ShareThis Page
More A and E

Art review: 'Elizabeth Rudnick: You're Not Real, I'm Real' at 707 Penn Gallery

| Wednesday, Feb. 10, 2016, 9:00 p.m.
The work of Elizabeth Rudnick is on display at 707 Gallery, Downtown, in 'You're not real, I'm real.'
Christopher Sprowls Photography
The work of Elizabeth Rudnick is on display at 707 Gallery, Downtown, in 'You're not real, I'm real.'
The work of Elizabeth Rudnick is on display at 707 Gallery, Downtown, in 'You're not real, I'm real.'
Christopher Sprowls Photography
The work of Elizabeth Rudnick is on display at 707 Gallery, Downtown, in 'You're not real, I'm real.'
The work of Elizabeth Rudnick is on display at 707 Penn Gallery, Downtown.
Christopher Sprowls Photography
The work of Elizabeth Rudnick is on display at 707 Penn Gallery, Downtown.
The work of Elizabeth Rudnick is on display at 707 Gallery, Downtown, in 'You're not real, I'm real.'
Christopher Sprowls Photography
The work of Elizabeth Rudnick is on display at 707 Gallery, Downtown, in 'You're not real, I'm real.'

In a world filled with constantly streaming images, most of which are vapid, the 13 abstract paintings that make up Elizabeth Rudnick's solo exhibit “You're Not Real, I'm Real” reward attention.

Rudnick says the works, on display at 707 Penn Gallery, Downtown, through Feb. 28, are the result of late nights spent wide awake with her cellphone.

“I often find myself awake in bed at 2 a.m., unable to sleep, surfing Instagram,” she says. “There, the curated snapshots of other peoples' lives cascade in an endless, luminous chain. Beauty is consumed, comparisons are made, and my life is absorbed into the holodeck stream.”

Rudnick says the title of her show refers to “this dissolution of self.”

“The works in this show try to illustrate what it means to be sucked into the collective online reality, and what it feels like to then return to one's singular, ‘real' life,” she says.

Case in point: “When Did You Have It Last? No. 1” is a large canvas dominated by a massive, centrally placed white field. As obliterating as this large white swath is, the most interesting part of the painting is in the layered history at its edges. Here, Rudnick has attacked the canvas with abandon, putting in strong saturated colors strategically and leaving the white space where it needs to breathe.

In regard to the title of the piece, “‘When did you have it last?' (is) a question that leaves much interpretation up to the viewer. What is ‘it'? Stability? A lover? Or perhaps, it's merely referring to a lost cellphone. The suggested interchangeability of these things makes for a bit of tragic humor.”

Rudnick says other paintings in the show, such as “Shield,” are more directly funny.

“In ‘Shield,' a small green shape attempts, unsuccessfully, to hide behind a towering red form,” she says. “Likewise, in ‘Wishes/Fishes,' a thin orange figure seems to have flung a net into empty space, hoping to catch either half of the title.”

Rudnick says that many works that deal with the experience of new technology also use that technology as a medium. The works in this exhibit, however, take a different approach.

“The show is almost completely composed of abstract paintings, thus raising the question of whether technological experiences can be captured by analog techniques,” she says.

“Iceberg,” the first piece visitors will come to, is undoubtedly the most arresting. Here, Rudnick uses layers of white and tinted color in graffitilike gestures. Other marks stubbornly take on importance, often setting the emotional tone for the painting, which is ominous.

At 4 feet by 6 feet, it is the largest work in the show. The artist's marks are palpable. To be examined and laid bare in such dimensions is a bold gesture in itself, comparable to the sweeping brush strokes that inhabit this canvas.

In stark contrast, both “Her Dirty Pillow” and “Screen Memory (for JB)” pulse with vibrant color, as if popping off a television screen, although both are much smaller.

Rudnick is as adept at coalescing words as she is with paint. She describes them perfectly: “Using acrid and fluorescent colors, the gestures in the paintings convey a fast and frantic search. Meandering lines weave around and through each other, sometimes gently and, at other times, in more violent, broken marks.”

Then, there is the painting “You're Not Real, I'm Real,” the show's namesake. Perfectly placed in the back of the gallery, it is a visage awash in a sea of color, as if peering through all of this nonobjective coding.

To even the most casual viewer, it can easily be read as an acid-green face with slits for eyes, making it seem sinister — made all the more threatening thanks to its placement on a bright, shocking pink background.

“It is the most figurative piece in the exhibition” for a reason, Rudnick says, especially in regard to the title. “Coming from this melted figure, though, the phrase loses its bravado to become a whisper of anxious self-reassurance,” she says.

At a time when painters either take the minimal into the purely conceptual or return to representational forms of image-making, Rudnick's work is sobering and refreshing, extending the language of abstraction in a more serious and contemporary way.

As Rudnick so aptly puts it: “The works explore a variety of strategies to get to the same feelings: the discomforts and desires that permeate our relationships in contemporary culture. At the end of the day, is it our online selves or physical selves who are ‘real?'”

Kurt Shaw is the Tribune-Review art critic. Reach him at kshaw@tribweb.com.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.

click me