Is there some kind of dialectic in artistic production, something having to do with expended labor? I don’t mean that in any rigorous, Marxian sense; some work doesn’t call attention to the fact that labor is involved because the object it produces looks effortless and it looks as if someone had such a great time doing it. The opposite of that must be art which looks like labor, like time spent on real technical labor—like Sylvia Mangold’s work (could there be a more appropriate word in her case than “work”?)

It certainly doesn’t look like a good time; it’s all very serious and purposeful. I

What are the things on the wall and the floor? They are called photographs, but forget the official exhibition title and really look at the things. There are works I would have sworn were paintings (they are, after all, referred to as so many “panels”) and look quite painterly; some look like regular ol’ Conceptual pieces. I mean, do you think Wegman really cares about photography as a medium? Some look like poor man’s cinema (we get to look at the frames one by one, unprojected) or perhaps good magazine illustrations of video pieces. This is something called “(photo) (photo)² (photo)ⁿ: Sequenced