Clare Keegan 'Untitled' series of 3
Keyelee Lawler-Dormer 'Untitled' Sound Work
Jacqui Seymour 1992/2009, Untitled Bach Series
Tias Fristiasa 'Untitled' (White Works)
Josh Harvey 'Untitled' Tanks Series
Elliot Collis Soft Space
Question: Why so many seemingly untitled works? What happened to the art of naming? Perhaps it isn't relevant in this show, and the artists feel as though their works do not need proper names...only secondary ones following the word untitled...
But this got me thinking about the role of titling. Recently in my Talk Week crit, a masters student deliberately withheld the titles of her works as an experiment to see whether the installation itself was enough information in a cold reading. Perhaps this is what is happening here in this show? A clever ploy to make us think harder, or perhaps, make us think more linear.
Yet the title of the show is Kaleidoscope, and the accompanying catalogue states that it means 'looking at beautiful forms'. So perhaps this show is really more about visual aesthetic as opposed to concept or narrative, hence why there is no need for a title? Sure the show provides a lot of optical interest through means of largely printed photographs, delicate print work and a giant 'soft space'. But then there's also Josh's disgustingly abject tanks and Keyelee's strange perspex contraption blasting noise, sound and other sorts of interactive confusion. Her work is not working with vision, but that of aural sensation and that of touch.
So it leaves me to ponder how mixed this show is. On one hand, we have the comfortable (Clare's photographs reminded some of the softness of domestic placemats from the 70s) and on the other, jarring.
Kaleidoscopes are essentially different broken particles being manipulated through reflection to create a whole vision. And that's how I see this show. A strange mix of pieces coming together to do something...but I'm not sure what yet. I also refuse to accept that they are only coming together to delight in the aesthetic.
Further reflection (the kind that occurs mentally) is needed but in the meantime, go see the show at St Paul Street Gallery 3.
- Agnes
p.s. To keep in mind the actual purpose for the Pilot programme is that it is a professional practice paper, and that the actual brief states that we do not need to be striving towards creating links or a thematically cohesive show, only that we need to put on a show and that our work needs to be in it. In fact, we are discouraged from adopting overt themes.
This is probably why people can be perplexed when entering a Pilot show, we automatically try to look for links that we have been perhaps conditioned to expect, and we are sorely disappointed when we do not find it. This should not be a sadness towards the artists creating the show as we are only conceding to the brief.
Sometimes though, there is a thin thread that connects a Pilot together. When this thread has been identified and pushed with clever subtlety, a show can be more than an ordinary fulfilment of brief. I think something along these lines could be happening within this show but I also think it that it is something that nobody has put their finger on quite yet. Maybe such a thread is too clever to reveal itself to me in ravaged post talk week state. I also question whether the artists themselves know this thread, only because the catalogue seems more concerned with individual, isolated ideas than that of a greater whole.
The rambling must stop.
End.
For now.
8 comments:
Tangent on titles: Hirst's pickled shark owes 50% of its allure to its title, IMHO. The Physical Impossibility of Death In The Mind Of Someone Living. I think Matthew Collings said that Saatchi came up with that title, which ties the act of naming an artwork with marketing. So perhaps the avoidance of naming one's artwork is also an attempt to steer away from, I dunno, inauthenticity - if that is indeed what marketing is.
Great point, would be interesting to compare the use of titling in different sectors of the art world, whether its function would differ in a big league art market or that of the smaller art school (market as well?)...thinking more about it, I don't know why I haven't already asked the artists themselves about the titling situation! Perhaps I will update on that next time I see them...
also i think it is important to state that aesthetics is not only visual, but sound and emotion can be a part of it. Josh's work evokes the grotesque which can be fetishized and appealing.
Personally i dont feel that naming an art work is necessary . I dont believe that there is only one meaning to a work, and i think that naming works can change this. I think the viewers of the works dont need to be spoon fed a load of 'conceptual' jargon that goes along with a title. In this show there was contextual statements which gave the viewer a small snippet of the ideas behind the works without giving a direct meaning. Titles are good (dont get me wrong) but i feel in this instance and speaking with the artists in the show it wasn't something that was essential. I really love the idea of the viewer making there own meanings and connections to a work, along with the mystery that comes with it as well. But very good point carrington!!!
Elliot, being the only one who named their work, what led you to that decision? Did you discuss as a group the decisions behind each name? Also, I know there was a bit of deliberation over the title of the show...what decisions were made over that? Interesting as these decisions are all part of a 'professional practice' and that is what the paper is called!
It's nice to leech info from people who've already been through the mill in order to feed back into my own pilot show. Is that evil of me??
RE Anonymous,
I agree that there wasn't a need for titling in this show, but I'm also curious as to why they still gave a hint of a name after the word 'untitled' that only led to pointing out the obvious nature of their work eg. white works, tanks series etc...if they are not spoon feeding us conceptual jargon then perhaps they are just highlighting the obvious? Or a very strategic sitting on the fence of some sort!
I'm not too sure about the titles becoming 'conceptual' jargon. Perhaps when manipulated poorly this can be demonstrated but I don't think this is the purpose of titling.
Also, the viewer will always make up their own thoughts around art work, whether it has a title or not. But sometimes, titles can lend themselves to creating many layers of reading (or meaning), and when used correctly, shouldn't push the viewer into conclusions, but open up questions.
I do like the idea that titling wasn't essential for this show to function. Interesting also to think of when a title is enough of a contextual indication as to not have to include a statement. Sometimes too much can be said in a statement which hinders the openness of reading. Less can be more sometimes...
Lol, yeah conceptual jargon might not have been the best choice of words ( had someone helping me to try and get out exactly what i was trying to say!)
But as you were saying to Elliot's comment about the title of the show, it did become a large burden over every one. I liked the idea that you could break up the word 'Kaleidoscope' a number of times. Kaleid - Being a collision
Scope - The idea of looking and finding
Then there is also the meaning of the word as well, as stated earlier.
If you want to talk some time about this in greater depth i am more then happy to meet up for a coffee with you! I think it could make for a very interesting conversation!
p.s So sorry it took me so long to check out your blog! but i think what your doing is great! Keep up the good work P&B!
Josh,
You, me and craven next week. Would love to talk! Congrats on the show too, if it has the power to generate so many questions then it was a success.
- Agnes
Post a Comment