself, that enables me to see myself there where I am absent: such is the utopia of the mirror. But it is also a heterotopia in so far as the mirror does exist in reality, where it exerts a sort of counteraction on the position that I occupy. From the standpoint of the mirror I discover my absence from the place where I am since I see myself over there. Starting from this gaze that is, as it were, directed toward me, from the ground of this virtual space that is on the other side of the glass, I come back toward myself; I begin again to direct my eyes toward myself and to reconstitute myself there where I am. The mirror functions as a heterotopia in this respect: it makes this place that I occupy at the moment when I look at myself in the glass at once absolutely real, connected with all the space that surrounds it, and absolutely unreal, since in order to be perceived it has to pass through this virtual point which is over there.”

The work also pixels its reflected reality by joining many shapes like the hexagon. This makes up an interesting reflection that is made up of individual reflections to create a whole.

An “ironic” twist on Kapoors work is the intervention of technology by gallery visitors. There are many images online when googling his work. A lot of people are taking selfies in these mirror works. The interesting thing here is the use of the selfie that is then placed on social media of them selves in an art work. There is a continuum here of what I explained earlier and what Foucault writes about how one’s self is set in a mirror in an alternate reality. This “alternate reality” is experienced twice, one through the mirror, second through the uploading of the image on to a heterotopic space, the Internet. Does the selfie undermine the power of the mirror in this instance? Or does it engage with it on a different more supportive level, that re-enforces the mirrors narrative? Some thing interesting to think about!


by Jesse Bowling is a domain that facilitates a PDF. document titled INFORMATION/DATA, which is the catalogue for an exhibition called Art Post-Internet, that was exhibited at Center for Contemporary Art in Beijing during 2014.


Screen Shot 2015-05-21 at 12.55.41 pm

When downloaded and opened it supplies the “owner” with a time of download, where in the world you downloaded it from, your original copy number and your IP address. The website also contains the right to a record of every download, time downloaded, IP address, and location. This interesting to see a record of the users and how this PDF disseminates to a wider audience as you can see where it is being downloaded from, and that it is still downloaded every day by new users.

The exhibition existed physically and the idea behind the catalogue was to preserve the discussion around Art post-Internet, as the exhibition was only for a period of time. The catalogue would exist and become ahistorical for a period of time then eventually become historical. This seeks to preserve the movement to a point in time, where the exhibition was essentially more of a survey of the movement that the word Post-Internet is tagged to.

Using the Internet to document and catalogue the views/downloads/locations/IP addresses creates a point of reference for further art researchers to look back at. This is a strong tool for the idea to become circulated and not lost to a library or recycling bin. It then becomes more about virality of its circulation, in reference to viral images, memes etc. which are hyped for a few weeks before becoming irrelevant. This pdf. has staked its place within this virality of the Internet as a “monument,” a point of reference, which will not be lost within the Internet. As Internet trends move too fast to be recorded and reflected by “academics”, this holds ground through its recorded data. The data of downloaders places its dominant relevance and influence on an emerging artist or post contemporary theorist.

Fan by Kim Asendorf – Artwork Review

By Jesse Bowling

Kim is a Berlin-based artist, working in new media influenced by the Internet.

Kim’s work “Fan” is listed as a 6 channel sound installation, I watched the video and I think this refers to the noise of the computer fan. When stacked on top of each other playing a constant high-definition coloured video, it makes the computer work constantly for an extended period of time. This causes it to heat up, which makes the fan work, making the “noise”. This is an interesting aspect to technology that they create this “white” noise that we tend not to pick up on, we block it out and just consider it, as “that’s just the sound it makes”.

I’m also interested in the laptop as a sculptural form as a ready-made. The laptop can have implications of the dependence of technology and the tool we create digital works on, there are many connotations that a laptop can emit these are just a few.

But overall I feel this work doesn’t have much substance, conceptually. The idea is simple, and I enjoy that simplicity, but at the same time I wish it went further then just the idea of making the laptop fan work extra, because of lack of air circulation. This judgment is purely off observation, I cannot find anything listing the ideas of the work or any write-up on this exhibition. Which seems contradictory for someone who works within the Internet and in the “Internet-aware” scene.

Social Media & Kim Laughton’s Siliconcious.

By Jesse Bowling

Me and my friend Josh use Facebook messenger to communicate on a daily basis all day every day, even when I’m at home in the morning being like “keen on breakfast boiiii” oh yeah I also live with him.

Through social media and type language you can emit emotion through word structure or how blunt you talk, bold lettering, plenty of !!!!!!! etc. I feel when I talk to Josh I can grasp his mood or the emotions he is feeling at the time, and vice versa.

I also just got a Twitter account, which I’m kind of excited about!!!!! Twitter is this strange platform where it’s ok to vent your self for the world to see, make stupid remarks, and have online arguments.

What cant you do online, through a messaging service or social media, which you can’t communicate in irl?

Is it ok to break up with your partner via instant message? Why not? Your still going feel the same if you did it face to face, it’s the same outcome, if you really want to do it face to face use Skype.

Kim Laughton’s Siliconcious talks about all this pent up emotion that we put in the cloud and “hypothetically” gets stored within a silicone chip. This implies that we spend so much time portraying our online lives, all our happy moments NEED to be published online to show, how happy we are, to reinforce our personal persona in the physical domain, this can also be negative emotions too.

Over all I think this work brings digital technology into perspective for us, and shows our dependence/ level of social engagement we portray through these platforms. I’m unsure if these implications are bad so I’m probably going to post about it, and am going happy with using social media as an outlet?

I just want to be a Twitter artist now.

“Untitled” by Sebastian Wickerworth – Art Review

By Jesse Bowling

Destroying your art can be a pretty satisfying event, trust me I have done it a couple of times. Sebastian’s work “untitled” was a part of a show at Ballce Hertling Gallery in Paris in 2010, just scrapping in as “contemporary art” (class in-joke soz). Sebastian exhibited a large grey box upended that seems to have been dropped from the ceiling. The “box” is made from gib-board – which is typically used to line walls within buildings; the board is then covered in a glossy gray film. Most of his work speaks to traditional post-minimalist art with a zesty twist of destruction.


The “box” seems it has been dropped from a substantial height onto the gallery floor… but it’s touching the ceiling so how could this destruction happen? Sebastian has done many other works that seem to be destroyed in-situ, but on the contrary Sebastian constructs his destruction. Just as much work has gone into the geometric form that has gone into constructing an aesthetical forceful act. Has a spectator unaware of Sebastian’s work you may be like WTF why would you destroy your work? Was there a performance I missed?

I enjoy that he plays with the notion of the art object as being a “precious” item, that should not be touched or you will knock it off the plinth. Wickeroth challenges the historical avant-garde aesthetics so often we see the same old geometric abstract paintings, with their sharp edges and simple geometric compositions, Sebastian with simple order that is paralleled by his deconstruction, speaks to a new geometric abstraction with a brutalized truth of form.

My favorite titled work by Sebastian would be “ Form Fucks Function” having a jab at those Judd lovers :P.

Take a look at his website for more info:

All images credited to: Sebastian Wickeroth

Image Objects – Artie Vierkant

By Jesse Bowling

Artie Vierkant’s work “Image Objects” Is an ongoing work since 2011, existing somewhere between physical objects and documentation / new iterations of the “art object”.  They jump between digital objects, actual objects, and back to digitally “documented” art works. These start their life as a digital file, he proceeds to print these compositions onto dibond which is then precision cut to create a physical version of this digital file that represents a traditional art object. Each time this work is documented, the photographs are then re-manipulated to create new works or iterations of the physical art objects, creating an infinite loop of digitization.


As I have never seen these works physically I have only seen the documented versions, or alternate art works that spawned in response to this paradigm. Alternating the documented works from the gallery spawns new works through traditional techniques like collage, cropping and re-positioning parts of the “frame”, adding new colour etc.… as you can see in the images supplied.


In response these works speak to the advertising industry and techniques used to digitally retouch advertisements. Which we see all to often in popular culture, in the likes of high fashion photo shoots to correct complexion and extort body features. For me this is an interesting way of exploring the life of an art object and keeping an ongoing project alive and interesting, rather than just re-displaying the same work over and over from gallery to gallery. Intern the re-interpretations of these works become more interesting as I would tend to be more interested in seeing the digital versions, rather than going to see the actual works. I find it exciting that an artist is taking this approach to a traditional institutional stage as these objects are “documented” in galleries and then re-purposed after online, in multiple prints, and publications. As if we can all be spectators of Artie’s work either online, in person, or find a publication somewhere on a coffee table, I can appreciate each aspect and take each component as an artwork.

All I want to be is a coffee table artist.