This week we went to see Rebecca Ann Hobbs' show Failing, Falling, Flying and without knowing all the works' true context I really didn't understand what it was about. From the title and most of the images I drew the conclusion that the main subject being explored, though not the only one, was about being caught in mid-motion in an unusual place or situation to be brief. All the works were from different periods of time and from individual series, and after Hobbs' talked to us about her work I understood a lot of humour and absurdity had been injected. This concept of absurdity is a very large part of the show and is a reflection on Hobbs' past experiences and personality. She explained her works as stylized jokes, even dirty jokes, causing the viewer to look twice when seeing images that aren't the norm like the upside-down image Over Easy (2006). Her photograph Complex Social Groups (2001) is a self-portrait of her standing with a dog and it is a joke about beastiality, this is a good example of her work with dirty jokes and it is a good example of something that gathers attention as it was part of her series Suck Roar which was what made her name known. Her photos also freeze movement, showing us a living thing mid-falling, flying or failing which looks very surreal and awkward. In a way her images are literal translations of the word absurd, even the titles like Spin (which matches an image of a man falling down a flight of stairs) can be literal. Spin (2006) also shows one of the scenarios in her works where the casual and dangerous mix which is a very strange situation.
It is easy to believe that absurdity in art is the result of anxiety we feel when we face absurdity in our lives, Hobbs mentioned that she didn't do well in school, she cut class, always got detention, moved to a lot of different schools etc. and this has influenced her work and is probably what interested her in this idea of the absurd perspective of the world. What I found most interesting when researching absurd art, and Hobbs talked about it also, was how the absurdity is on some level about peoples drive to find meaning in the world and not being able to. In an essay by the philosopher Camus, he introduces his philosophy of the absurd: "man's futile search for meaning, unity and clarity in the face of an unintelligible world devoid of God and eternal truths or values." Both Hobbs and Camus compared the absurdity of man's life with the situation of Sisyphus, a figure of Greek mythology who was condemned to forever repeat the same meaningless task of pushing a boulder up a mountain only to see it roll down again. "The workman of today works everyday in his life at the same tasks, and this fate is no less absurd. But it is tragic only at the rare moments when it becomes conscious". Camus presents Sisyphus' situation as a metaphor for modern lives spent working at hopeless jobs in factories and offices. Basically the hopeless moment is when he is walking down the hill, realising the futility of his task but when he realizes the absurdity of his situation you have to imagine him being content and in acceptance of his life when he is striving for his goal, he keeps pushing.
Tuesday, July 27, 2010
Tuesday, July 20, 2010
20th July - Mary Curtis
Mary Curtis' art practice shows a strong relationship between function and decoration, an "everyday" quality and a museum-like quality. In a way jewellery loses its usability by becoming an object in a gallery, it becomes all about how it is displayed, what it looks like, rather than how it would or should function. Her work Ostentatious is a great example of her play on the lack of functionality jewellery can have, the work was designed specifically for a showcase in the Auckland contemporary jewellery store, Fingers. Ostentatious is a long red velvet ring box that runs along two walls on the ground, made so it would stand out from other glass encased artworks. Each depression holds a silver finger-ring and the fragility or size of which make the work appear somewhat ridiculous and impractical to wear, this is the difference between function and decoration. Decoration is not only about how the object looks but also the way it is presented, Curtis expressed her disdain at enclosing her work in a vitrine because it would completely change the language of the artwork, so she made it in a way that requires our attention. Entitling the work Ostentatious also emphasises this concept of exhibition and display and this work being intended for show.
Curtis is particularly interested in the history of decoration which is where we can see the usability of jewellery more clearly. For example, 19th century jewellery was very much about showing off, it was big and looked highly uncomfortable to wear. But this is where the difference between function and display is defined because though they are so flashy they actually functioned as a display of wealth. But also jewellery can be culturally symbolic like Hawaiian wreaths which have meaning as a welcoming and a parting.
Symbolism of work is actually very interesting to look at, what I liked from Curtis' work was her red heart-shaped fish hook necklace. It is a simple design but its meanings can be limitless; it could symbolize love, anger, good luck as red is in some cultures, is love a painful catch? Does it hurt falling in love?
Metadecorative: New work by Mary Curtis is an exhibition consisting of brooches, rings, earrings, and necklaces made from such materials as silver, wallpaper, wool blankets, recycled fabric, paint, cotton, stainless wire, glue and resin. These materials inspire an "everyday" quality in the work, coupled with a museum-like atmosphere. These works evidence her interest in decoration within usable objects; they appear in a way that resembles jewellery from the 19th century, the patterns are similar, the colour palette, the only difference would be that they are made from cheaper materials and found objects. The line between function and decoration is faint in these works as they are visually unusual and therefore unlikely to be worn, though the point that making isn't always about being pretty was brought up by Curtis, they are in fact sizable to be worn. I do think that being worn would change the reading of the work, they would become personal to the wearer and depending on the person doing the wearing they would look different to how they would look in a vitrine which is where this museum-like quality in the work comes from.
I think the pieces are more effective in these closed off spaces, they becomes individuals in a collection and therefore each require our attention from all angles. It also emphasises this link to history, its like seeing part of a world we didn't live in but having the knowledge that they were inspired not only by the past but also by modern influences.
Curtis is particularly interested in the history of decoration which is where we can see the usability of jewellery more clearly. For example, 19th century jewellery was very much about showing off, it was big and looked highly uncomfortable to wear. But this is where the difference between function and display is defined because though they are so flashy they actually functioned as a display of wealth. But also jewellery can be culturally symbolic like Hawaiian wreaths which have meaning as a welcoming and a parting.
Symbolism of work is actually very interesting to look at, what I liked from Curtis' work was her red heart-shaped fish hook necklace. It is a simple design but its meanings can be limitless; it could symbolize love, anger, good luck as red is in some cultures, is love a painful catch? Does it hurt falling in love?
Metadecorative: New work by Mary Curtis is an exhibition consisting of brooches, rings, earrings, and necklaces made from such materials as silver, wallpaper, wool blankets, recycled fabric, paint, cotton, stainless wire, glue and resin. These materials inspire an "everyday" quality in the work, coupled with a museum-like atmosphere. These works evidence her interest in decoration within usable objects; they appear in a way that resembles jewellery from the 19th century, the patterns are similar, the colour palette, the only difference would be that they are made from cheaper materials and found objects. The line between function and decoration is faint in these works as they are visually unusual and therefore unlikely to be worn, though the point that making isn't always about being pretty was brought up by Curtis, they are in fact sizable to be worn. I do think that being worn would change the reading of the work, they would become personal to the wearer and depending on the person doing the wearing they would look different to how they would look in a vitrine which is where this museum-like quality in the work comes from.
I think the pieces are more effective in these closed off spaces, they becomes individuals in a collection and therefore each require our attention from all angles. It also emphasises this link to history, its like seeing part of a world we didn't live in but having the knowledge that they were inspired not only by the past but also by modern influences.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)