catalogue raisonné
while we might be looking at them, they are also sizing us up(1) (Spring Semester '25, Multishot)
Exploring the process of synthesizing and deconstructing an identity, Ingrid Briar’s core work ‘Ivy Briar’ (2007-2025) takes on the dimensions of various locales within the greater Las Vegas metropolitan area. Endless sprawl, uniconic as a backdrop. ‘Ivy Briar’ is defined against a plethora of blindingly bright lights, gaudy by design in how they evoke illusions of experiences beyond the reach of most of the American public in a very Americana manner. Against this background ‘Ivy Briar’ sees itself taking on the qualities of exquisite corpse, by and large defined by hands other than the artist's own. One can imagine a simple palette of flesh tones in modern America, captured in the motion blur of various resolutions of modern iPhone and Android generations. Getting increasingly better over the years, but never quite able to capture the subject of Ingrid Briar’s work in its whole.
Ingrid Briar, per her own musing on her work, envisions the purpose in arguing that the titling of her work is needlessly causal. The philosophical approach to proper naming, arbitrarily defining ‘Ivy Briar’ as some designation that is exclusively a social construct. Titling, she has paraphrased to her audience of nobody, “is a byproduct of an image existing to be seen”, E. H. Gombrich, when it is easier to demarcate that most of the work that consists of the visible ‘Ivy Briar’ is quintessential ephemera and is obscured by various factors, refined over the years of the works' accessibility to the public. A living work, constantly evolving, but never clearly defined.
Could this work be called a self-portrait, then? From Ingrid Briar herself there is no applicable comment, in so far as any quality of ‘Ivy Briar’ has been identified by her in a context of valuing the self as it exists independent of the composite contexts it must exist in by dint of existing primarily for the sake of its audience.
In this regard, ‘Ivy Briar’ takes on a proper name more descriptivist as theory is applicable: accessible to wide swathes of audience with little commonality save proximity. It is displayed in a form of installation so broad in scope as to be dreary and mundane to the observer, with a diversity of backdrops that all blend into each other such as “Crateful Dead”, or “Southwest Red Rock Stadium”. ‘Ivy Briar’, in minimal contrast, bears such designations as “Red Rock High School cheerleader”, or “friend of Sylvie Rattray-Aubert”, or “nearly puked on herself during a party in November of junior year”, all of which are significantly not unique to the ‘Ivy Briar’ work, ergo serving as a critique of the denotative values of calling ‘Ivy Briar’ anything but itself in reference to itself.
‘Ivy Briar’, then, explores the idea that the artist is most at home being portrayed, from the whites of her eyes down through the rest of her evocatively nondescript shape, through descriptions that may or may not actually pertain to her. Where she has been, who she knows, who she has fallen in love with. The name itself is projected onto the environment, and has been mutable throughout the lifespan of the art.
‘Most spectators, who are otherwise very capable of doing justice to the work, are not learned enough to guess the subject of a picture.’
Therefore, art in a modern context, viewed by many people, needs some form of title to distinguish itself. Arbitrary as the title may be.
‘Ivy Briar’ is thus presented by Ingrid Briar, a nameless artist in the grand scheme of things, as an indistinct, massless, desert-washed image that plays in a manner at once irreverent and deeply self-conscious of the idea that it can be described in any terms besides its name. A simple title, ‘Ivy Briar’, with an anonymous artist, whose name is as irrelevant as the work itself despite being referenced multiple times in this exploratory article. It is arranged with indifference, able to be callously manipulated and destroyed by its audience. It is its own name, needlessly arbitrary, for lack of any other means of easily defining it.
Ingrid Briar, per her own musing on her work, envisions the purpose in arguing that the titling of her work is needlessly causal. The philosophical approach to proper naming, arbitrarily defining ‘Ivy Briar’ as some designation that is exclusively a social construct. Titling, she has paraphrased to her audience of nobody, “is a byproduct of an image existing to be seen”, E. H. Gombrich, when it is easier to demarcate that most of the work that consists of the visible ‘Ivy Briar’ is quintessential ephemera and is obscured by various factors, refined over the years of the works' accessibility to the public. A living work, constantly evolving, but never clearly defined.
Could this work be called a self-portrait, then? From Ingrid Briar herself there is no applicable comment, in so far as any quality of ‘Ivy Briar’ has been identified by her in a context of valuing the self as it exists independent of the composite contexts it must exist in by dint of existing primarily for the sake of its audience.
In this regard, ‘Ivy Briar’ takes on a proper name more descriptivist as theory is applicable: accessible to wide swathes of audience with little commonality save proximity. It is displayed in a form of installation so broad in scope as to be dreary and mundane to the observer, with a diversity of backdrops that all blend into each other such as “Crateful Dead”, or “Southwest Red Rock Stadium”. ‘Ivy Briar’, in minimal contrast, bears such designations as “Red Rock High School cheerleader”, or “friend of Sylvie Rattray-Aubert”, or “nearly puked on herself during a party in November of junior year”, all of which are significantly not unique to the ‘Ivy Briar’ work, ergo serving as a critique of the denotative values of calling ‘Ivy Briar’ anything but itself in reference to itself.
‘Ivy Briar’, then, explores the idea that the artist is most at home being portrayed, from the whites of her eyes down through the rest of her evocatively nondescript shape, through descriptions that may or may not actually pertain to her. Where she has been, who she knows, who she has fallen in love with. The name itself is projected onto the environment, and has been mutable throughout the lifespan of the art.
‘Most spectators, who are otherwise very capable of doing justice to the work, are not learned enough to guess the subject of a picture.’
Therefore, art in a modern context, viewed by many people, needs some form of title to distinguish itself. Arbitrary as the title may be.
‘Ivy Briar’ is thus presented by Ingrid Briar, a nameless artist in the grand scheme of things, as an indistinct, massless, desert-washed image that plays in a manner at once irreverent and deeply self-conscious of the idea that it can be described in any terms besides its name. A simple title, ‘Ivy Briar’, with an anonymous artist, whose name is as irrelevant as the work itself despite being referenced multiple times in this exploratory article. It is arranged with indifference, able to be callously manipulated and destroyed by its audience. It is its own name, needlessly arbitrary, for lack of any other means of easily defining it.
Cited:
(1) https://talbotspy.org/looking-at-the-ma ... ne-thomas/
(2) as cited
Shinique Smith, Menagerie, 2007
(3) as cited
Jean-Baptiste Dubos, Réflexions critiques sur la poésie et sur la peinture, 1719
https://newrepublic.com/article/125621/art-no-name
(4) as cited
https://i.imgur.com/OtYhFYI.png
https://i.imgur.com/9eUCerg.png
(5) as cited
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lover ... Housebook)
(6) as cited
The Story of Art, 1950
(1) https://talbotspy.org/looking-at-the-ma ... ne-thomas/
(2) as cited
Shinique Smith, Menagerie, 2007
(3) as cited
Jean-Baptiste Dubos, Réflexions critiques sur la poésie et sur la peinture, 1719
https://newrepublic.com/article/125621/art-no-name
(4) as cited
https://i.imgur.com/OtYhFYI.png
https://i.imgur.com/9eUCerg.png
(5) as cited
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lover ... Housebook)
(6) as cited
The Story of Art, 1950