One of the best parts of living in London is the amount of fantastic art galleries and museums showing some excellent and inspired work. To many Londoners, that is one of the reasons to look forward to the long and dark winter – the respite we can get by visiting one of the capital’s many exhibitions. Yet, this winter was disappointing and it wasn’t just the bad weather. It was the choice of exhibitions at the Tate Modern, which thankfully is currently being changed out for spring shows that holds much more promise. The Tate Modern has held a prominent place in London’s art scene for a long time and rightly so. Bringing often fantastic shows to Londoners and tourists alike (Frida Kahlo, Cildo Meireles, and Gilbert and George come to mind), it’s rare for the Tate to miscalculate its choices. If at least one of their two simultaneous exhibitions had been inspiring, I could have overlooked the one that left me emotionally cold. But this was not so.
The two exhibitions shown this year during the winter season were John Baldessari’s Pure Beauty and Pop Life: Art in a Material World. Both were supposed to be radical, shocking, thought provoking, and monumental. And yet, they were not.
Continuing a tradition of presenting lesser-known artists to a wider audience, the Tate Modern held a retrospective of California-based American artist, John Baldessari. Some art critics have said that he is one of contemporary art’s foremost conceptual artists. Well, he certainly has had a long career as an artist, being not only a creator of art, but also a teacher of immense influence. He is sometimes credited as being one of the first artists to incorporate the written word into his artwork, helping start a worldwide movement. Was he visionary for his time? Did he radically change the face of art? Was he able to influence the artistic landscape the way very few other modern artists have? Perhaps.
Yet, disregarding all the explanations, history, and biographies, his art falls flat. When taken out of context, his work seems to lose most meaning. The cleverness or wittiness that perhaps was amusing, challenging, even radical and shocking at the time, is no longer so. Now, it just feels tired and overdone. Can we appreciate Baldessari for being at the forefront of an artistic movement and for the contributions he made to modern art – of course. But that does mean that we cannot critique his work.
Truly great art should be able to withstand the challenge of being stripped of its place in the timeline of art history. When viewed in a vacuum, it should still do something to the viewer. Often, that “something” is inspire or uplift. Sometimes, it is cause the viewer to question or wonder. And other times, it’s to cause the audience to turn away in pain or disgust. But art should inspire a feeling in the viewer. Any feeling will do. Unfortunately, Baldessari’s work does not meet this challenge. It’s too simple, too obvious, and not interesting enough to keep my attention. I simply walk on by.
Even if he is rightly credited as one of the first artists to incorporate words into his work, then my response is a tacit, “so what?” Just because it was different at the time and perhaps even radical, doesn’t make it long-lasting and good. Some use of words in art is great and fantastic, and some is less so. It’s a bit like cheating on a maths test with a calculator when you’re supposed to do long division. The idea of art is to impart a feeling without words, but rather with images – that’s what separates artists from writers. That’s why many artists choose to leave their work untitled, for fear that adding a title would unfairly influence the viewer’s reaction to the work. In the end, Baldessari may be all the things that some art critics believe he is – a revolutionary and long-standing figure of the American art world. Yet, I believe we can all agree that this doesn’t put him above criticism. And in this author’s view, the criticism is not that his work is too radical or not radical enough or too beautiful or too ugly, but that ultimately it didn’t make any feelings stir.
Unfortunately, the Tate Modern’s other winter show, Pop Life: Art in a Material World, was the other extreme. It tries to outrage audiences with the usual tactics, namely explicit images. But not all shocks are shocking. And not all explicit images are worthy of being called art. Some are just pornography and do not deserve the respect afforded artwork. Indeed, this debate of what is and isn’t art is an ongoing discussion throughout the centuries that will thankfully never end as new ideas are incorporated and society changes and adapts.
The purpose of the Pop Life exhibition is to show the work of artists who became pop starts by embracing the media in a way that their predecessors had rarely done. Does this intimate relationship with mass media dilute art? Certainly. But that’s not always a bad thing as it also makes it more accessible in many ways. I take less issue with art’s exploitation of the media mass market, partly because it’s simply reversing a sadomasochistic relationship that has been around for a while – except now the usee becomes the user. What I do take more of an issue with is the reliance on explicit images as avenues for artists to shock their audience. Of course, not all explicit images are inappropriate for art, and what is too explicit for one person may not be for another. But in the final analysis, just like the use of words within images, not everything which is shocking is good and it often just cheats the image out of meaning and the audience out of an experience that they deserve.
While the Tate Modern has indeed been a disappointment this winter, other venues and outlets have picked up the slack, in more ways than one. Here’s to hoping for a beautiful spring and some exhibitions that will inspire us in 2010.
Wednesday, 11 November 2009
Wednesday, 5 August 2009
Saatchi Gallery - Abstract America: New Painting and Sculpture
Ending after a six month run at one of the world’s most influential public art galleries, a show dedicated to abstract American art produced a mix of reactions in its audience. Spread out over three floors, the exhibition plainly entitled, “Abstract America: New Painting and Sculpture” was the Saatchi Gallery’s attempt to expose modern American art to a wide audience in one of the major art capitals of the world – London.
At the end of all this, what did we learn about the range and quality of American art and how it is classified and viewed outside the US? Well, for one, we learned that not all of the artists shown by Charles Saatchi, the owner of the gallery and one of the most powerful and recognizable art collectors, are visionaries and contemporary geniuses. This is not to say that there is a lack of talent exhibited, but it is to say that some artists don’t display the shock and awe factor that truly great art can have on its audience.
Gallery 7 is the clear winner in the impact category. The exuberant colors of the pieces in that room jump out at the viewer. The mix of styles and influences comes as a welcome surprise. The room showcases the fantastic and imaginative colour combinations of NY-based duo Eric and Heather ChanSchatz whose collaborative approach is simultaneously all that is wrong and right in modern art. It also includes the tribal inspired paintings of Connecticut-based Baker Overstreet and the whimsical and insightful creations of Miami duo Guerra de la Paz. But even in this room, which is easily the most joyous and inspired of the whole show, something is missing. Some grit. Perhaps imagination. With a dash of a rebellious streak. In short, the type of stuff you find in Juxtapoz (http://www.juxtapoz.com/). What is missing is the art that leaps off the wall, smacks you in the face, then offers you a drink and gooses while telling you about the virtues of street art and all that could be improved to make America a better place. But no. The work in this show sometimes entertains, but doesn’t provoke any further insight or examination.
Often, visitors to the USA say that it is a land of extremes. This large country not only provides a wealth of diversity in landscapes, but more importantly in people. This fundamental part of what contemporary American art is all about should have been at the center of this exhibition. It should have driven the decision to display a wide variety of art from various genres and geographical locations. Yet, it barely scratches the surface. There are some notable exceptions to this – Ryan Johnson’s towering figures, Mark Bradford’s mixed media collages, Carter’s paintings, Jedediah Caesar’s mixed media tiles, and Agathe Snow’s post-apocalyptic crucifixions. And then there is the other extreme – the art that tries too hard and ends up looking foolish. The type of stuff that spends so much time trying to be clever and provocative that it ends up punching the viewer in the face in an annoyingly obvious way. Just like puns in literature, not everything that seems clever to the artist actually translates across to its audience, bushes and box-eating snakes included.
Two of the artists that were chosen to have a whole room dedicated to their work reflect what European opinions are of American art rather than truly the best contemporary American art. Kristin Baker’s work certainly has the advantage of scale and colour. There is an interesting interplay between reality and imagination as you’re not quite sure what you’re looking at, since it seems to change depending on the angle. Yet, it feels too familiar. You’ve seen it or something like it somewhere before. Close but no cigar. In contrast, Amy Sillman’s work has a positively Renoir-esque element to it. American abstract it certainly is. Yet, confusingly, it is rendered in a colour palette that reminds me of paintings of lawn tea parties and flower wallpaper that your grandmother would like. Not quite what I think of when I think of modern day America.
In the end, we must go back to our original question – what have we learned from all this. We’ve learned that showcasing art that is supposed to represent the best of a contemporary art landscape in a country as large and diverse as the USA is difficult – very difficult. Yet, the decision to showcase barely any art that punches you in the gut or at the very least opens your eyes is confusing. It lacks courage and a sense of reality. Next time, perhaps the Saatchi Gallery should take a look at Juxtapoz to get a real slice of contemporary American art that truly shocks and awes the shit out of its audience. In a good way, of course.
As a message to the artists included in its show and a caveat to all reviews, the Saatchi Gallery has posted on its website, “apologies for some of our art critics in the UK. A number of them know very little about contemporary art, obviously. But they do sometimes get there eventually, usually by the time the art is no longer very contemporary. 20 years ago they gave the thumbs-down to our Warhol, Judd, Twombly, Nauman, Guston, Marden exhibitions, that included many of their greatest works - if that's any consolation.” This statement certainly rings true. Unfortunately, it can not only be applied to reviewers of art but also collectors, curators, and the audience. And of course, writers. Well, there’s always a next time.
At the end of all this, what did we learn about the range and quality of American art and how it is classified and viewed outside the US? Well, for one, we learned that not all of the artists shown by Charles Saatchi, the owner of the gallery and one of the most powerful and recognizable art collectors, are visionaries and contemporary geniuses. This is not to say that there is a lack of talent exhibited, but it is to say that some artists don’t display the shock and awe factor that truly great art can have on its audience.
Gallery 7 is the clear winner in the impact category. The exuberant colors of the pieces in that room jump out at the viewer. The mix of styles and influences comes as a welcome surprise. The room showcases the fantastic and imaginative colour combinations of NY-based duo Eric and Heather ChanSchatz whose collaborative approach is simultaneously all that is wrong and right in modern art. It also includes the tribal inspired paintings of Connecticut-based Baker Overstreet and the whimsical and insightful creations of Miami duo Guerra de la Paz. But even in this room, which is easily the most joyous and inspired of the whole show, something is missing. Some grit. Perhaps imagination. With a dash of a rebellious streak. In short, the type of stuff you find in Juxtapoz (http://www.juxtapoz.com/). What is missing is the art that leaps off the wall, smacks you in the face, then offers you a drink and gooses while telling you about the virtues of street art and all that could be improved to make America a better place. But no. The work in this show sometimes entertains, but doesn’t provoke any further insight or examination.
Often, visitors to the USA say that it is a land of extremes. This large country not only provides a wealth of diversity in landscapes, but more importantly in people. This fundamental part of what contemporary American art is all about should have been at the center of this exhibition. It should have driven the decision to display a wide variety of art from various genres and geographical locations. Yet, it barely scratches the surface. There are some notable exceptions to this – Ryan Johnson’s towering figures, Mark Bradford’s mixed media collages, Carter’s paintings, Jedediah Caesar’s mixed media tiles, and Agathe Snow’s post-apocalyptic crucifixions. And then there is the other extreme – the art that tries too hard and ends up looking foolish. The type of stuff that spends so much time trying to be clever and provocative that it ends up punching the viewer in the face in an annoyingly obvious way. Just like puns in literature, not everything that seems clever to the artist actually translates across to its audience, bushes and box-eating snakes included.
Two of the artists that were chosen to have a whole room dedicated to their work reflect what European opinions are of American art rather than truly the best contemporary American art. Kristin Baker’s work certainly has the advantage of scale and colour. There is an interesting interplay between reality and imagination as you’re not quite sure what you’re looking at, since it seems to change depending on the angle. Yet, it feels too familiar. You’ve seen it or something like it somewhere before. Close but no cigar. In contrast, Amy Sillman’s work has a positively Renoir-esque element to it. American abstract it certainly is. Yet, confusingly, it is rendered in a colour palette that reminds me of paintings of lawn tea parties and flower wallpaper that your grandmother would like. Not quite what I think of when I think of modern day America.
In the end, we must go back to our original question – what have we learned from all this. We’ve learned that showcasing art that is supposed to represent the best of a contemporary art landscape in a country as large and diverse as the USA is difficult – very difficult. Yet, the decision to showcase barely any art that punches you in the gut or at the very least opens your eyes is confusing. It lacks courage and a sense of reality. Next time, perhaps the Saatchi Gallery should take a look at Juxtapoz to get a real slice of contemporary American art that truly shocks and awes the shit out of its audience. In a good way, of course.
As a message to the artists included in its show and a caveat to all reviews, the Saatchi Gallery has posted on its website, “apologies for some of our art critics in the UK. A number of them know very little about contemporary art, obviously. But they do sometimes get there eventually, usually by the time the art is no longer very contemporary. 20 years ago they gave the thumbs-down to our Warhol, Judd, Twombly, Nauman, Guston, Marden exhibitions, that included many of their greatest works - if that's any consolation.” This statement certainly rings true. Unfortunately, it can not only be applied to reviewers of art but also collectors, curators, and the audience. And of course, writers. Well, there’s always a next time.
Friday, 5 June 2009
Things I Love
1. Time Out Magazine / website (although sometimes their recommendations are completely off)
2. Coffee (Monmouth's or Cafe Vergnano 1928 or Cafe Italia)
3. Tea (haven't found a fantastic tea place; there are many in London)
4. Movies - Curzon Soho, BFI, ICA amongst others
5. Art - the Tates, the Photographer's Gallery (recently moved), the National Gallery (& Portrait Gallery just to mix things up) & Estorick Collection (tiny but awesome)
Tuesday, 20 January 2009
Gomorrah Film
Title: Gomorrah
Rating (out of 100): 90
Mood: contemplative, sad, tragic
Website: http://www.gomorrahmovie.co.uk/
Timeout / Culture Critic: http://www.timeout.com/film/reviews/85793/Gomorrah.html / http://www.culturecritic.co.uk/cinema/gomorrah/
(Italian, with subtitles): Sort of reminds me of an Italian version of Boyz n the Hood showing the difficulties of growing up and living in a society where corruption and crime are so intrinsically tied to every aspect of life. This movie examines how life is in a society, where people are forced to make compromises yet struggle with the same emotions of all humans (the desire for self-preservation, family honour, and the ambition of youth). A fascinating, if scary and harrowing, study of several intertwined stories of various people in Italy and the choices they make when faced with such rules. Aside from the story line, which is dramatic and compelling, tragic and occasionally uplifting, the film is visually stunning. From the beginning sequence in the tanning booth to the sequence that is shot from above of a man walking through corpses, the film’s muted colours work. An overall depressing movie, but one that is very enlightening (especially the end of the movie that gives some statistics on organized crime in Italy as context).
Friday, 19 December 2008
Monkey Journey to the West
Title: Monkey Journey to the West
Rating (out of 100): 100
Mood: happy
Timeout / Culture Critic: http://www.timeout.com/london/classical/event/121232/monkey-journey-to-the-west.html%20/ / http://www.culturecritic.co.uk/performance/monkey-journey-to-the-west-o2-london/
I saw this show during the summer in London’s Royal Opera House as part of the special performances related to the Beijing Olympics. I was blown away. It is one of these shows that is difficult to classify as it includes various acrobatics, martial arts, rope dancing as well as incorporating a wide range of music – from Chinese opera to modern house / funk and visuals (animation, video projection). The show is quite a spectacular example of the old cliché of East meeting West and it is funny and interesting and engaging. It is based on one of the old Chinese tails about the Monkey King and his journeys as well as the characters that he meets along the way. Completely sung in Chinese (Mandarin), there are surtitles in English that help the English speakers in the audience follow the story. The show combines the efforts of some heavy hitters in their own fields and geographies and it shows – it is a great collaboration of talent. Overall a very entertaining and incredibly unique show that is a must see. Having been popularly received, it is now enjoying an extended run in the O2.
Tuesday, 16 December 2008
Title: Tate Britain – Francis Bacon & Turner Prize
Title: Tate Britain – Francis Bacon & Turner Prize
Rating (out of 100): 100 (Bacon) / 40 (Turner)
Mood: disturbed and challenged (but in a good way) – Bacon / disturbed and confused (but in a bad way) - Turner
Website: http://www.tate.org.uk/britain/
Timeout / Culture Critic: http://www.timeout.com/london/art/event/8729/francis-bacon.html & http://www.timeout.com/london/art/event/9084/turner-prize-2008.html / http://www.culturecritic.co.uk/exhibitions/francis-bacon/ & http://www.culturecritic.co.uk/exhibitions/turner-prize-2008/
The Tate Britain (Pimlico) currently has two main exhibits - Francis Bacon and 4 top nominees for the 2008 Turner Prize. Both shows charge an entrance fee but are free (as always) with a Tate membership. The Bacon Show is fantastic. It is huge (both in terms of the number of paintings displayed, the number of rooms and the scale in which Bacon worked). The colours are moody, the subjects are even moodier and the introductory statements in each room set the mood perfectly. My favourite rooms were room 4 (fantastic red colours – remind me of a much funkier and more interesting version of Rothko’s red paintings) as well as from room 7 onwards. The last line of the last room says it all “he faced death with a defiant concentration on the exquisiteness of the lived moment”. An amazing show and an amazing artist and man. Absolutely fantastic. Check out the interactive show on the Tate Britain website for a preview (or a reminder) of this brilliant show. http://www.tate.org.uk/britain/exhibitions/francisbacon/interactive/
My appreciation of the Turner Prize show is quite a bit less. But first, two big caveats: (1) I don’t like video art (I prefer my art to not have video… if I want the experience of watching video in the dark, I’d rather see a film) and (2) some modern art escapes me… I find it so modern that it ceases to have any interest or beauty or aesthetic complexity for me. So, as you can imagine, I ran through the Turner Prize show not finding any of the artists’ works all that interesting. The only one I did like was the show of Cathy Wilkes, especially her installation of the naked female mannequins, surrounded by empty jam jars as well as one of the mannequins which was partially enclosed in a bird cage. Other than that, I focused on the Bacon exhibit.
Choke Film
Title: Choke
Rating (out of 100): 90
Mood: happy, funny, quirky
Website: http://www.foxsearchlight.com/choke/
Timeout / Culture Critic: http://www.timeout.com/film/reviews/85693/choke.html / http://www.culturecritic.co.uk/cinema/choke/
Based on the novel by Chuck Palahniuk (http://chuckpalahniuk.net/), author of Fight Club, Choke is a love story. A hilarious, oddball black comedy type of love story that will offend some viewers, but will entertain the majority. Some viewers may recognize the main character’s point of view as strikingly similar to that of Ed Norton’s character in Fight Club (especially the parts when he talks about attending his various terminal illness group therapy sessions). Not surprisingly, this movie includes a good amount of group therapy, not to mention nudity. The whole film is about a sex addict. A redeemable lovable underneath it all good guy sex addict of course. The type who became the way he was because of his complicated relationship with his mother (played by the fantastic Anjelica Huston). And who underneath it all is a guy who just wants to love and be loved. It’s an old story but told in a very new and extremely entertaining way. Some of the awkward situations are incredibly funny (anything related to the colonial farm). All in all an especially entertaining black comedy. Just don’t expect any of the visual effects or grittiness of Fight Club. Or nearly the same amount of revolution against the way things are. It’s just not that type of movie. But then again, as much as I Love Fight Club (with a capital L), how many times did you laugh out loud when watching it. That's what I thought.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)