LOU'S VIEWS: Tara Donovan at the IMA and thoughts on 'spoilers'

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Lou Harry

This week, thoughts on spoilers … and on two visits to the Indianapolis Museum of Art’s Tara Donovan show.

When it comes to discussion of arts and entertainment journalism, “spoilers” are a hot topic.

On the one hand, it’s easy for an arts writer to spoil your experience by discussing specifics. Extreme example: Telling someone going into a theater in 1941 that Rosebud is a sled. Or, 39 years later, that Vader is Luke’s dad.

More than once, I’ve been furious about too much being revealed in a review, interview or clip. As a rule, I don’t even want to be told that a story is going to have a twist ending. Such knowledge focuses my attention too much on anticipating that twist.

Sure, book jackets, theater marketing materials, and—the worst—movie trailers often give away more than you might want to know. But just because Hollywood and Madison Avenue don’t care about my—and your—experience doesn’t make it OK for journalists to be callous.

On the other side of it, though, it’s usually difficult to write intelligently about a play, book or film without giving away at least some key details. It would be difficult—and perhaps worthless—to discuss the Indiana Repertory Theatre’s production of “Becky’s New Car” without noting that a.) it’s about a woman tempted by the possibility of infidelity and b.) that its main character often breaks the fourth wall to communicate directly with the audience.

And do you want to read commentary that is nothing but empty superlatives or negative adjectives without specifics? At some point, the critic/reviewer/previewer has to discuss something concrete.

Some have drawn a distinction between reviews and criticism. Reviews, so goes this argument, should give away very little, since they largely function as consumer assistance and are usually read before an event. Criticism, though, should be open to discussing anything in the work, since the assumption is that the reader wants something deeper and more holistic.

I don’t find that distinction terribly helpful as a reader. And I find it a little insulting as a writer.

I think a lot about spoilers when writing reviews in this column—and previews in IBJ’s A&E e-mail blast. A red flag goes up whenever I even consider mentioning something that happens past the first few minutes of whatever I’m writing about. I try to put myself in the place of the reader who has yet to see a particular work. I then proceed with caution, sometimes tacking on a Spoiler Alert if I think I might be crossing a line.

If you ever think I’ve crossed it, drop me a line at lharry@ibj.com.

I hadn’t thought about how spoilers might affect an art exhibition, until I experienced—and re-experienced—“Tara Donovan: Untitled” (at the Indianapolis Museum of Art through Aug. 1).

A&E Indianapolis Museum of Art’s remarkable “Tara Donovan: Untitled” exhibition features sculptures made out of everyday objects. (Photo Courtesy Indianapolis Museum of Art/Tara Donovan)

But experiencing it for the first time with little knowledge of its specifics and its organization—and going through it again knowing what to expect—I think that perhaps I should apply spoiler warnings to some visual art shows as well.

Consider yourself alerted.

Much of the work here is untitled—and little explanation is given on the walls as to the artist’s intent. But there is a definite narrative to this remarkable show. And experiencing it for the first time was dramatically different for me from going through again, two days later, with others in tow.

I made an effort not to spoil the show for them—to tell them nothing else except that the artist uses everyday objects in extraordinary ways. What I didn’t say is that while this cliché applies to many contemporary artists, Donovan’s work transcends because it has such a strong sense of place and texture.

And sincerity. There isn’t a hint of consumer culture commentary that one might assume sculptures made out of these familiar materials might carry. And that avoidance of the obvious is refreshing.

The show delays gratification a bit, offering initially, framed prints and drawings that, out of context, might seem like the notebook doodles of a bored student. In hindsight, though, these one-step-removed works not only provide context for what’s to come, but also help set up the surprise and kick of seeing her sculptures.

Here, one kind of landscape, both alien and familiar, is created from upright, unsharped miniature pencils. The sharp innards of electrical cable make a crop-circle-like remnant of an ancient civilization. At the other time extreme, stacks of tar paper evoke post-apocalyptic desolation but also reveal rich textural variation.

And then there are the cups, millions (I believe) of them, losing their individuality as they blend into massive waves. Like most of the pieces, the cup sculpture seems to be in the process of growing organically, and appeared subtly different on my second visit.

On that second trip, Donovan’s material choices and her methodology seemed even more deliberate, but her configurations seemed more haphazard. But while I’m not convinced that whim wasn’t a big part of some of the arrangements, I’ll take creative whim over obviousness any day.

Hope I didn’t spoil anything for you.

(Note: While admission to IMA is free, there is a charge for this special exhibition. My apologies for not making this clear in my previews of the show.)•


This column appears weekly. Send information on upcoming A&E events to lharry@ibj.com.


Post a comment to this story

We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. Socialized medicine works great for white people in Scandanavia. It works well in Costa Rica for a population that is partly white and partly mestizo. I don't really see Obamacare as something aimed against whites. I think that is a Republican canard designed to elicit support from white people for republican candidates who don't care about them any more than democrats care about the non-whites they pander to with their phony maneuvers. But what is different between Costa Rica nd the Scandanavian nations on one hand and the US on the other? SIZE. Maybe the US is just too damn big. Maybe it just needs to be divided into smaller self governing pieces like when the old Holy Roman Empire was dismantled. Maybe we are always trying the same set of solutions for different kinds of people as if we were all the same. Oh-- I know-- that is liberal dogma, that we are all the same. Which is the most idiotic American notion going right back to the propaganda of 1776. All men are different and their differences are myriad and that which is different is not equal. The state which pretends men are all the same is going to force men to be the same. That is what America does here, that is what we do in our stupid overseas wars, that is how we destroy true diversity and true difference, and we are all as different groups of folks, feeling the pains of how capitalism is grinding us down into equally insignificant proletarian microconsumers with no other identity whether we like it or not. And the Marxists had this much right about the War of Independence: it was fundamentally a war of capitalist against feudal systems. America has been about big money since day one and whatever gets in the way is crushed. Health care is just another market and Obamacare, to the extent that it Rationalizes and makes more uniform a market which should actually be really different in nature and delivery from place to place-- well that will serve the interests of the biggest capitalist stakeholders in health care which is not Walmart for Gosh Sakes it is the INSURANCE INDUSTRY. CUI BONO Obamacare? The insurance industry. So republicans drop the delusion pro capitalist scales from your eyes this has almost nothing to do with race or "socialism" it has to do mostly with what the INSURANCE INDUSTRY wants to have happen in order to make their lives and profits easier.

  2. Read the article - the reason they can't justify staying is they have too many medicare/medicaid patients and the re-imbursements for transporting these patient is so low.

  3. I would not vote for Bayh if he did run. I also wouldn't vote for Pence. My guess is that Bayh does not have the stomach to oppose persons on the far left or far right. Also, outside of capitalizing on his time as U. S. Senator (and his wife's time as a board member to several companies) I don't know if he is willing to fight for anything. If people who claim to be in the middle walk away from fights with the right and left wing, what are we left with? Extremes. It's probably best for Bayh if he does not have the stomach for the fight but the result is no middle ground.

  4. JK - I meant that the results don't ring true. I also questioned the 10-year-old study because so much in the "health care system" has changed since the study was made. Moreover, it was hard to get to any overall conclusion or observation with the article. But....don't be defensive given my comments; I still think you do the best job of any journalist in the area shedding light and insight on important health care issues.

  5. Probably a good idea he doesn't run. I for one do not want someone who lives in VIRGINIA to be the governor. He gave it some thought, but he likes Virginia too much. What a name I cannot say on this site! The way these people think and operate amuses me.