In his first one-person exhibition since his initial solo outing at Artists Space in 1974, James Biederman shows sculptures and works on paper that recall Russian Constructivist interests in spatial issues.
The painted, wood sculptures, with their “I am what I am,” bare-it-all structures, stressing parallel and counter-balanced elements, and their object-like good looks, bring to mind the spatial constructions of Alexander Rodchenko and the Obmokhu group. His works on paper, executed in gouache, pastel and charcoal, suggest the line constructions and architectonic drawings by Rodchenko and Malevich, respectively. In fact, the case for Russian connections can be pushed further, to involve the materials and titles. Still, the work demands that we think of the differences between it and its precedents.
Mask is installed relief-like against the wall. The work casts a strong shadow, adding pictorial presence and combining the image quality associated with painting with the constructive quality associated with sculpture. The cast shadows force us to look back and forth, up and down, from the work to the image and they also demand that we stay far enough away to appreciate the whole piece. The noun in the title, “mask,” invites speculations as to what on earth this piece could be hiding. This pleasing, mysterious note increases our awareness of the individuality of the object. Jockey is the only piece suspended in midair. Supported by a single wire, it looms before us—a pink-painted construction, turning around at will, and, in the process, blocking our path. While the installation brings to mind Rodchenko’s Hanging Constructions (1920), the Russian examples stayed much closer to the ceiling, and—most important—out of the audience’s way. The title demands a figurative reading of the sleekly proportioned planar elements and the thrusting linear pattern they draw through space, again deliberately undermining a purely formalist reading. The works on paper are no less self-assertive than the sculptures. What distinguishes The Oval and the others from the Russian works are the large scale and the arbitrary presentation of protractor lines and shapes. This is clearly at odds with the respect for the scientific look of things underlying the Russians’ notion of “laboratory art.”
—Ronny H. Cohen
