Rory Biddulph

CANNED magazine, CALL FOR WRITERS!!!!

2011-03-29T06:33:00.000-07:00

The call-out is up!!! see http://cannedmag.net/callout.html or visit http://www.cannedmag.net/ for details on submissions. CANNED is looking for writers to comment on theories, trends, projects, artists and artworks within the discourse of contemporary practice. We are looking for unique perspectives delivered with eloquence and clarity. The publication has developed from the momentum of The NewBridge Project and will maintain a link to the North East without limiting its own scope of interest. The magazine will not stand for one fixed position; rather it will be a consolidating tool for the commentary of writers, artists and cultural critics. This is an unpaid opportunity but we will circulate 2500 copies plus coverage on the website (www.cannedmag.net) and through social networking channels. If you want to send anything through, have any questions or simply want to get in touch e-mail us at info@CANNEDmag.net

CANNED website

2011-03-29T06:30:00.000-07:00

Our new website for CANNED magazine, www.CANNEDmag.net , is up and running! CANNED magazine is coming on really quickly now. We are up on Twitter, Facebook and have had a wealth of press thanks to some excellent p.r from Tessa Biddulph.

Recent press

2011-03-29T06:28:00.002-07:00

http://www.creativeboom.co.uk/north-east/news/an-inspiring-group-of-newcastle-based-artists-have-canned-their-talent/
http://www.creativeboom.co.uk/north-east/ (your on the home page reel)
http://www.thisiscentralstation.com/opportunities/canned-magazine.aspx
http://www.creativeboom.co.uk/north-east/events/imitation-arsonist-lights-and-sculpture/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/57938740@N02/5342781982/
http://goarts.co.uk/
http://www.interval-bristol.org.uk/content/pop-initiative
http://www.euro-hostels.co.uk/glasgow/1513_newcastle-gallery-to-hold-exhibition-of-lights-and-sculpture
http://www.artscouncil.org.uk/news/NewBridgeStudio/
http://thenewbridgeproject.blogspot.com/2011/01/imitation-arsonist.html
http://paper.li/lovewhatslocal/2011/01/11
http://paper.li/jewellerybyshal/2011/01/11

2011-03-29T06:28:00.001-07:00

www.twitter.com/CANNEDmagazine

2011-03-29T06:27:00.001-07:00

www.twitter.com/CANNEDmagazine

CANNED statement

2011-03-29T06:16:00.000-07:00

From the momentum of The NewBridge Project in Newcastle upon Tyne comes CANNED, a new and visually exciting magazine that provides artists, curators, critics and the public with an informative and accessible cultural resource. CANNED contains articles, reviews and interviews with creative practitioners. It aims to improve public knowledge of cultural issues, establish and strengthen networks and improve synergy between practices and wider discourse. CANNED welcomes writers from all disciplines and encourages a range of styles and opinions. As such it aims to establish itself as an essential facility to further professional writing practices and open new avenues for discussion and creativity. CANNED aims to manifest a self-sustaining, intelligent and focused dialogue, and provide exposure for a range of artists. It will not stand for one fixed position; rather it will be a consolidating tool for the artistic trajectories of writers, artists and cultural critics. CANNED wants content that pushes, explores and challenges art criticism, generating sophisticated controversy and widespread debate that is forward thinking in its content, delivery and distribution. As an artist-led initiative CANNED is a non-profit publication. CANNED will be available to everyone, and fervently welcomes diversity and originality.

Re-make/Re-model Sunderland NGC

2011-03-29T04:33:00.000-07:00

Compared to the National Glass Centre’s pristine exhibitions, marble collections and immaculate vases, its new exhibition, Re-make/Re-model (14/10/2010-27/2/2011) is almost aggressive. Set in a dark gallery with tiled floors and a complex ceiling of rigging and lights, Lothar Goetz’s bold blocks of colours adorn the walls, immersing a rich and vibrant display of sculptures that peripherally flit from one piece to the next. Although the works appear rather eclectic, and are admittedly somewhat inhibited by their unconventional gallery setting, the aesthetic and thematic ties are thought provoking and unusual. All the works exhibited share, to greater or lesser degrees, a concern for environmental and economic waste. They either have been or allow for the re-cycled, re-invented or re-made, testing formal and conventional possibilities of found or used objects and re-usable materials.
Upon entering, Darren Bank’s vintage televisions scream with noise adapted from classic horror movie culture, which forms a stark contrast to Steven Emmanel’s fantastically meticulous works, such as a cup containing hundreds and thousands sorted into their correct colours, or his symmetrical ink-blot like rug made up of 16,000 marbles. In an adjoining room, Jacob Dahlgren’s geometric framework of food cans twists and snakes next to Cristian Gräser’s chandelier made entirely from used beer bottles; both works originating from events put on in the glass centre in name of re-cycling and re-using.
Pieces such as Ruth Claxton's twisted, illusory mirrors, or Charlotte Hughes Martin's beautifully etched beer glass could go unnoticed next to the prominence of their vivid surroundings. However, such works, tucked into corners and crannies, invite that second look which adds to the intrigue of the space and gives the exhibition the layer of substance that allows it to maintain an investigatory nature.
For an exhibition that provides so many varied and original artworks, the success of Re-Make/Re-Model comes from its ability to provide a social narrative and for that narrative to be overlooked in enjoyment of individual aesthetics. It is not an original concept to demonstrate the manner in which artists utilise the throw-away or the recyclable, yet the originality felt from this exhibition stems from the diverse range of artists who have individually developed unique spins on the idea of re-making and re-modeling. Re-Make/Re-Model succeeds in its ambition to provide a different outlook on how art can be produced alongside environmental worries. Whether through its underlying message or its aesthetic diversity, this exhibition is at very least anything from the ordinary.

Link to Twitter page

2011-02-03T06:42:00.000-08:00

http://twitter.com/#!/rorybiddulph

(www.twitter.com/rorybiddulph)

feature on creative boom

2011-02-03T05:46:00.000-08:00

http://www.creativeboom.co.uk/north-east/events/imitation-arsonist-lights-and-sculpture/

Urban Front 2011

2011-02-03T05:12:00.000-08:00

Structure 2010

2011-02-03T05:09:00.000-08:00

writing for NewBridge; We All Own The Mona Lisa, December 2010

2010-12-03T01:13:00.000-08:00

“A blind man can make art if what is in his mind can be passed to another mind in some tangible form. Also, since art is a vehicle for the transmission of ideas through form, the reproduction of the form only reinforces the concept. It is the idea that is being reproduced. Anyone who understands the work of art owns it. We all own the Mona Lisa. ” Sol LeWitt

A pioneer of historical Conceptualism, Sol LeWitt claimed that ideas are the driving force behind the production of art. The aesthetic generated subsequently from the idea was not only less significant in his eyes, but could in fact be deemed irrelevant to the conception of the work. It is important, however, to distinguish ideas from ‘concept’. As LeWitt wrote, concept implies ‘general direction’ while idea is more concerned with ‘components’ . In short, ideas ‘implement the concept’ .

LeWitt’s perspectives were developed in line with his methodologies; the dissemination of plans which could be used to create artworks, with or without his presence. This act, which could be considered one of self sacrifice, welcomes integration, participation and collaboration; all of which, as recognised by Boris Groys, are ‘undeniably…main characteristics of contemporary art’ .

To develop a set of procedural rules in art, that govern the interaction, development or creation of an artwork, forces a removal of the erratic and whimsical (or at least attempts to inhibit these factors). The outcome may vary owing to implementation and translation of the rules (and it is perhaps better, in terms of creativity, that it does) but will eventually allow an individual’s ideas to flourish through the course of involvement. This method of working is fundamentally democratic. The artist releases ideas with the intent to produce a resulting work that is non-reliant on his or her presence. The effect is that the artist liberates the work from traditional confines of ownership, allowing a broader scope for the generation of ideas.

In a more finite way, this method can be applied to individual artistic pursuits. Even if an artist were to create work in solitude or confinement, the use of rules (if followed directly) dictates the eventual outcome to be one of democratic decision making; democratic, at least, through the artist’s inability to inhibit the chance developments implicit in the set processes. The execution of the artwork is still controlled by the stipulated situation rather than choice (aside from the initial instructions formulated by the artist), and provides an arena for new ideas to flourish. The outcome, however planned, is never certain. It is a developmental process that eliminates the artist’s subjective decision making with aim to investigate creative potential.

We All Own the Mona Lisa brings together four artists who, through shared convictions, allow and even welcome developments through predetermined working processes. Favouring the importance of idea over outcome, the works adapt, change and expand throughout a course of involvement. It is through interaction that these ideas gain momentum, achieving a sense of belonging with ‘whoever understands them’ .

Construct, The Hatton Gallery Newcastle upon Tyne

2010-06-19T04:05:00.000-07:00

Ethics in society: Writing for Degree Show Catalogue

2010-05-03T10:57:00.000-07:00

Finding methods by which to challenge spectator’s ethical and political ideals is problematic at best. Advertising, media and technological advancements increasingly reify society’s ideals. The media comments on sale figures and auction results as though they were an aspiration shared by all artists alike; and behind closed door selling is as flourishing as ever. Yet commerce is not necessarily an anathema to creativity; for to force artists to have limitations or restrictions within their creative practices would be to hinder progression. What remains in question, however, is the degree to which artists are able to challenge ethical and political perspectives.
Artists have achieved success in instigating primary responses such as discussion and debate. Yet if this is not enough, attempts to surpass the conversational level and really push the boundaries of ethical and political change must be increased. Time old methods such as shock tactic art are now so common place that audiences are too desensitised to consider further action. It is vital therefore, that artists recognise social attitudes, and continue to adapt working methods accordingly. For if artists are unable to significantly challenge social preconceptions then the ethical and political effectiveness of art is questionable indeed.

400 words on Criticism

2010-05-03T10:55:00.000-07:00

Much can be said of the significance of forming critical dialogues in art. Analysis, discussion, contextualisation and production are critical areas implicit in art’s very nature. Even the most acute aesthetic decisions are critically informed through long experiential processes such as education and experimentation.

Through such considerations, artists are able to project personal viewpoints or ideas in such a way as to pose physical and dialectical problems to spectators. Given the reifying nature of capitalist culture, this is commendable indeed; for if art is able to break barriers of desensitivity and accessibility, it is able also to affect social and ethical ideals.

It is vital however, that the boundaries of critical thought be continuously pushed.
New ideas and concepts are still voiced; yet such views are so often embedded in fields such as philosophy, ethics, sociology and politics that contemporary criticism is only accessible to those in the know. This is not, however, entirely negative. Art is fed, influenced, challenged and ultimately advanced by investigation. It is not realistic to project highly theoretical or controversial viewpoints upon a mass audience; nor is attempting to please everyone in the interest of progress. If questions are not being asked of, in and through the art-world, then art loses its ability to impact upon society. Without such means, art is left to flounder upon the grounds of an entertainment industry.

Immediate Structures

2010-05-01T10:33:00.000-07:00

Between Us and This

2010-05-01T10:29:00.000-07:00

Between Us and This

2010-05-01T10:26:00.000-07:00

Between Us and This

2010-05-01T10:22:00.000-07:00

Between Us and This

2010-05-01T10:18:00.000-07:00

Roquentin

2010-03-21T01:12:00.001-07:00

Stills from Film recently exhibited in Istanbul Triennial

If Metzger is right there's hope Yet! writing for Frenzined; May edition

2010-03-21T01:06:00.000-07:00

Led into a large auditorium at the far end of the 1st floor in the Baltic, it was difficult to tell whether a symposium, performance or recital was about to take place. In the end I’m still not sure I could say. Through the darkness, spotlights beamed over a piano and a small chair and desk; both objects carefully positioned on opposite sides of the space as though in conversation. Metzger, meanwhile, was sat on a small metal stool by the tiers, dressed in a tweed-like jacket, black trousers and brown boots; all far too big for his small stature.

Having been introduced by curator Alessandro Vincentelli (a tall, energetic and frankly paradoxical figure to that of the eighty three year old artist), Metzger crept over to the desk to give a brief description of ideas surrounding the requested topic of energy. Energy in terms of oil depletion, fighting, killing, obesity and position politics; all themes highly topical and, it must be said, reflective of his industrious career. He would then claim that he decided not to talk about energy at all and talk about hope instead.

Metzger, it seems has lost none of his character. His lecture notes were little more than scribbles on paper ripped from a note book. A screwed up paper ball sat at his feet alongside an overly packed carrier bag. I was earlier told that he had spent his day trekking round Newcastle looking for shoelaces. Yet, for all his quirks and slips, Metzger’s passion is highly noticeable. He talks of ‘cleansing’ hope and the importance of language and education. Whereas one might consider destroying a frightening picture of Adolf Hitler by ripping it up or setting it alight, Metzger felt he had to ‘kill it’ by ‘freezing it forever’ between two large panels of steel. Even a re-performance of a John Cage work where a pianist plays a
Silent tune, was carefully selected to represent the bridge between Auto-destructive art and the exploration of nothingness.

This symposium or, perhaps what could more appropriately be dubbed a performance, was more than a mere explanation of Metzger’s work. Based on a quote by T.S Elliott, ‘this is how the world ends, not with a bang but with a whimper’, it was a reflection of his optimism in our capability to change our social circumstances. Metzger’s first film (the bang) depicts a scene of fireworks over a cityscape; his second, the laying of asphalt on the premises of a Munich Nazi establishment; and his third (the whimper) images of Rothko paintings accompanied by a peaceful classical composition. Every pause in Metzger’s speech seemed a moment of reflection. It was just a shame that the final pause, intended to emphasise the impact of Metzger’s ‘whimper’ or ‘end’, was abruptly interrupted by Vincentelli who bounded in, microphone in hand, convinced that Metzger had lost his way.

Yet this had little bearing on Metzger’s underlying message; that the ‘next step is [with the] young’. He claims the young ‘have an energy which is based on an absolute necessity to survive’. Being one of the ‘young’ that Metzger speaks of, I’m not overly sure I share his confidence; but he has engaged my attention and enthusiasm. Artists such as Metzger aim to cause people to consider their social and political positions, yet it will be up to younger generations to force the type of change necessary to progress ethics and society. As society is becoming increasingly reified by capitalist culture, issues such as desensitivity and materialism are more apparent. The question is whether the apparency of such issues will spur the type of change Metzger speaks of, or continue to be overlooked or even welcomed by society

2010-03-21T00:57:00.000-07:00

Dionysus

2010-03-21T00:54:00.000-07:00

Dionysus

2010-03-21T00:48:00.000-07:00

Picture from exhibition

Dionysus

2010-03-21T00:45:00.000-07:00

People enjoying the (imaginary) warmth from Johannes

Aeschylus at Dionysus exhibition

2010-03-21T00:43:00.000-07:00

Johannes at Dionysus exhibition

2010-03-21T00:39:00.000-07:00

Oresteia

2010-03-21T00:36:00.000-07:00

Few Thoughts on Emotion, writing for Frenzined; January edition

2010-02-21T02:22:00.000-08:00

It is impossible to make an artwork without having an idea. Even if one were to design machines that produced artworks, the original concept could be traced back to the guy in the corner who once thought; “I know what would be cool, if I built an awesome robot to make my work for me!” When manifested into an artwork however, not all ideas elicit imaginative or emotional responses. More often, spectator’s contextual and intellectual contemplations override the emotional content. This isn’t to devalue the enjoyment factor of a work, or to inhibit the sense of well being that Kant so poignantly stated as a requisite. Art has simply progressed in more of a conceptual manner relative to the interests of society. As such it is interesting to consider whether it is actually effective, given contemporary audience’s reified attitudes, to play off of the spectator’s imaginative or emotional capabilities rather than to address their intellect (which in itself is a perennial challenge).

It is indubitable that we see objects and, through experience or judgements, categorize them accordingly. Even in the case of the most peculiar or alien artworks, we manage to identify contextual information that allows us to recognise artistic processes and identify with the experience. A painting consists of paint, it has colours, lines, contours, and as such we identify an image. Going one step further, we are able to recognise styles and imagery that are suggestive of certain eras or artists, and respectively, to recognise certain works that belong to individual artists. Occasionally, however, a work does manage to affect viewers emotionally. Yet this is still a matter of subjectivity and as such differs from one person to the next. Nonetheless, being able to form subjective opinions is one of the joys of viewing artworks and cannot be understated. If an artwork affects only one individual in an emotional or intellectual manner then arguably, it has been successful in its own right.

That said, with the prominence of so-called “spectacle” art, the very idea of emotional significance has become unclear. There is now a fine line between works that distract or entertain and works that force viewers to intellectually and emotionally consider significant life perspectives. It is a challenge, therefore, to break free of this dichotomy, and surpass context without entirely distracting audiences from life. Perhaps this could be achieved through phenomenological investigations, by playing upon audience’s senses and attempting to force some sort of recognition of one’s sentient position; or maybe, creating a situation which frees the spectator’s imagination could be more effective if it were, as a result, to create some sort of dialectical problem based in reality.

Admittedly these suggestions are rather vague, and of course it would be wrong to imply that there aren’t any artists attempting such feats (such as Olafur Elliasson’s phenomenological projects). Equally, it would be far too general to claim that audiences are entirely desensitised, unimaginative and un-emotional, for if this were the case, it would spell the end for emancipatory art. Yet in recognising the intellectual leanings of contemporary art, and, for that matter, the increase in popularity of the “spectacle”, there is a discernable space for artists wishing to experiment with emotional content in artworks. What remains to be seen, is whether there is in fact such an interest, and respectively, if there is a realistic method by which to tap into the emotions of such a diverse and critical audience?

Box void

2010-01-31T03:41:00.000-08:00

Aeschylus

2010-01-31T03:40:00.000-08:00

Aeschylus

2010-01-31T03:37:00.000-08:00

A Question of Ethics, writing for Frenzined; December 2009 edition

2010-01-31T03:34:00.000-08:00

In this drawn out post-modern period, artists have continuously vied for position and wealth within a capitalist led system of dealers and collectors. The so called “behind closed door” selling is as prominent as ever and popular publications are still commenting on sale figures and auction results as though commercial achievements were an aspiration shared by all artists alike. Movements, such as they were, have become a thing of the past, and with censorship largely abolished from the majority of institutions, freedom of expression is now an unproblematic subject. Yet how are artists currently to position themselves next to political and social expectations given the fact that anything goes? Is there a way in which they can adapt work to forcefully project an ethical perspective to an ever desensitised audience? Does it even matter if artists never address the topic of ethics at all?

Art, it seems, has at present lost the ability to push people past a conversational level (though of course, discussion may be as commendable result as any). Exhibitions of pornography and violence have long been credited as having legitimate artistic merit, yet such shows are now so commonplace that most “shock-tactic” art just isn’t really shocking. Maybe, as a result, it should be considered equally viable to present mundane and overused social imagery to that of destruction or porn if art can, at best, result only in contemplation and discussion anyway.

This is not to say of course, that contemporary art is altogether failing to affect viewers. Most art will stir some sort of intellectual or emotive reaction be it empathy, intrigue or rejection. If, however, work is made with ethical intentions (that being a reflection upon an artist’s morality) then as a personal, political, and social tool, perhaps artists should take more responsibility by adapting their work to push social boundaries and generate noticeable change. Of course, it could be argued that many artists are endeavouring to achieve such a feat, though the underlying question is more to do with effectiveness than effort. If presenting imagery that reflects the more negative aspects of contemporary society just isn’t working, then what can be done to adapt current working methods in order to progress art as an ethical subject? Perhaps it may be more appropriate, for example, to refrain from utilising blatant subversive imagery so directly and instead to focus creative intentions (as Marcuse suggests) on areas in which the spectator’s perspectives transcend cultural determinations (i.e. imagination and consciousness).

Given how diverse contemporary art has become it is difficult to envisage alternative routes for the ethical artist. Yet it is apparent that there is a need to challenge the methods that artists can use to project such views. Much of contemporary art now adheres to a kind of money making, “cosmetic cloak” that has been instigated by capitalist culture, and concurrently, is highly applauded by the public and media for its entertainment value. Conversely, there is considerable merit in producing work that, while facilitating the capacity for emotional and intellectual contemplations, has not attempted to deal with social, political or ethical issues; though if art were to progress purely down this path it would lose the ability to pose the significant dialectical and ethical problems of which it should be, and is potentially capable.

2010-01-09T01:23:00.000-08:00

"He lives from day to day, indulging the pleasure of the moment. One day it's wine, women and song, the next water to drink and a strict diet; one day it's hard physical training, the next indolence and careless ease, and then a period of philosophic study. Often he takes to politics and keeps jumping to his feet and saying or doing whatever comes into his head. Sometimes his ambitions and efforts are military, sometimes they are all directed to success in business. There's no order or restraint in his life, and he reckons his way of living is pleasant, free and happy, and sticks to it through thick and thin."

Plato, The Republic, Part IX "Imperfect Societies"

Interview for newcastle artists society

2010-01-06T07:00:00.000-08:00

http://www.newcastleartistssociety.com

Johannes

2009-12-21T04:25:00.000-08:00

Johannes

2009-12-21T04:19:00.000-08:00

Johannes

2009-12-21T04:09:00.000-08:00

response to proposal for project

2009-12-10T02:29:00.000-08:00

Rory...

I'm afraid that you are bumping up against the laws of nature here. The thing you are suggesting sounds very heavy and very powerful. Your best bet would be to paint a picture of it rather than trying to make it.

The main problem is the magnetic flux you are trying to generate. I presume that the "push" you want these things to exert is such that an observer can see them moving. I have not done any calculations, but I imagine that to do that over 2m (6 ft) would use hundreds of kilowatts or even megawatts of power unless you went for extremely expensive superconducting magnets (if you could persuade anybody to make them for you). That would need a lot of cooling. It would also need an awful lot of electricity. There would also be a serious safety issue to be addressed - although you might set up these big magnets to oppose one another, they would attract any steel object nearby and crush a hand that gets in between.

On top of all that, there is the cost. Electromagnets are not cheap. They require expensive copper wire and the strength of the magnet is proportional to the mass of copper in it. That's another inconvenient law of nature. And of course the electricity you are proposing to use would be a significant proportion of the total University electricity bill.

The best suggestion I can make is that you think small.

Yours sincerely

...........

Gustav Metzger at the Serpentine, writing for Frenzined; November 2009 edition

2009-12-10T02:06:00.000-08:00

As evident from his recent retrospective at the Serpentine gallery, Gustav Metzger’s anti-capitalist views remain consistent as ever. An up-turned willow tree plunged into a square base of concrete greets visitors to an exhibition that showcases an array of politicised and subversive artworks. Inside, a smashed up Vauxhaul is accompanied by children chanting “kill the car”, curtains cover large historic photographs such as that of Jews leaving the Warsaw Ghetto which, in turn, forces visitors to crawl on hands and knees and come face to face with the horrifying images. Newspapers are heaped and fastened in bundles inviting research, conversation and debate, while in a central room large screens display mesmeric, ever-changing colours from one of Metzger’s liquid crystal environments. As may already seem apparent, Metzger has never consented to creating “cosmetic cloak” artworks, for he claims such works are used to “confuse, divert and entertain large numbers of people” by the state. Instead, as the pioneer of “auto-destructive art”, he regularly employs violent and destructive techniques to provoke controversy, debate, and instigate discussion. He fights like with like, using destruction as a necessary and legitimate tool by which to “explore and exploit” the destruction caused by governments and societies.

At this exhibition however, which culminated over five decades of social and political endeavours, Metzger’s regular “call to arms” approach was replaced by more of a self reflective or contained atmosphere. There was a quietude and simplicity about the works, which were presented and organised as though they were fragments of memories. It is difficult also, to feel angry or riled having been somewhat subdued, allowed to comfortably sit on large cushions, and enticed into watching a beautiful and hypnotic light show.

Yet is this the point? Did Metzger create this comfortable environment in order to reflect contemporary society’s attitudes? Is he poking fun at our ignorance and lack of involvement? If so, I fear the message was not clear enough. The sheets covering the photographs were more frustrating than eye opening, spectators were unable to view the images properly which impeded any possible impact the works may have had; the invite to select and discuss articles seemed to be lost on all (perhaps due to the public’s unwillingness to be ordered into discussion), and there was little mention of the three year art-strike Metzger instigated in 1974 (which being one of his most ambitious attempts to the thwart commercial art systems perhaps should have been mentioned more poignantly). Of course Metzger raises necessary questions, it is indubitable, for instance, that atrocities such as war and the stock piling of nuclear arms need more than simple consideration. Yet what is unclear is whether this more informative approach was intended to provide us with clarity to make our own decisions, or whether it was meant to shock us into the type of action Metzger deems so essential? Maybe, indeed, it may simply the case that he feels the two are intrinsically linked, and that by politically informing the public, social change is inevitable?

For the most part, we all know that we are polluting our world and detest the very idea of nuclear war occurring, though many of us rarely advance our opinions past a conversational level and require a push to take that next step (be it demonstration, protest, lectures etc.). This is not however, to suggest that we shouldn’t find our own ways of improving society, or indeed that we should look to Metzger as the answer to our problems; for even Metzger’s more extreme undertakings throughout his industrious career, have primarily been focused on instigating debate rather than attempting to lead any kind of revolution. Yet is it enough, given the enormity of Metzger’s plight, to act only as a catalyst for discussion, or should he attempt to go one step further and lead us into social change?

It could, of course, be argued that Metzger’s continuing dedication to the anti-capitalist cause is inspiring enough to encourage contemporary artists to devote their time and efforts toward his goals. Yet, from a public perspective, it is the works that have shocked and caused controversy which have been most powerfully felt. Metzger may be right in claiming that we are becoming increasingly aware of the negative side of capitalist culture, though it is still unclear what measure might need to be taken in order to force the kind of reaction Metzger so fervently seeks.

2009-11-27T12:38:00.000-08:00

Strip Lights and Steel

2009-11-27T06:03:00.000-08:00

Strip Lights and Steel

2009-11-27T05:18:00.000-08:00

Strip Light and Steel

2009-11-27T05:15:00.000-08:00

Strip Lights and Steel

2009-11-27T05:09:00.000-08:00

Strip Lights and steel

The Market Gallery, writing for Frenzined; October 2009 edition

2009-11-27T04:54:00.000-08:00

No titles, no statements, no catalogue; only a refined selection of drawings on paper, chalkboards and glass presented for the spectator to interpret, analyse and criticise at will. All that is known is that this eclectic assortment of artworks belongs to the names ‘Robbie Hudson’ and ‘Thomas Whittle’, yet the question that is most immediate, and perhaps most important is – what work belongs to whom?

Objects sit huddled together in a corner of the room, pencil drawings appear sporadically arranged on the walls, a painting balances on a plastic crate and sketch books are framed within Perspex containers. Forms and images re-appear, are adapted and attacked, while giving very little away as to their possible origins or connotations. Does the inked and scratched pane of glass that leans cautiously against a wall relate to the thickly painted canvas in the opposite section of the space? Maybe even, it is to be considered a progression from the pencil drawings in the wooden box? Maybe the entire exhibition is simply a collaborative effort, or maybe there is some sort of a recurring theme? Such were the questions viewers were recently forced to consider upon visiting an un-used shop in Grainger Market.

Yet how did this affect the success of the exhibition or one’s appreciation of the work? Certainly the exhibition was arranged in an interesting and grabbing manner. The spectator could move their attention effortlessly from one work to the next, bouncing and flittering around the room, which should arguably be considered more akin to an installation than a conventional exhibition of drawings and paintings. There was also a kind of crude voyeuristic satisfaction in being able to watch people explore the space through large shop windows, discussing and debating the unbeknownst topics that may be derived from the surrounding abstract images.

Perhaps most telling however, was the fact that the comments which circulated ranged anywhere from the likes of ‘serene’ to that of ‘post-apocalyptic’. One of the joys of viewing artworks is the fact that they enable us to become somehow involved with whatever message we may however derive from the encounter. One’s life experiences forcefully project into subjective translations. Even the most mundane and basic pencil drawing contains formal qualities that will inevitably warrant some sort of associative reaction or response. Does it matter that the artist has failed to deliver any significant or presiding message? If it was the intent of the artist to create works devoid of any clear or definitive meaning in order to induce an imaginative response then perhaps not. Yet perhaps this is a little too whimsical, or even ‘easy’ given the fact that when placed in an exhibition, anything, be it a plastic toy or a ruled line on a piece of paper, will inevitably induce and cognitive or emotional reaction.

A prominent philosopher and critic recently suggested that for the appropriate aesthetic appreciation of artworks one requires “reference to history of production: the explanation of how the object of appreciation came to be as it is”. Success, therefore, is arguably tied into exactly what the artist selects to exhibit, and why it is being shown at all. At the Market Gallery, one is left with little more than the knowledge that two artists created these images fairly recently and that the curios way in which lines and shapes were repeated and elaborated resulted in some kind of suggestive narrative.

Yet this latter point requires further investigation, for in addressing the topic of aesthetic appreciation it should be considered equally essential for there to be an emotional engagement between appreciator and the object of appreciation as it should for there to be an intellectual process. Although the works exhibited at the Market Gallery may have failed to deliver any specific message qua the artist’s intentions (though admittedly, without knowing the artist’s intentions it is difficult to say for certain whether this is actually the case), the level to which the pieces instigated and prompted emotive and cognitive responses was intensified exactly by the lack of contextual information available. Free reign to interpret the works meant that the spectator’s aesthetic evaluations became far more contemplative and experiential a task. Of necessity, viewers became more willing to interact with the space and spend time in front of the works, conversing with one another, and candidly debating individual viewpoints.

Resultantly, there are still many questions that need to be answered. Did the artists intend to achieve such an effect? Were the audience happy being left alone to make subjective decisions? Whose work was whose? Unfortunately, this investigation cannot conclude any one of these points, as they remain questions that can only be answered by the artists or the spectators respectively.

light corridor

2009-11-12T10:01:00.000-08:00

Detail of Installation

light corridor

2009-11-12T09:57:00.000-08:00

Light corridor

Steel, Chain's, Caribiners, Mirror, Plastic, Light, Electric Hoist

2009-11-12T09:52:00.000-08:00

Steel, Copper, Mirror and Light

2009-11-12T09:38:00.000-08:00

As I'm going to be putting all sorts of things on this blog, be it pictures of my artwork, things that inspire me and collection of my writings to date, i thought that i'd better start with a brief explanation of where i'm at right now; I'm in the process of working things out. This means that in addition to the considerable time spent reading, writing and visiting exhibitions, i'm investing alot of hours in progressing my studio practice. Above and below i have started to add a few early images of some of my sculptural works this year, and also some additional thoughts on what i'm interested in at the moment.

2009-11-12T08:34:00.000-08:00

Untitled

Steel, Copper, Mirror and Light