I had the
opportunity, last week, to spend a short time at the Anish Kapoor ‘Flashback’
exhibition at the Yorkshire Sculpture Park Link Here. It’s a travelling exhibition that has also
been in Manchester and Nottingham, with around a dozen or so varied pieces of
work from different stages of his career. Coincidentally, I’d just read an
interview with him in one of the newspapers over the previous weekend in which
he’d talked about the way he always works (or directs others to work, since he
clearly has a large team of assistants doing most of the day-to-day stuff) on a
wide range of projects at any one time, in very different forms, materials and
scales. As the images in the link
demonstrate, this small show included examples of his use of vivid colours,
with varying materials and surfaces. It
was, as I say, a short visit, but I was particularly interested in his ‘voids’,
for example Adam, in which he
is ‘creating a state of emptiness’, as it says in the accompanying brochure,
leaving the viewer with the sense of looking at nothing. (Reminds me of walking into a room full of
black paintings at the Rothko exhibition a few years ago.) The brochure goes on to quote Kapoor as
saying that he seeks to empty out content and make an empty form but that, of
course, “... content is there in a way that’s more surprising than if I’d tried
to make a content ... subject matter is somehow not the same as content”.
I’ve got
myself into this area of subject matter and content or meaning before, in this earlier
post. It made me go off and do a bit
more digging for what Kapoor had to say about it, which led me to this
transcript of an interview. Some key
points emerging are:
·
He
looks to put subject matter out of the way and, by that means, something else
occurs; his objects primary purpose is not interpretative;
·
He
believes that you cannot set out to create something spiritual; that comes from
other resonances;
·
The
spiritual world is latent and the artist finds this latent content;
·
He
makes art for himself and then the viewer completes the circle (Barthes – the death of the author);
though he acknowledges that the artist can use titling and context to
manipulate and seek to invest meaning; but he is interested in the viewer’s
immediate translation, and the ‘theoretical stuff comes later’.
So, he
seems to see the artist as a kind of ‘medium’, through which the creativity
flows from some unknown spiritual source, into the world, where the viewer
reads, possibly with some guidance, a spiritual meaning and content in the
work. This almost certainly reflects his
Indian roots, one feels – this mystical, spiritual explanation of his creative
process. It isn’t something with which I
can comfortably relate – steeped in 60+ years of solid Western capitalist
materialistic influence. Mind you, the
previous interview I’d read (Sunday Times, I think) mentioned Kapoor’s £80m+
wealth, but I will resist the temptation to be cynical. The ‘voids’ did touch me, and I can see how
his work does indeed interact powerfully with the viewer.
I did also
pick up another relationship between some aspects of his work and the field of
photography – surfaces, and the absorbing/reflecting of light. It’s interesting to compare the deep matte
blue surfaces of his voids that absorb light and absorb the viewer’s gaze, with
the reflective, shiny surfaces, which return the gaze. In the exhibition brochure, he refers to the
matte surface as the ‘traditional sublime ... deep and absorbing’ but says that
the mirrored surfaces ‘... might be a modern sublime ... absolutely present ...’. I just wonder about this comparison in the
context of photographic surfaces – the surface of the print. Personally, I have
tended to work mainly with matte papers, but I know that this approach is
sometimes criticised because of the absorptive nature of the surface – absorptive
of the light by which the viewer is viewing, that is. Interesting that Kapoor sees that as relating
to the ‘traditional sublime’. If what he
says is right, printing on a matte surface should have the effect of drawing in
the viewer’s gaze, which is surely what we want to do with a photographic
print!