The
headlines read, in arty lower case:
ron
mueck scales-up and stacks 100 sculpted skulls at the national
gallery of victoria
The
National Gallery of Victoria is holding the world premiere of Ron
Meuck’s room full of oversized, resin-cast skulls: see
-
https://www.google.com.au/search?q=skull+art+gallery+victoria&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjuud63_4vYAhUBULwKHe_tDz8Q_AUICigB&biw=1920&bih=1094#imgrc=8RS5KNJx5Lh_9M:
One
is reminded of Cambodia’s tragedy, (see below), but the display of this
collection of items, 100 of them, (why not 102?), is in an art
gallery, so it must be art. Is this like the difference between war
damage and a Gehry? - see:
http://voussoirs.blogspot.com.au/2015/02/frank-o-gehry-art-of-war.html
and
http://voussoirs.blogspot.com.au/2013/12/new-gehry-projects-in-aleppo.html
The
comment on the ABC News by the gallery’s curator, as if to explain
the idea, was: “We bring our own baggage to it.” Such is art;
such is life, so it seems. One wonders what baggage one might take
away from the room filled with large skulls. When did art become
anything one wants it to be; seeing it for what it might be through
one’s own ‘baggage’?
It
becomes hard to imagine a transformative art, one that might hold
meaning meaningfully and reverberate with life and living - to manage to
enrich being, to confirm experience rather than challenge it with
puzzling and confronting questions, dark doubts and quirky, ad hoc
uncertainties.
Such
an approach to art allows anything strange and different to be seen
as art, indeed, as important art; as significant art that usually
gains its status through mass media’s manic reporting on its strange identity. If one chooses to argue otherwise, to question its
standing, the stance becomes an easy matter to criticise as it
questions one’s 'baggage,' identifying it, you, as being the problem:
“It’s your fault: it's your problem.”
It
is happening more and more today in the field of art – and
architecture too. Where might anyone start a debate that could be resolved in mutual agreement when issues are encouraged to be so
aimlessly fluid; fuzzy? Where is the sense, the presence, when
everything and anything might be possible? What are the core,
life-enhancing ideas beyond surprising hype and blurb?
The
response to the uncritical recognition of this approach to art is for
artists to make things increasingly puzzling and enigmatic;
outrageous – for everyone to be told to try try to see something in
it, whatever, even when there might be nothing, or nothing specific
intended. Is art now like looking at ink blots?
It
is a little like casting dust to the wind – or ashes, perhaps,
(whose?) – and asking folk to see meaning in this: and if one is
unable to, then it is one’s own unimaginative weakness that is the
problem, as it leaves one’s skull in a spin. Is this the meaning?
Who knows; who cares?
The
artist apparently has the right to stand aside in almost
self-satisfied, contempuous silence, and look on with a knowing,
mocking eye: knowing there is nothing there; and mocking those making
an attempt to create meaning. One senses that the artist might be
present in a void of complete nothingness, waiting for some response
that can be owned to be revealed. One thinks here of Doris Lessing on
radio some years ago, not because of aimlessness, but because of the
baggage brought to her reading. Robyn Williams, an ABC Science
reporter, once, after Doris Lessing had read her short story on the
dung beetle to the audience, stood up and confidently pontificated on
the reason for this choice, cleverly analysing everything in his
smart, precise, confident, pseuo-intellectual manner. The writer’s
response was, “No. I chose it because it was of the appropriate
length for the show.” Williams sat down quietly without saying
anything, but, it seemed, with a silent whimper. This is the
‘baggage’ problem. Why do artists rely on it for their substance
and standing?
Art
as an enigma – and architecture too: see Gehry, Hadid. It becomes a
real headache to understand such skull art that can be anything, and
can be seen as anything.
Gehry
Hadid
Take
for example an art gallery with several spaces available for an
exhibition. The first room might be filled with oversized resin-cast
skulls – like this exhibition. The next space might, perhaps, –
let’s take a random set of somethings by way of example – be a
room with a tiny, miniature Giacometti-like skull mounted in the
centre of the floor on a fine bronze stand - Man; the third area might be
filled with dead cats – fifty of them, all different breeds, called L. All
this is art. The fourth space might have three large, empty, antique
frames located carefully on the walls, one being slightly askew - Family Portraits; the
next area – let’s say it has been made dark and has flashing
lights and laser beams buzzing around spelling out words – perhaps
obscenities: Urban Diction.
Gehry
Hadid
Continuing
this fantasy, the sixth room might have nothing in it at all but
surfaces bright and white - Full Void; while the seventh could be said to be a
well-known artist’s bedroom, completely transported as it was,
unannounced, on the third day of the third month, to be left on
display for three weeks only, named The Trilogy – a little
like the Bacon/Olley studio transplants that are to endure forever:
see -
http://voussoirs.blogspot.com.au/2013/01/bacons-sacrambled-studio-francis.html
Gehry
Hadid
And
we could go on: the next space might perhaps be an oversized goldfish
tank filled with twenty-one identical Pisces, its title; with the
neighbouring area holding three naked figures – one male and two
female, (gender self-allocated), wondering what to do with themselves
as they wander around slowly and deliberately in the smoky haze that
catches beams of light moving just as slowly and deliberately: MEMEME. Again,
there might be yet another area with, say, a stuffed bear and a
badger standing side by side, with a carrot hanging nearby: Eden.
One
could go on and on, but the scene has been set. The point is that any
of these scenarios could be real; that we could, at any time, be
asked to consider these displays in a gallery as art and be told:
“You sort it our with your baggage.” Of course, one can already
see the frenzy created by the dead cats in L: the gallery would at first
refuse the media’s cry, presented as the public’s demand, for the
exhibition to be closed down – animal welfare. And this would go on
and on generating huge crowds until someone was silenced. It would be
the same response given to, say, a crucified Christ-like figure being
displayed upside-down in a red room - Geez!! Protesting crowds might gather
around the gallery demanding blood in the very best Christian manner.
Perhaps we have already seen all of these works of art and their
responses, or ones very like these?
Gehry
Hadid
If
art is to be completely value-free – well, might try to be with no
serious idea of depth, or statement of intent – then simply
anything can be put before the public to allow it to respond: a
tangerine room with a red dot in it titled Green; a mirrored room with a moving
mirror on a mirror ball - Reflections 2 (there was no number 1; the ball uses Star Wars BB-8 technology); a pool of water shaped as a splash - Dessert (a poor pun); a huge
sculpture of nothing at all, called - well, whatever you want it to be: maybe this is a competition with a T-Shirt prize? The public is encouraged by the media
hype, and lines up to pay and parade past the art, knowingly. Is this
called ‘bringing baggage’? Is this what art/architecture has
become: anything at all: the more alarming the better? One can already
start to write the artist’s statements to accompany all of the
above phantom ‘works’. The range of examples, real copy, is best
exampled in the SWELL Sculpture Exhibition catalogues: see -
http://voussoirs.blogspot.com.au/2017/09/swell-sculpture-festival-2017-catalogue.html
and
http://voussoirs.blogspot.com.au/2016/09/swell-sculpture-festival-2016-catalogue.html
and
http://voussoirs.blogspot.com.au/2015/09/swell-sculpture-festival-catalogue-2015.html
and other links in these sites.
Gehry
Hadid
The
big challenge for us today is to demand more of our art and our
architecture: of our artists and our architects. Using ‘baggage’
is not good enough. ‘Baggage’ is something that is always there.
It is how to transcend this raw, personal experience that needs to be
pondered: how to transform it; enrich it; to make living something
surprisingly otherwise. One has to ask if today’s mental health
issues might have something to do with allowing our ‘baggage’ to
become the centrepiece of our being.
All above images of Meuck's show by Sean Fennessey
How
can things be bettered? Skull art seems to be an excuse rather than
anything else; a way for nothing to become something using the
techniques of media advertising and promotion: make an attraction;
create a public discussion; establish a demand to be counted in the
millions; then claim the greatness of the art has been confirmed: and
is it in the sales room – again by the millions: see -
http://voussoirs.blogspot.com.au/2017/05/graphic-freud-design-as-sex.html
This image and the one below by Tom Ross
What
must one do? Where does our ‘baggage’ come from? Ironically, one
has to ask if it is being shaped, has been shaped, by media
promotions: and art? Do we have to accept art as an enigmatic enigma
for everyone to indulge in - for MY and someone else’s ‘baggage’ to become entwined in a ‘meaningful’ mishmash of randomness? What about life and its living - flesh and blood?
CAMBODIA
some images
'Life-sized' skulls
Try bringing your 'baggage' to these
Cambodian lives. Do we have to turn things stark, stern, and shocking
into a scene to entertain our ‘baggage’ - a stageset for our
selfies?
NGV Triennial
NOTE
18
December 2017
The
day after publishing this piece, an article on the exhibition
appeared in The Guardian:
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2017/dec/18/ngv-triennial-astounding-blockbuster-grips-the-heart-and-repels-the-nostrils?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Gmail
It
is strange to see that the hypothetical exhibition outlined
in the SKULL ART text appears
to be not too different to the actual NGV Triennial show:
also see -
https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/gallery/2017/jul/24/id-be-crushed-if-this-was-gone-before-anyone-got-to-see-it-rones-omega-house-in-pictures?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Gmail
that is not unlike the envisaged bedroom proposal.
Omega House
NGV Triennial
The
article in The
Guardian puts yet
another layer on things arty – they become props for selfies;
decorative backgrounds! So we are able to not only bring our own
‘baggage,’ but we can also photograph its presence too, for
personal delight and promotional social requirements, all to confirm
and declare ME.
NGV Triennial
NGV Triennial
Then there is yet another aspect to art
and galleries: the commerce. The NGV has, amongst a range of items, a
Skull Skateboard, a Temporary Tattoo Set, and a Triennial T-Shirt! It all appears to fit the
same mould as that prepared for ‘baggage’ - adding to it as it trivialises everything.
We should not forget the killing fields.
We should heed this request, this history.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.