Without being too much the department of redundancy department I want to add a few things to what Libby said about the shows at the DCCA.
Adam Parker Smith‘s dolls and faces are sweet. As Libby said, the gender clash and nagging self-doubt apparent in some of his previous works is gone here. There still seems to be some questioning and questing going on. After all, a wall of faces, many of which look the same, reflects the artist ruminating on the nature of character and the essence of being. (image is one of Parker Smith’s dolls. You can see more images and see them bigger at my flickr site.)
The artist made prints, took photos, was an early digital art practitioner, and sculpted. Hers was a restless intelligence and her object-making was superb. (image is Hupfel’s small installation using what looks like an HO scale female figure sitting on the edge of a precipice. The existentialism in the work was present in all her pieces.)
Finally, I’ll throw this out there and take some feedback.
I’ve been to the DCCA three or four times now and every time the experience left me happy but somehow dissatisfied. The art I’ve seen is pretty much always good quality. And yet the ambiance of the place — large expensively-retrofitted warehouse/kunsthalle with exposed ductwork, high ceilings and a rabbit warren of gallery spaces — leaves me wanting more edgier stuff on the walls and in the galleries, things like you might see at the ICA. I know it’s not fair to compare ICA and DCCA because the ICA is an academic institution with a mission to show the world’s best contemporary art — and it has some kind of museum-class budget. And DCCA is a community art center whose mission is to serve its members and the local community. I’m just saying that DCCA’s architectural grandeur suggests museum. And sometimes — the art doesn’t.
Perhaps the better comparison is between DCCA and Chelsea galleries where often you find grand spaces and art that is sometimes grand and sometimes not.