Nottingham - Lakeside Arts Centre

Visit: 2nd February 2013

'Saturday Night & Sunday Morning' is an exhibition of photographs taken in Nottingham in the 1960s during the filming of kitchen sink classic Saturday Night and Sunday Morning starring Albert Finney and Shirley Ann Fields. It also contained photographs of working class life, factory life and youth culture in 1960s Nottingham.

I really loved the exhibition. All of the photographs were iconic and beautiful, but that might just be because of the romantic nostalgia that succumbs to photos of this era. The real message that the exhibition seemed to give was a kind of working class mentality of 'us and them' that's so common in gritty kitchen sink dramas - like Albert Finney's character says in the film - "Don't let the bastards grind you down. That's one thing you learn. What I'm out for is a good time. All the rest is propaganda".

I liked the film already, but the photographs of the stars interacting with communities and each other were great. It was really interesting to see where, on some photographs, one figure had been painted or etched round, with notes about enlargement or distortion that were the original plans for press releases or posters. Black and white photographs from anywhere in the '60s have the same charm about them - it's hard not to like them.

The gallery itself was really full. I don't think I've ever seen a gallery so full and especially not an arts centre. I thought it was really great how much the space engaged with the community, which I suppose was really helped by the familiarity of the subject matter as people were talking about memories or naming products or items of clothing that they used to have. It's the first gallery I have been in where there was such a healthy cross section of the public there which I thought was great, and I don't think I've ever heard so many people discussing art with such enthusiasm in a gallery before.

I especially liked the photographs of youth culture - the photographs of teenagers in dance-halls were beautiful. The images were so nostalgic and dreamy. There was something incredibly romantic in the quality of the photographs. They were so unlike digital photographs and so superior, they had a lot of depth and that's perhaps why they were so appealing.

Because they were the real thing, not imitations, they felt authentic and honest and you could feel that when you were looking at them. You didn't feel any kind of awkwardness or weakness even because you knew they were the genuine article. So many people try to imitate that style now and it just doesn't work because it suits the time so well. It was great to see something so honest.

Ted Polhemus

Tuesday 22nd January

Ted Polhemus

After the first day of the Level 5 History of Art Symposium we received a talk from Ted Polhemus, photographer and author specializing in youth culture style. I thought the talk was interesting, and his presence as a speaker was great. But I didn't really think what he was saying was anything new, or anything that most people don't really know - it was essentially just hip things and style through history. At the end of the talk he seemed a bit miffed about the fact that no-one was buying his book, but I sort of thought to myself it's fair enough really, anyone can watch Blow Up and read up on the history of Punk - anyone who is genuinely interested already has done. There's such a wealth of information out there already on these subjects.

I also didn't especially like the focus on the fashion of youth culture. For me, subcultures like Punk and the Beats especially aren't necessarily about an aesthetic, it's about an attitude. They rose out of dissatisfaction or craving satisfaction. There was, of course, a certain "D.I.Y" style adopted by The Clash, The Pistols and The Slits (the latter two being orchestrated by McLaren, so their genuine "style" has to be questioned), but this style wasn't punk. It became a characture. Polhemus said that if you walked down Kings Road in the '70s there was people dressed in bin-bags, but everything I've seen or heard says that this is a myth, that there weren't that many genuine punks. What about Buzzcocks? They just wore ordinary clothes and played Punk music. I think the style enhances the ethic, but it isn't really about that. Similarly, Beats were about lusting for life desperately whilst being completely aware of the spiritual or futile prospects this holds, or steals. When Polhemus referenced Beats he said something a long the lines of "there was this guy Kerouac wearing jeans. This had never happened before. And he went off on the road for a year". He was famously on the road for around 7 years and the fact he was wearing jeans doesn't really make any difference. It's the fact that he was desperate to live and to experience something, something human or above human. I think by claiming "he wore jeans" as part of his revolution demeans the actual revolution he started. It's not necessarily about a community style, but a community ethic or feeling.

He spoke about there being no new youth movements recently, the most recent one was in Japan. But the Japanese adoption of punk styles was completely aesthetic. It wasn't about the underlying ethics, so for me, I would consider that empty and pointless. It was the adoption of Western styles and whereas punk was an original look, if it was a look at all, it wasn't just stealing a style from another group.

I thought it was an interesting talk, but I found myself disagreeing with a lot of things.

Bluecoat Gallery and Printmaking

Visit: 14th January

Today we visited the Bluecoat and received a talk from Emma Gregory, a resident print-maker  She told us about the formalities and protocols of getting grants for projects or plans within an organisation with Arts Council funding, such as Bluecoat. This was really interesting, but quite disheartening. She didn't seem happy at all in her work and completely at the end of her tether with regards to getting things actually changed or improved there.

She also talked to us about herself as an artist and about teaching other artists. She commented that she felt frustration in the area of artists improvement. There seems to be a trap that artists fall into wherein they're aiming no longer for integrity, or intellectual stimulation, and instead print images of more commercial value. Emma said that she had moved beyond this stage, but was not yet at the level of working that granted galleries to be interested in her work, and so needed to develop her work more conceptually. When teaching others who do simply go for the aesthetic which sells, she said she felt frustrated and like she needed to push people forward by introducing new artists to the workshops to inspire the people she teaches.

The talk we were given was very passionate and very sad, but for good reason. It must be very hard to constantly have the battle of creativity or money. Obviously, Bluecoat aren't going to let her make improvements unless they see a financial return. But, as an arts organisation, that isn't how I would have expected it to be run, I would have thought it was community and arts before money. There seems to be a huge gap between the money thrown at exhibiting artists and that tightly given to artists resident or practicing there.

Emma noted that Bluecoat have recently become fonder of her project because it attracts young men of a certain age range who are normally seen as a 'trouble' group to  Governments and organisations. Because Bluecoat are seen to get involved with this cross-section of people, they are considering giving more funding. When you think about it, it's quite cynical and quite self-serving in the way it is run (rather than the community based space it seems to promote itself as). Although I found her talk interesting, it put me off wanting to get involved with that kind of project, because although it is admirable, it sounds like such a mess and struggle. It's a shame that because of the current climate arts funding has to be so stingy.

Quentin Blake Exhibition

Visit: Wednesday 9th January

"Maternity Hospital Angers"
Taken from "www.leamingtoncourier.co.uk"

I didn't know what to expect from the Quentin Blake exhibition at Knowsley Art Gallery. As a kid I liked Roald Dahl books but I can't remember ever really liking the illustrations in them, and nowadays I find them a bit creepy and odd. When we entered the exhibition space I saw some illustrations that brought back memories due to their distinctive style and although I didn't enjoy a lot of the pieces because of personal taste, I really liked the above image. The reason for this is primarily the mark making that it contains. I like ink drawings and the variation and sensitivity to line that they can portray. Also, the shape of the figure reminded me of a Rubens painting. I especially like the lines in the torso and legs for their differentiation.

I did, however, like the feel of the gallery space and the way it had been curated to appeal to children and families. I thought it was really inventive to incorporate a bedroom scene into the space, as well as the interactive element for kids. I know if I was one I would have really enjoyed being there, so I think it's a great way to encourage kids to be involved with art.

It was interesting to listen to the curator of the gallery explain all of the different elements and responsibilities she has to deal with in her job, as well as the involvement with other organisations and communities. I'd never been to Knowsley Gallery before but it was a really nice day out.

David Hockney on Countryfile

30th December 2012

David Hockney appeared in an episode of Countryfile explaining the colours that can be found in the landscape of East Yorkshire as well as his new work which is created using an iPad. It was the latter element that caught my eye.

Rather than getting an easel out or a real subject, Hockney now claims to retread the same area of countryside using only an iPad and "paint" using that. These "paintings" are then printed on a large scale and are going to be placed in the Royal Academy of Art. I don't really like people who aren't willing to move with the times, and in hindsight when people have objected to new revolutions or progressions it seems too easily preposterous (Whistler Vs Ruskin, Britain's resistance from Impressionism, America's resistance from Modernism etc). But I don't really think that this is a time when it seems silly (which it probably never does at the time). I think painting on an iPad is quite sad and horrible. I didn't like the examples of the works that were shown because it reminds me of when I was at primary school and we used to mess about on Paint and make pictures - but for David Hockney to do the same thing but get the credit of a huge artist just seems laughable and very odd. There's no feeling in painting on a screen with no mess, brush, colours, or physicality to it. Of course, people probably said this about computers generating text when a typewriter was thought to have more feeling, but painting is something that has been around since the beginning, surely it can't be taken over by heartless technology now?

I think it's quite scary how everything with feeling or physicality is rapidly being replaced by something easily done, very accessible and heartless. Everything's so cold now, there's no real expression or intimacy, it's just clinical and distant and I think it's really quite sad.

A Hockney iPad piece
Taken from "www.huffingtonpost.co.uk"

Baltic Visit

Visit: 29th December 2012

Bojan Fajfric

Fajfric is a Yugoslavian artist and his work discusses the political situation there and in particular, the rise of Malosovic. Upon first entering the exhibition space, which was made up of 4 rooms consisting of mainly films apart from the two large wall prints seen in the below image, I was a bit overwhelmed. Film requires attention, and I didn't feel as though I could pay the deserved attention to this many films, especially as they dealt with a subject that was foreign and difficult to me. As a result, none of the films really sunk in and I walked round too quickly, just so I could "get through" the sheer amount of work. I did this until I came to the last room, which was very small and intimate with no other visitors in (they filled the other rooms). In the room was a short film consisting of a monologue over images of riders and horses. Aesthetically, it looked to have been filmed on a Super 8 Camera. The monologue spoke a kind of timeline, beginning with a sight that shocked the narrator as a boy (a man struggling with a black stallion and it bit his thumb off). The next sentence was about reading Marxist documents and becoming involved with Marxism and the Gorvernment at the same time (it was revealed that he later left the police because he could see what Malosovic was going to do). The interplay between the horse and politics continued through dialogue as images of riders riding through forests and graveyards were played. I thought the work was incredibly clever. I interpreted the horse as an example of power that stayed with him through the years, and he grappled with it, similar to the man in his sight. Then at the end of the timeline, after leaving the police, the man opened a riding school - he overcame the power he thought to be wrong that had taken something from him and literally tamed the horse. Even though it was spoken in a dead pan way and the only emotion expressed was at the beginning, I thought it was really moving and I really enjoyed it. It was clinical, but also quite beautiful.

Jim Shaw

The Jim Shaw exhibition was very different to the Fajfric exhibition. For me, I thought one demonstrated experience of wanting political change and horror at what has happened, whereas the other seemed more from an "average joe" point of view, attacking the Western problem of consumerism.

Jim Shaw is a prolific American artist who works in many different medias, but all of his work seemed to look a bit samey despite this. It had a lot of impact due to sheer size, such as "Untitled (US Presidents)" (2006), but the imagery used was a bit too obvious to be good, I thought. For example, businessmen as zombies, the White House hidden behind 1950s household products and 50s comic strips telling tales of the downfall of heroes. I know he is a postmodern artist and therefore draws on a lot of pop culture, but I just thought there could have been a more subtle way to do it. It was of overkill on the "consumerism's bad" front.

Untitled (US Presidents) 2006

In a few cases I thought that the references were too far so that I'm not sure if Shaw was the actual artist. I don't mean whether he actually created it, but more that the authenticity of the ideas might not have belonged to him. For example, the image below could be a mix of Pollock, Baldessari and a portraitist like Saville or Freud. I think it is very easy sometimes to pinpoint different elements of artworks taken from different artists (whether intentional or not) so that it degrades the artwork. It made me think about whether anything original can be done anymore, or whether we'll just keep retreading the past in different combinations. There are a lot of artists who work around this subject - Sierra could be another example.

Hugo D'Argantel-Sypniewski Lecture on Santiago Sierra

Lecture: 5th December

Today we had a lecture on Santiago Sierra delivered by Hugo D'Argantel-Sypniewski. It also highlighted the wider issue of "social art". It's not really a type of art that I am familiar with but I do admire, especially the idea of bringing about positive change like artists such as Ai Weiwei (who I greatly admire - it's hard not to!). I suppose there could be issues raised about who is the artist within artworks of this type due to the reliance on the participation of the audience as well as the possibility of an absence of interactive input from the artist in the actual event of the piece (such as with some of Sierra's work).

However, I do admire this kind of work's defiance to be placed as a commodity that can be bought. (But I was disappointed when  D'Argantel-Sypniewski revealed that Sierra makes a hefty amount from galleries commissioning temporary works or projects.) I think an artist can loose integrity and respect from the issue of money, especially when their artwork has such a pungent political meaning and plays a part in social change. To profit from these seems somehow dirty and exploitative.

On the issue of exploitation, I did think that some of the works went too far and crossed the boundaries of art. (I know you're not really meant to think that because it is "art") For example, "160cm line tattooed on four people" (2000) was too far for me. I understood the back story about prostitution and drug use and the evil that money plays in the cycle, but I think to permanently brand a vulnerable person in a position that no-one should be in is quite evil and nasty.  D'Argantel-Sypniewski said it had philosophical and aesthetic connotations that he seemed to quite admire, and I understand this and even the urge to admire it, but I think it's a different matter between changing the body of ones self and changing the body of others - and again, their vulnerable position makes it almost hateful.

"160cm line tattooed on four people" (2000)
Taken from "www.hydramag.com"

Sierra also said that he doesn't believe anything can be changed; there's no other system but the one in which we currently exist. This is where, for me, he loses the integrity and inspiring element that Ai Weiwei instils in people. It seems odd that he would want to create this art if he doesn't see it changing anything, so he's just highlighting issues. In some ways, when combined with the amount of money he is making, I think that this makes him seem like a profiteer of those who aren't as fortunate as him. As I've said in previous posts, the art audience of his works is, by the nature of exhibiting in galleries, a relatively small demographic of the population. In highlighting the faults of society, he doesn't even seem to care enough to highlight it to a decent cross section of the public. The money, the setting, the lack of optimism.. all of these things contribute increasingly to an idea that he is just playing the system for his own profit - but he is playing it well.

His work does get you thinking, and I quite liked some pieces, but the authenticity doesn't seem to be there and that's something that I find very important.