Archie Scott Gobber and the Uncertainty of Practice
Archie Scott Gobber has been working in Kansas City for decades and has established his
place as a sign painter with a sense of humor. His work takes common sayings and phrases,
shifts them slightly, and creates bright, graphic, and visually appealing paintings. While quick
to “get” in its presentation and immediately satisfying, the paintings have a human quality
hidden within the language of advertising that emerges with a carefully considered eye. His
2009 piece Tired is the word “TIRES” in orange font, reminiscent of a roadside
advertisement, with a D painted over the S in brighter, higher chroma orange paint, so that it
reads “TIRED”. It is as if the blue-collar sign painter has refused to touch up the sign and is
instead using his craft to broadcast his own weariness to the world.
This shift from the commercial to the personal in Gobber’s work gives it a humor that is a
little ironic, but ultimately sincere in its expression of humanness. The text is carefully chosen
and there is a fluidness to the words, an ambiguity that allows for many possible
interpretations. Often the text becomes the image itself, the words architectural
compositions.
In referencing the graphic language of advertising, Gobber’s work includes themes of
consumerism and access to broadcasting. Advertisement is the form of visual content that
people see most frequently, and Gobber’s use of this style harkens back to his blue-collar
upbringing. Works that read “Artist on Duty” (2017) and “Professional artist: do not attempt”
(2017) align him with such workers, both validating artwork as “real” labor and relieving his
work of the elitism often associated with contemporary art.
Recently Gobber’s work has shifted in content, reflected in his latest solo show, Amateur
Content, which ran from May 11th to June 16th at Haw Contemporary Crossroads. While his
work previously tended towards the formal, focused on the words themselves and the
relationship between graphics, language, and advertising, his new body of work is more
specific and overtly political. The exhibition included a painting of the words
“They/Them/Their,” a sculpture of an American flag bent into a kneeling position, and a
headstone memorializing the site of a Confederate monument.
What first strikes me is that I have no idea what point Gobber is making about these current
issues. It’s hard to say whether he’s celebrating the use of the They/Them/Their pronoun by
gender non-conforming people, or condemning it. It seems neither; he seems to be saying
“This is here, this is happening,” like a reflection of our changing world. But if that’s the case,
I have to ask what purpose that serves, and what it adds or takes aways from the
conversation. The lack of context around the new work makes it feel superficial; much of it
seems to have no more nuance than a headline.
Some of the work in the show is stronger than others: Monument to a Removed Monument
feels, in part, like a commentary on the nature of collective memory and the shift in the
popular narrative of a country’s history. But, like Kneeling Flag, Monument to a Removed
Monument does not get at the heart of either issue: racism in America. Colin Kaepernick’s
protest, despite the media narrative, had little to do with the flag; he was protesting police
brutality against Black Americans. Kneeling Flag feels sterile and disconnected from the
people the protest is for. Instead, it centers the flag itself and the specific act of kneeling.
Gobber’s signature ambiguity doesn’t serve him here: the anthropomorphized flag perhaps is
kneeling back at the protesters, or perhaps it is kneeling with the protesters, acknowledging
the brutalities enacted in its name.
I can’t help but feel leery of a white, middle-aged, well-established artist using the struggles
and movements of marginalized people to advance his own work. It’s as if the specific
political issue—be it the pronouns of transgender people or police brutality—could be any
issue, so long as they are, to use Gobber’s words, “current” and “now.” By distancing the
people at the core of these issues, Gobber is informing the audience that the work isn’t for
the Black community or transgender community, even if it draws from those experiences.
Instead the work seems to address people like Gobber–white, middle-class, middle-aged
folks–for whom these issues are abstract. People in this demographic can think about things
like protests against police brutality with detached emotion because it isn’t in their direct line
of experience and doesn’t personally impact them.
I wasn’t the only one to feel this way about the work in Amateur Content and controversy
arose on both Twitter and Instagram last month. The Instagram thread called for
accountability from Gobber and the institutions that represent his work, questioning both
Gobber’s intention in creating Monument to a Removed Monument as well as criticizing it for
its lack of community engagement. Gobber responded that the piece was meant to remind its
viewers of the “horrible history” that was commemorated in an affluent part of Kansas City.
He went on to say that he meant no harm in making the piece.
At the end of the day, artists like Gobber must examine the role of their work in the backdrop
of our social and political landscape. The subjects that he’s tackled in Amateur Content are
ambitious, but if artwork is important work then artists have a responsibility to be thorough—
and that might mean knowing when to take a step back and let other voices be heard in the
conversation.