Golden Crown

If truth be told, Halftolds as in half-told stories as in half-truths makes for an exhibit, to this viewer’s eye, half a success. In May-ling’s statement about the show she writes:

For a while now I’ve been collecting and working with home related elements and objects. I’ve always found comfort and security in them and in the general idea of the house. Philosophers, psychoanalysts and poets have perceived the house, or the home as a magical place full of contradictory wonder. That can function as a structure forming device. I'm also intrigued by the phenomenon of memories, as subjective and unclear perceptions of an event or important moment in our lives. For this reason I construct memory-triggering devices to evoke what I perceive as precious personal recollections. The work relates closely to storytelling, but the stories and the events are not clear. In the work I suggest vague memories, a strange mix between reality and fantasy.

May-ling’s sculptures and collages are in a state of matter-of-factness, a take me as I am object- ness, that lack the depth in their meaning and context, their desire to be triggers of “souvenirs” or memories of real or imagined events, that eventually troubles and undermines an understanding and most importantly a conclusive stance of the show’s insightfulness and goals. I realize that simplistic questions such as why? do this particular exhibit and what was the intent? of the artist are generalized attempts to come to grips with the absence of well, May-ling’s absence within the work presented. Or to put it another way, the absence of her voice. What I mean by this is that perhaps May-ling has relied too heavily on these “triggers” by putting too much faith into the persuasive powers of “found” thrift store goodies, that represent one cliché ridden and stereotypical view of a predominately white, middle-class American family and their 2.3 children. This is Life Magazine from 1956 the editor’s cut. The problem lies in the fact that it is unclear, if May-ling knew or conscientiously chose these objects – Angel Food cake baking tins, gold and white dollies (in paper), ornate sculpted decorative wood shelves, and plastic toys figurines – without realizing that it categorized and limited the interpretation and inherent “history” or vécu of these sculpture/objects to a middle to lower income class death. This may represent the artist’s important moments in her life but they don’t represent mine. The plight of the working class family, bread winning fathers and suburban mothers, has long been overshadowed by the children of these very same parents who’ve said in unison, “Screw it, I want a better lifestyle for myself and kids!” May-ling’s work remains an image, a concept, a notion gleaned from another moment in time, a glimpse backward to suburbia, family, modernity and yet to be liberated women. A time when life was much simpler and men and women’s roles were clearly defined. 1968 is many moons away from appearing on the horizon and it is never more obvious than in the work being shown in this exhibit.

7-Deep Holes is a series of seven Angel Food cake tins that are mounted inline on the wall with decorative placemats covering the bottom, while the tube that insures there is a hole in the middle when the cake is done, protrudes toward us and is equipped with a small speaker that emits a sound loop of a domestic chore or activity at home. Dangling from each baking tin by a chain are various transformed objects that may or may not help us, decipher what exactly we’re listening to. One example is a tin dangling a small frosted jar that contains an object we’re unable to see unless we turn it over. To our surprise, we discover a miniature Bride & Groom cake decoration inside. If we listen to the sound coming from the cake tin, we hear what appears to be a lawnmower running. Another piece suspends a handle of a lint brush attached to a miniature toy bed, with a red bedspread taken from the brush’s roller. If we listen once again, we hear a vacuum cleaner. While yet another, dangles a shaving cream brush. When all 7 pieces are turned on, the atmosphere created is quite the hustle and bustle of some domestic beehive of organized gender assigned tasks being performed without any thought. One unexpected surprise were the sounds coming from the café adjacent to the gallery space with all its orchestration of steamed milk churning, tables bussed and dishes washed.

There have been many women artists that have addressed and questioned the issue of gender roles, each bringing their own personal, sometimes feminist points of view into their art work. This in turn has brought considerably more men I would argue, to new heights of awareness, clarity and knowledge. However, I believe once again that May-ling has let the support and highly overused stereotyping of “domesticity” to get in the way of any real personal feelings and points of view about this very subject. She neither accepts nor denies this some would say, pre-destined lifestyle of family and social values. She is rather apathetic and satisfied to simply tell us the facts in some show and tell exposé of social history. It is simply a cliché of a cliché that no longer accurately represents – perhaps I am too willing to naively believe – what is now the foundation of any couple man, woman, gay, straight, Catholic or not, that is under constant scrutiny and pressure from a society that is in constant mutation and tearing down the last vestiges of any supposed moral and perceived social values. The point is not whether you agree or disagree, but how you reflect these values through your own life(art) and the freedom and respect you give to others for their choices. It’s about being genuine. Simply put, I would have liked to have had some form of commentary or critique from May-ling, of what’s going on in today’s society and how it relates to the work being shown and not some cold-war era resume that glorifies the past. I get it. I get the references and I get the message. So how does it relate to your domestic dream today?”

(click for larger view)
Mechanics & Scones is another installation piece comprised of three bound books, riveted and rubber banned together, mounted perpendicular to the wall, with a balancing rod comprised of a long chrome tube and two woman’s shoe horns attached to either side of the rod. At the end of each shoe horn is a plastic figurine of a woman, their heads having been replaced by two small wrapped presents about the size of a wedding ring case. One is lying on her stomach; the other is sitting up reminiscent of a 1950’s Pin-Up girl. The titles of the books are as follows: “Sticks & Scones”, “Quantum Mechanics” and “Practical Descriptive Geometry”. It is difficult to gain any insight into the meaning of this piece as we are once again left to our own devices to discover the how & why. I’m certainly not calling for art work that takes me by the hand and explains everything to me in easy to understand chapters. What I’m calling for is art work that is going to push me, is going to make me question my own perceptions and beliefs, that is going to force me to make a decision and an opinion about what I’m seeing. I’m all for filling in the blanks and putting the puzzle together, but I am unwilling to do all the work when I’ve only been given half the story or half the effort. “Mechanics & Scones” I believe, fails to step up relying once again on objects to do the talking for the artist. I wonder if the piece wouldn’t have been more effective had it actually been balancing, stirred by the air currents of gallery visitors, each viewer weighing in yea or nay - as the piece seems to suggest - paying the price for staying at home or chasing one’s career. All the object(s) of desire and possession are present in the work: family life or wealth & success, high school or college, Quantum mechanics or baking scones in the kitchen, rich or poor, till death do us part… I wonder if it is of any value to speak about the possibilities you were given, if you then decide not to act on any one of them? Is it enough as an artist to offer several possibilities and interpretations of an art work exhibited, hoping that something will resonate within the viewer? Or is it only the one choice coming from the heart and soul that guide the choices you make? If you’re not willing to take the work to some logical conclusion, to some end, to assume the responsibility for its existence, is it fair enough to ask the viewer to simply make up his/her mind as to what they’re seeing? Knowing that perhaps it is not what the artist wanted? Knowing that there is no chance for a dialogue? These sorts of questions arise I believe, when you’re confronted by a work of art that takes no lead.

Mechanics & Scones - click for larger view

Ferret me is actually a piece I quite enjoyed because of its tongue-in-cheek directness and unabashed shamelessness. The work is made up of two old bakelite Kleenex holders mounted to the wall vertically, their opening slits lined with fur and lace. The white Kleenex holder to left has an inner lining of soft fur revealing a page torn from what was certainly some erotic story written in the 50’s. There is a line of orange stitching that runs vertically across the face of the box and a small white pearl (pierced) in the lip of the opening. The amber box to the left has dark soft fur running its opening and is very inviting to the touch. If you insert your hand, and I encourage you to do so, you’ll find that it is not as welcoming as you might expect when your fingers scrape across the black grit that has been applied to the back. I feel that “Ferret me” is one of the few pieces in the show where May-ling took control and left the viewer titillated and questioning their perceptions.

Ferret me

There are a few remaining wall sculptures to round out the show such as Jar Boy, a small plastic figurine of a ring bearer, his head replaced by well, a jar. He stands on a rather innocuous shelf with an old picture frame hanging in the background; the image has been covered over with white grit. There’s Red Door a similar piece to Jar Boy except that there is a small plastic figurine of a girl, her head replaced by a small plastic toy house, also with a frame in the background this time covered in black grit. There is also a series of four collages on stretched canvas that embody I believe, the style of May-ling’s pieces. The use of collaged images, found and/or thrift store bought objects, rolled together in some art crap- shoot context, despite their apparent “likeness” and period style is not enough to carry the weight of the artist’s message to the viewer. These “icons” of Americana have simply lost their religious zeal and fetish appeal of an American Dream that no longer exists. And if it no longer exists, why all the nostalgia?

Jar Boy




Red Door

In closing, I do admire and have a profound respect for any artist that has enough courage to put their art work out before the public’s eye. And if it is as Lawrence Rinder states, “there are no entitlements in art,” than it is indeed one difficult job to be an artist and make work in these days and times. The respect I have for May-ling’s job as an artist I hope has been clearly understood. This is not to say that I don’t have difficulty with the work and its intent because I do; it has been something that I’ve been compelled to write about. As I’ve stated before I don’t feel that the work is coherent enough to trigger the response(s) May-ling was hoping for. It is difficult to look beyond the generic imagery and sophisticated design to know if it is being used correctly as a metaphor? desires? lessons? values? guidelines? commentary? I just don’t know. This is all very unclear to me. I can only believe that it leads to an open-ended conversation between the viewer and the work with no real conclusive position being taken nor stated. A commitment from the artist one way or another, either forming a new perspective or insight into the America of the 1950’s or a commentary on how this work relates to gender roles, domesticity, statue, race, culture, religion, citizenship, law, personal and social values etc. that exist today in 2006, would have made for a more convincing and interactive show.

Kevin Freitas

For more information, please go to: Art Produce Gallery

ART Produce Gallery
3139 University Ave.
San Diego, CA 92104
619.584.4448 phone
619.584.4478 fax