Category Archives: art

Lucian Freud 1922-2011

Look at this. Just look at this picture.

Look at what’s going on in it. The uncompromisingly human, the pitilessly observant. The lack of shelter. The cold stare into the self. The cold stare into the other.

Someone said that the relationship between Freud and his sitters was close to the quintessential 20th century relationship: the interrogator and the interrogated. That is a terrifying thought, as it should be; and as his paintings are terrifying.

The colours, the planes, the muscles and the shadow, the pink, the yellows and greens, the eyes, the gaze, the highlights around the hairline, the flesh, the weight, the mass, the solidity, the movement, the paint.

These people won’t be replaceable, you know. We’re not getting them back.

It’s life, guys. And working till the end.

4 Comments

Filed under art, death

Ai Weiwei, Vladimir Tatlin, and the dream that speaks

Detail installation view of Rooted Upon, Ai Weiwei via Zimbio

One of the works on view is an installation of 100 roots and tree parts growing out of the Haus der Kunst’s floor, quite literally engaging in an active open dialogue with its past, while maintaining an upper hand… The roots are placed on “Soft Ground” a work comprised of 929 tiles that are a faithful reproduction of the patterns of the floor beneath them.

Where is Ai Weiwei? It’s been five days, and there’s no word of his whereabouts, condition or treatment since he was arrested on his way to Hong Kong on Sunday. His wife is worried, and she’s seen enough already to  know when to worry. His sister says he’s warned the family to expect this. His mother is bracing herself.

The Chinese authorities are utilising several disingenuous discrediting techniques and trying to invoke the “law” – citing financial wrongdoing, and asking the world to respect its domestic jurisdiction etc. This sort of sand-in-the-face diversionism is designed to catch people out who don’t know enough to refute it, even though they know it’s wrong. (It’s what the Tea Partiers are currently doing in the USA, too.) And it’s not coming from just within China, either – an earlier post about Ai Weiwei here on this blog drew a very strange comment from the USA, which is kind of boringly staggering, but kind of forensically interesting insofar as all that goes. I did try to get some comment on it from people far more able to cite chapter and verse than I am on this subject, but it wasn’t forthcoming; I wonder why…?

There is a crackdown happening: in the west we think things in China are easing up, but it seems not so much. Other artists and human rights activists and lawyers have been arrested recently and some of the stories are horrifying. Ai Weiwei himself was beaten in 2009 to the extent of having a bleed on the brain, and had emergency surgery in Germany. Bob Dylan played in Beijing yesterday, which somehow under the circumstances just feels wrong to me, really… Even the sober New York Times recently concluded in an editorial – now, I’m annoyed with myself because I had this quoted and linked, and then decided to delete it, and have now decided to reinstate it, but the NYT has taken it down – it basically said that, as this has happened just before a visit from a Secretary of State to China, the government should cancel the visit and ask “in what dungeon Ai Weiwei has been thrown.” As I say, there’s no sign of it now, but I had it copied and pasted, so I know I didn’t imagine it.

From the Guardian:

In an interview last year, Ai told the Guardian that he recognised the state might take action against him and said security officials had visited his bank.

But he added: “I also have to speak out for people around me who are afraid, who think it is not worth it or who have totally given up hope. So I want to set an example: you can do it and this is OK.”

Now, Ai Weiwei is a formal and deeply elegant conceptual artist, sculptor and architect; his eyes face outwards from himself. Here is a picture of something I love, something really internationalist and beautiful, that marks Ai Weiwei out as a member of the world art community – and that is the thing the Chinese authorities can’t cope with. It is an aspect in which he doesn’t need them, doesn’t fear them, doesn’t seek their approval. It’s like a special language in which he can speak to people all over the world, and it’s a language bureaucrats can’t speak, though they can sometimes understand it.

But first, a small art history lesson. In 1917 Vladimir Tatlin designed, as the ultimate expression of Modernism and the hope for the Bolshevik revolution, a tower. It was conceived as a 400-metre monument, with mechanical devices for carrying people up and down, centred at a slant around (literally revolutionary) twin helixes. Tatlin’s Tower was never built: it was unbuildable. Even if the newborn USSR had contained enough steel, or not been at war with itself, or gripped by housing shortages, it was structurally almost impossible. It was a dream from the start, and it inhabits the collective unconscious of modern art like a dream we’ve all had – like a ghost that wants something from us, but can’t speak to say what.

Vladimir Tatlin with the model for his tower

Of course, well into the twenties the Russian Revolution was characterised in its art by incredible idealism and optimism, and by impeccable Modernist experiment. It was fundamentally youthful, as befits a completely new experiment (for a good ten years the ideal of this newness remained paramount). But it was a dream.

Emma Goldman saw through this, to digress: invited by Lenin to come and have a look at the wonderful thing, she returned from the USA and had a look. She told Lenin the treatment of women was appalling and that she refused to support a revolution that didn’t include contraception, and went back to America. The only person I’ve heard of who told Lenin where to get off.

Now look at Ai Weiwei’s chairs, from his show So Sorry at the Haus der Kunst:

The dream speaks: 20 Chairs From the Qing Dynasty

Click on that Haus der Kunst link, by the way, and then look at the chairs again right after looking at the map.

Or look at this:

The dream speaks: Descending Light, 2007

I can’t tell you precisely what some of these things mean, but I do know that art will start to speak to you in the dream language and connections, suggestions and illuminations will be made. To some people this is the best way of communicating. It’s how I’m receiving communications, by the way. MY knowledge of the specific minutiae is extremely limited, but the images do tell a story.

Although the authorities are claiming financial irregularity of some kind and saying it’s a purely criminal matter, on the main Chinese social media site if you even mention his name your post is deleted. They’re getting round the bots by calling him Ai Wellai, which means “love the future” – a pun that serves the same purpose as the “river crab” pun that determined the menu at Ai’s farewell party for his doomed studio (which he wasn’t allowed to go to). “Ai Wellai” is serving in good stead: as one social media user said, “I really don’t dare believe that in this society, even love for the future can disappear.”

Love the future

This is an example of poetry, by the way. Creating meaning in places in the language where it previously wasn’t. Negative space, new ambiguity, turning words inside out to extract that last drop goodness.

Now look at this. Look at its fragility, its light, and its lightness – look how it floats on the water.

Two towers speaking: one at the beginning of the dream, one at the end

There’s a Free Ai Weiwei Twitter petition – not that anyone thinks the Chinese government will do what Twitter says, but they do care enough to block it, and Ai is a great twitter fan. So sign.

And here, for actual information and insight, this piece from Slate.

2 Comments

Filed under art, Our Crazy World, the Line on Beauty

Ai Weiwei news: seeds of freedom? Or performance art?

First: an email I received after my post last weekend about going to the Tate, and being fenced off from Ai Weiwei’s sunflower seeds – a move by the Tate that renders the audience unable to engage with the work in the manner for which it was created.(I know – dust – health & safety – yeah yeah.) My friend writes:
I know it’s disappointing not to be allowed to touch the seeds at the Tate. There are prohibition signs, rope and guards all over the place. These things always make my fingers itch, and in a moment of divine uncensored inspiration I reached over the rope and grabbed a hand of seeds, played with them and threw back a few – hee hee keeping 4… 15 seconds later, I see 4-5 other people and couples doing exactly the same. I started a little rebellion that lasted for 4 minutes until the guard showed up and slowly walked past us, eyeing us through the neck. I am sure he did! I am sure it happens all the time. Children and art rebels won’t be able not to touch the seeds, right?
Now I feel like a ninny. Even more since a minute later she emailed again, saying: “You can have one of my “stolen” seeds.”
Hurrah!
That is VERY exciting and I am already planning what to do with my seed. But that doesn’t mean I don’t still think the Tate should send one seed to every member. They should.
In other Ai Weiwei news this week, both sad and very interesting. Readers of the Londonist – and perhaps the Gothamist, the Torontoist, etc – will no doubt be as excited as I am to learn that there’s a Shangaiist as well! I will SO be bookmarking it. And reading it. That’s the good news. And the other good news is that they posted up pictures of the bad news. Which is that the Chinese authorities did move in last week and demolish Ai Weiwei’s studio on the banks of the river there.
You may recall some of the story behind this demolition. It’s hard to be from the West, I suspect, and begin to appreciate the logic behind this destruction of a private person’s property. Here’s an account of it from the New York Times:

Mr. Ai said that Shanghai officials had originally supported his plan for a studio on the site, which is in a village known for its grape farms. He said he spent $1 million to transform a dilapidated warehouse into a vast working space. He began designing the building in summer 2008, and construction ended in July 2010.

Mr. Ai has come to see his escalating conflict with government officials over the Communist Party’s authoritarian rule as performance art. In November, he spread the word that he was throwing a river crab feast at the studio to protest the destruction order. The word for river crab, hexie, sounds nearly identical to the word for harmony, which the Communist Party claims to promote; the party’s critics like to say censors are “harmonizing” the Internet and other forms of media.

Mr. Ai was put under house arrest in Beijing two days before the feast, but about 800 people showed up at the studio anyway. “You can’t imagine that in Communist history, this would happen,” he said.

The Shanghaiist also has pictures of the feast at the studio, which also show the interior space and how wonderful a working space it would have been. (Apparently he had plans to use it for  students and outreach, and had invited a group from Oslo to come next month and study architecture there with him.) About 800 people showed up on the day, despite being told by the authorities not to go. And they did eat river crabs.

According to The Shangaiist’s account:

 

Even more exciting for a few was the handing out of ceramic kui huazi (sunflower seeds) from Ai Weiwei’s exhibit currently at London’s Tate Modern. These ‘Seeds of Freedom’ were handed out to anybody with a Twitter account, a demonstration in support of the Chinese Twitterati who provide a network of support for Chinese activists everywhere.]
But then last Tuesday…

3 Comments

Filed under art, Our Crazy World

Gauguin: go once, go again

On Friday after work I went with a friend to see the Gauguin exhibition at Tate Modern. It wasn’t an exhibition I felt I couldn’t miss, and I haven’t been in the mood for Tate Modern lately, especially since they roped off Ai Weiwei’s seeds.

I’ve already referred to those as the quintessential work of our time, in their one-of-millionsness and the fact that each is a hand-painted ceramic replica of a real sunflower seed – a human, not machine, artefact.  Now the Tate has decreed that the seeds give off a noxious dangerous dust when walked among – which was the intention of the artist, and indeed thus of the work itself. So the Turbine Hall is roped off, and you can only walk around the edge of the vast field of seeds, three feet back. There are signs saying DO NOT TOUCH THE SUNFLOWER SEEDS and DO NOT CROSS THE ROPE.

Fun.

Another, very large, sign – more of a wall, really – exhorts us to write about the seeds on the Tate’s blog. It’s not a request, or an idea, it’s practically an order. “Tell us what you think.” Well, here’s what I think. I think they shouldn’t have roped it off, and I think when it’s done they should send each Tate member a seed. I want to be able to hold one in my hand and look at it.

Another thing: on this wall, it invites us to follow Ai Weiwei on Twitter, where he is following and commenting weekly on a hashtag something like #tateaww. Poor thing! Can he even get on Twitter, with his house arrest in China? Well, maybe he wanted to. But it is a new level of banality, where not content with the artwork itself we are more or less instructed to crave these nuggets of communication with the artist – what can he possibly say in 140 characters that will add to the (denied) experience of standing in a huge field of handpainted ceramic sunflower seeds, and holding one in your hand and looking at it?

We then went to the Gauguin exhibition which was like this:

Yes, I know.

Me (in room called THE ETERNAL FEMININE): What I want to know is, why doesn’t the eternal female ever have anything on??

My friend: It’s because, you see, [deep meaningful look], deep down, underneath all our layers of clothing, we’re all naked.

Me: I’m not.

My friend (going into the next room): These Tahitian girls all have unimpressively small breasts…

Me: The eternal feminine doesn’t need to rely on sensational effects.

My friend: Look, this one’s in a nightie…

The upshot is that much of Gauguin’s work is more genuinely interesting and insanely beautiful than I had quite remembered, in that way that is at once completely familiar and already-known, and really surprising – as long as he sticks to France. His paintings of children are deeply beautiful, three of them in three different ways, and they feel new.

These serious contemplative faces are surprising - until you realise that, given the date - 1889 - and that they are little girls, they might simply be the Eternal Feminine. I do hope not.

This one feels all the more surprising – early on in the exhibition – for applying the techniques we associate with the foreignness of the Tahitian paintings to a familiar European setting. The flat planes, blocks of colour, choppy composition. There’s a room of self-portraits, too – wonderful but too crowded, I should have gone months ago.

Gauguin was so depressed and demoralised by neglect that he painted his own face on this Christ in the garden. He was slated for it by a friend but what a painting. A woman at the exhibition had hair this colour exactly and made me laugh.

There’s a lot more art nouveau in the pictures than I had realised. The feeling of the 1880s is incredibly strong; it might be worth going back for that, and the colours. The colours are astounding: they were a discovery, seeing a roomful of them at a time. You can really see what everybody was up to, I felt as if I were being dragged back into another time.

And of course that time is partly my childhood – these pictures are as familiar to me as if we’d owned them. Jacob Wrestling with the Angel is a close favourite but it was clearly given a lot of space on the audio guide, because the gawpers were all stood clustered round it and I could never get in to look properly. Shame.

I’ve been looking for good translations of the French Symbolists lately. Suggestions welcome.

Then, in a room of drawings, I turned around and was face to face with – Oscar Wilde! He was in a grey striped suit and looked more florid than in life, which is strange but perhaps not surprising, given his famous pallor when alive. He saw me recognise him and looked startled.

But the show confirms me in  my earlier opinion of the Tahitian fantasia. Self-conscious and boring. His Breton work feels important and looks far more beautiful.

This reminds me more of the French medieval tapestries than anything else, with the hunting scenes: the colours, the composition, the hound, the mythical feel... and it leads us in a circle back to William Morris and the Pre-Raphaelites.

Favourite overheard quote of the exhibition (a woman on one of those benches in the middle of the room, drawling rather poshly in a bored way): “Well, I do prefer him to Picasso…”

And then I woke up to an email from the Tate, saying: “What did you think of Gauguin?” They want me to go write on THEIR blog! As if they’re somehow empowering me to say what I think about Gauguin. Good grief.

Dear Tate: I paid my membership fee in money, not in being patronised. This kind of thing was partly why I let my membership lapse in the first place, and only renewed it for Francis Alÿs. Just let me look at the pictures and then go home, please.

Thank you.

7 Comments

Filed under art, the Line on Beauty

Scream for culture

I heard today that in Holland two weeks ago they held a “Scream for Culture” Day of Action in protest against arts funding cuts – and significant increases – my Dutch is not quite fluent, sorry, but I think it might even be a huge tax increase – on things like theatre tickets. Look at this video and imagine the similar-looking people in this country – the well-lit arts people – screaming for art and culture.

Just to clarify, I don’t think arts funding is necessarily necessary to the survival of cultural activity. Where there’s a will there’s a way, and culture won’t die – there were the travelling minstrels, the itinerant theatre troupes that gave actors a bad name, and the scandalous hand-printed pamphlets and penny sheets.

On the other hand, some funding has always been in place. Think of those rich patrons (and the crassness with which they ruined the Renaissance by making the likes of Titan put their families into religious scenes! You could just imagine all the footballers and rap stars doing that, right?) What we don’t know is where any of this funding – or patronage – is going to come from. From the footballers? Would they really pay through the nose for something they might not understand, without the Church to make them do it? Do you think they’d like some poetry?

And of course, the flip side of that was that all the art was being produced for rich people, who owned it. The poor weren’t listening to Mozart symphonies, they were buying pirated sheet music and playing them on their accordions.

Do we want art for everybody?

Look at this – play the video – and imagine an English crowd coming out to protect their ability to go to cultural events.

We can only dream, right?

2 Comments

Filed under art, the end of the worr-uld