My reaction to the show itself is a little more complicated. Gober's modus operandi is to take a familiar, primarily domestic items (sinks, doors, drains, newspapers, kitty litter) and painstakingly recreate them by hand; the "by hand" being the important part of the art making equation. The objects are carefully arranged in the gallery. As often as not, surrounding walls covered in wallpaper designed by the artist.
The effect, (some, not me, might say, the magic) is to make ordinary both unsettling and seemingly full of private meaning. Hints of childhood trauma and physical decline, (homo)sexual longing and Catholicism seem, at least to me, to be the dominant themes.
Having seen Gober's work for many years, what leaves me scratching my head, is how these once mysterious objects became a lot more metaphoric and a lot less uncanny, than they were in the 90's.
So, here's the question: is Gober's "new" decipherability a result of the curation, or what might be called the "Artist Restrospective Effect" or has it more to do with Gober's evolution as an artist.
I'm still working on that one, but I will leave off with something I've been thinking about since seeing the show. The act of transforming mundane, highly personal brick-a-brac into something more meaningful, is a strategy that seems pretty well understood by the art-going public. I'm wondering to what extent Gober should be credited for edumatcating all of us about that strategy's potential. Is it possible that the uncanny has been uncanned and that the reason that Gober's work seems more readable is because Gober himself gave us something particularly interesting and timely to read?
Show closes Jan 18. This and Henri Matisse: The Cut-Outs are reason enough to visit MOMA over the holidays.
