This was my first visit to the Open
Eye Gallery. It is a smart, modern,
relatively new gallery space, perhaps on the small side but certainly adequate
for the shows we say on Saturday.
Liverpool One - above the Open Eye
There were two exhibitions:
Mishka Henner
The works on show comprised:
·
A
selection of his books, and those of other artists relating to image
appropriation;
·
A
selection of images from his ‘Less Americains’ book, presented as framed prints
on the wall;
·
Extracts
from his ‘Photography is ...’ book, presented as a single, continuous text
print on the wall;
·
3
pieces from his new work ‘Precious Commodities’.
It was the latter that interested me
most, but a word about 'Less
Americains'
first. This was originally created as a book, based
on Robert Frank’s 'Les Americains'; and I have to say that, for me, it
works better in that form. On the wall,
the selection of 12 or so prints demonstrated the graphic qualities of Henner’s
‘reduced’ versions of the originals, but I’m not sure they achieved a lot
more. The concept of manipulating an
iconic photobook in this way is a clever one and well-executed. The witty title and the fact that Henner’s
outcome (as a book) is, genuinely, new and different from the original, makes
it an interesting and worthy piece of work.
It subverts the value of the iconic image; causes us to look afresh at
both versions; and, like most appropriation art, it questions the whole idea of
authorship. But, even as a book, I’m not
sure that it stands up successfully on its own.
Maybe it is only of ‘value’ through its relationship with the
original? And, on this gallery wall, the
selection of prints does not, for me, move things on any further, maybe is even
a step backwards from the book concept.
‘Precious Commodities’ is another thing altogether. There were four pieces on show, all
appropriated via the internet and created from aerial views of oilfields and
cattle feed lots in the USA – highly processed, printed to a very high
standard, and presented as large-scale colour images.
The main piece comprised around 12
square prints, which seem to come from this body of work - Pumped. These were ‘nailed’ to the wall, in a grid,
to form one single piece, perhaps 3-4 metres by 2-3 metres. As is clear from the images in the link, the
‘marks’ around these oil wells form
patterns, broken occasionally by small rectangular spaces where buildings/wells
appear in sharp black, almost as if they have been drawn in with a brush or
pen. The high quality/contrast nature of
the colour prints seems to give them a surface texture – resembling stone, or
textiles, or an oil painting. And,
standing back to look at the complete work, that is what it most resembles – an
abstract oil painting onto which small pen/brush drawings have been added. (I was reminded of watching Andrew
Graham-Dixon at the Rijksmuseum
He became hugely enthused – and rightly so – by computer scans that brought up,
in fine relief, the surface of Rembrandt’s paintings.)
Of course, these images (all of
which can be seen here)
are, potentially, pointing to issues about the environment, land use, food
production, and so on. But one can read
the exhibition titles, and the artworks, in another way, I think. For me, they also seem to be about form;
about appropriation; about taking worthless, insignificant ‘bits’ of digital
information and turning them into a work of art on a gallery wall. Yes, the oil, the cattle, the land etc are
all ‘precious commodities’, but the title also seems to refer to the perceived value,
added by Henner, in turning something meaningless into a work of art. The use of the word ‘commodity’ refers to the
questionable commoditisation of art by the art market. Does Henner wish to sell these images –
presumably (and rightly) so. Then he is
knowingly participating in a market that attaches monetary value to creativity
and so the work, perhaps, raises and explores the question of whether the ‘market’
is an appropriate mechanism for determining the ‘preciousness’ of the creative ‘commodity’. I liked these works a lot; they fascinated me
and drew me in to explore their form in detail.
I feel that Henner, too, is fascinated by what he can do with the
original, meaningless digital information he harvests from the Internet.
I would also draw comparisons with
two other artists that I have discussed previously in this blog – Penelope Umbrico’s
Flickr Sunsets
and Edward Burtynsky’s Oil. Umbrico’s appropriated work seems to touch on
the same issue of taking the insignificant and meaningless, harvesting the
digital crops, and turning them into something meaningful and of ‘perceived’
value. Burtynsky is another who explores
the questions of land use, environment, etc through high-aesthetic images on a
gallery wall. Unlike Burtynsky’s work,
Henner’s seems to step right away from the notion of ‘documentary’. It is not clear what is being presented in
the images and, whilst they might lead the viewer to ask the questions, there
is also a sense in which they fascinate by their form more than their content. Are they conceptual pieces, exploring what
they are as art rather than what they show of the world? I think, perhaps, so; and it is probably a
sign of that fact that I have, personally, moved on somewhat in my reading and
interpretation of images that I read, appreciate, and enjoy them in just that
way.
Edith Tudor-Hart
The other exhibition at the Open Eye
was quite a contrast - 'Quiet Radicalism'. Quite a small show, from the Open Eye’s
archives, it comprised, perhaps, 15-20 black and white prints, in simple black
frames, mainly from her 1930’ photographs of Vienna, London and South Wales,
but also including 3 or 4 from 1940/50s.
The interest, here, is as much around her motives and her background as
it is about the images themselves. She
came from the ‘committed left’, a communist sympathiser, born in Austria but
living in the UK, and connected with the Philby/Blunt Soviet spy ring. The question was raised, towards the end of
our viewing, as to whether or not we ‘liked’ them, with a suggestion that some
people ‘dislike’ them because of their association with her political stance
and her spying.
For me, they fall into the category
of 20s/30s/40s black and white documentary photography, which includes the FSA,
Bill Brandt, and so on; and they are ‘typical’.
(There might be formal differences e.g. several images are taken from
and elevated viewpoint, which can be compared with Soviet photographer
Rodchenko.) With the benefit of
hindsight, one might question whether these images, and those of other
comparable documentary photographers, actually made a difference to anything;
and there is a sense in which they become historical archives of what the
period looked like. Except that they
aren’t of course, because life went on in colour! Coincidentally, I was flicking through the
Sunday Times next day, and came across this colour image of Paris 1944.
How would we read this image differently if it was in black and white?
So – a good visit – I am pleased to
have seen the new Mishka Henner work, and it is of immense value to meet and
chat with fellow students and two OCA tutors.
Many thanks to Peter H and Keith R for their input.
No comments:
Post a Comment