I really like Jason Briggs work and who he is outside of the ceramic studio, but I feel that the article doesn't put the personality on the work that I feel is necessary or at least attributed to his pieces. Let me explain, the naive' viewer will see this as nothing but gross vagina's and penis's (sic) on a loaf of rising bread. This isn't entirely true, though it is to an extent. I think Stephanie does a really good job of explaining what she ostensibly sees, but not much else. I understand the work and appreciate the insane detail and cultivation of detail, but there also is a message about what we see, what we think we know, and what makes us uncomfortable. I wish this was addressed more thoroughly in the article. Everyone has their own hang-ups and bias's but I feels that this work screams of this essence. Briggs is a creeper no doubt, but I love his honesty and pride in acknowledging this mentality. This is where fetishes develop, they are out of fear and an embarrassing way to be who you really are or want to be.
"These section of fabric-like cushioning conjure domesticity, creepiness, and vulnerability." WTF. I dont think it's fair to say creepy, they are a proxy for humanity and our understanding of modesty and desire. They are also badass as far as skill goes.
As I have previously stated, I love his work, but I think on the last page where he is explaining his working he is more just selling the idea. I dont feel this is necessary. His work sells itself. The list of adjectives that he has "off-the-cuff" seem contrived, but perhaps he is a genius and I dont understand. (That may be absolutely true, plus I might just be dumb, which may also be true..)
In the end Stephanie states, "Calling to voyeur in our own nature." I think this is the beginning of the real discussion.
The end has a handful of questions, but instead of leaving them for me, I wish they were addressed.