Red Dirt Studios

Our trip to Margaret Boozer’s Red Dirt Studios was a huge break from the tradition of our Friday class. Rather than head off to a huge cultural institution in Washington, DC, which no doubt has a budget in the multimillions and a large staff, Red Dirt Studios was incredibly modest and exuded an incredibly organic and intimate feel. After meeting with one of Margaret’s friends in the development world, we got a fantastic tour of the studio, during which we got to take in the extensive differences between Red Dirt and, for example, the Kennedy Center. Even the most fundamental differences between the two inherent in architecture evoked an incredible sense of closeness and humility. Whereas the Kennedy Center is comprised of monumental halls with soaring high ceilings, huge chandeliers, exquisite marble, and enormous windows, Red Dirt Studios had cement for flooring, look-a-like garage doors as windows and doors on one side of the building, and regular fluorescent and incandescent light bulbs in simple light fixtures.

Margaret took us around her studio and proceeded to explain the medium through which most of her works are executed: clay. All of a sudden, I understood the name of the studio—Red Dirt (forgive my sheer stupidity). Most of what we were surrounded by was incredibly different and varied pieces that employed different colors of clay to make different pieces. For example, hexagons shaped pieces were repeated in a pattern that created a sense of possibility through repetition, almost as if the piece were a polymer or string of carbon atoms. Next, Margaret showed us a new piece she is working on that utilized porcelain as a filter for light on a screen. It mimicked papyrus or Japanese scrolls in its ability to transmit light yet also change its form. Lastly, Margaret showed us a slideshow of many of her other pieces of work. Many of these had been commissions or sold to private galleries or collectors. Some of her stunning work included a clay transformation of a fireplace façade, an exploration into the merging of the outdoors with the indoor gallery space paradigm, but most interesting a look at a piece called “Dis/integration.”

The title alone presents quite the intellectual debate—is the piece more focused on the process of decomposition and hence deconstruction, or is it more interested in the integration of the material into the external world? Is it inclusive or deconstructivist in theory? Margaret then explained that the impetus behind the piece was to dissect the relationship between nature and materials, thereby putting into question the importance, significance and relevance of materiality at its most fundamental form. By creating a sculpture made out of clays of different sizes, colors, levels, and shapes, Margaret sought to construct and design a piece that was both visually and intellectually stimulating throughout the course of its deconstruction. By inserting a sculpture made of natural materials into the wider spectrum of nature, does it comment on the experience of imposing human desire and motivation onto the external world, or is it a look into the many different forms of nature not only as sculpture but also as separate realms?

While I wish Margaret would have spent more time discussing her personal and emotional reasons for creating the sculpture pieces that she showed us, they all were very interesting and visually appealing. I look forward to hearing and seeing more from her. She already has enjoyed press coverage by distinguished arts writer Michael O’Sullivan in the Washington Post. The piece “Dis/integration” is incredibly evocative and exciting, and I’m going to try my best to get down and see it in my last two weeks in Washington, DC.

www.margaretboozer.com