Thursday 29 December 2016

d o n ' t b e l i e v e w h a t y o u s e e o n t v




A relatively productive few days has enabled us to complete some of the work for Scaffold Gallery’s show ’14 Ways to Get Rich Quick’. Our research into ‘The Next Big Thing’ landed us on a descriptive path; we realised that text was required to ‘set the scene’, as it were, since this is where our interest stemmed from in the first place. This of course is the narrative that was built up around Geoffrey Buonardi’s personality and history to order to increase his artistic value. The work is therefore a standard art gallery plaque stating all the facts that come from the film; price, title, medium etc. included is a description of Buonardi, the same description that raises the monetary value of his work from $0 to $10,000. It accompanies a space on the wall which is marked out with masking tape as to act as a suggestion of the work which isn’t there due to the fact that it was stolen/never existed in the first place due to it being the subject of a film. The title is ‘the act is not culpable unless the mind is guilty’ and it refers to 'Mens rea' which is ‘guilty mind’ in Latin and is a legal term about intention to commit a prohibited act. This relates to both the idea of stealing the painting and the film’s inaccurate depiction artists. We are also involved in unlawful activity as we are, in a sense, acting as thieves; thieving the thieves through invention of an artwork.



‘An evening with isthisit?’ opens tonight and we’ve got a work from the obstructure series in there displayed in a slightly different way to how we originally intended but it’s still conceptually in line with what it’s about. It’s on the wall on the middle of a ring binder (pictured below). It relates to the office imagery/professional tools of Google SketchUp, which is intended to be used by architects, or individuals of similar professions.



Friday 23 December 2016

r e a l a r t b y f a k e a r t i s t


The exhibition with Scaffold Gallery is fast approaching and we’re beginning to collate our research and decide on what to make. It’s titled ’14 Ways To Get Rich Quick’ and it’s an exhibition styled as an artists’ response to (as you’ve probably guessed) a get rich quick guide. We’ve got ‘invent something’ and ‘exploit people’ which is why we’ve been looking into fictional artists such as Gilda Dent (thinking down the invent path). This research is about looking into how art and artists are portrayed within popular culture. It led us to The Cultural Norms Theory; the theory states that the medium provides a ‘definition of a situation’ which the actor believes to be real. This definition provides guides for action that appear to be approved and supported by society. The theory was born from the notion that television characters do influence viewer behaviours. We’ve also been sourcing various instances of art and artists being referenced in films and TV. Some examples are Rachel Rosenthal and David Hyde Pierce in ‘Frasier’; Jennie Garth and Jason Wiles in ‘Beverly Hills, 90210’; and a possible favourite is Chris Eigeman in ‘The Next Big Thing’. It’s a brilliantly terrible portrayal of an artist and seems to perpetuate the notion that if you’re an honest, hard-working painter who just can’t break into the art world, it’s probably because you’re a boring person. It seems like people want their artists to suffer. The stereotype made famous by Van Gogh, and beaten to death by the media ever since, is basically the entire ethos in the premise of the film. Gus Bishop (Chris Eigeman) is a struggling artist who pays the bills doing clerical work of an unspecified nature. His generically pleasant paintings would feel at home in a hospital waiting room, and like most of us who pass such artworks en route to getting our flu shots, the art world doesn’t even notice them.



Things change when a petty thief named breaks into Gus’s apartment and steals one of his canvases. He pawns it off on his landlord with a made-up back-story about the mysterious and reclusive artist, a drug addict and incest survivor who also served in Vietnam. The landlord then sells it to his friend’s daughter’s gallery, adding that the artists family was killed by a tornado that ripped through his trailer park, and literally overnight, the art world is buzzing with intrigue. This ‘artist’s past’ thing is still something that is responsible for a work being recognised as ‘good’ or ‘important’ and so this layering of narratives and histories onto this one work doesn’t make it good film but it’s an interesting idea none the less. It’s become like an intentional Chinese whispers where no one knows what’s ‘true’ and what’s ‘false’ anymore.



To return to the story, the thief entangles Gus in a ‘get rich quick’ (which is a nice link to the Scaffold exhib’) scheme to sell more of his paintings under this false identity, convincing him that he doesn’t have what it takes to make it in the art world by himself. He does this by saying ‘you’re not gay, you’re not a junkie, you don’t paint with your teeth. You’re a middle-class white kid from New Brunswick, New Jersey – zero sex appeal.’ Pretty bizarre considering all we seem to hear about is that all artists are white middle class men – he seems to be the ideal candidate! But anyway, the scam works, and the thief positions himself as the artist’s exclusive representative, handling all of his business transactions with galleries and the press so no one ever sees him. We have no idea why people think artists have reps but this could be a potential area to go down – appoint a representative for us or maybe even make one up by using the descriptions from the film. We think that we’re meant to be rooting for Gus through all of this – he just wants to make a living from his art, and it seems the only way to do that is by working the system. But there is nothing to like about him because he is so boring (as the plot requires). He is as humuorless as his art, neither of which makes for compelling cinema. Having once been rejected by the art world, he is a reluctant ‘everyman.’ Looking in from the outside, he condemns it for its duplicity and pretentiousness, jealous of his own alter-ego, and uses this to justify his crime. After his colossal success, Gus finally gets fed up with his role in a corrupt system and exposes himself as a fraud. By doing so, he also reveals the hypocrisy of the art world that fell for his deception. Nearly every art world character in the film is a clown, carrying on melodramatically with an air of silly entitlement. Turtleneck-wearing arts administrators throw around meaningless artspeak in a boardroom. Some favourites are ‘He’s an anti-positivist!’ or ‘He’s a trans-realist!’. All said while catty dealers and collectors trip over themselves trying to get their piece of the glory. The exception is an art critic whom Gus falls in love with because she writes glowing reviews of his work (and she’s pretty).



The film wants to operate as a cultural commentary (before deciding to become a rom-com right at the end). But it’s too unambiguous in its moral position to hold any real depth or complexity, and the cringe-worthy performances make light of any serious critique it might offer. It made us wonder whom the audience for such a film might be when all that’s left is a string of obvious goofs and gaffs about an easy target that’s too specialised to attract mainstream interest. So perhaps that’s where the art happens? It’s not at the inception of the work, but it’s receival. It’s what happens beyond the parameters of the screen. Stuff that might happen if these events actually occurred in the world we live in or perhaps after the film has finished. The work could possibly manifest itself as a conversation/interview between us and all the people in these sorts of films who ask if the wannabe artist is ‘gonna get a job doing paintings once school’s done?’ to quote ‘Art School Confidential’. We’ll do some more thinking about this over the next couple of weeks. 


Saturday 17 December 2016

h o w m a n y a r t s c a n y o u c o u n








In search is a Christmas-y holiday we found ourselves in Stockholm this week and had the pleasure of visiting a couple of their galleries, one a small commercial space and the other one of the biggest public art museums. Loyal had an exhibition titled ‘Toys “r” Us by Louise Enhöring. The show consisted of 5 or 6 close up photographs of children’s toys, a fairly simple premise but the images themselves were aesthetically interesting/thought provoking. There was the whole guessing game happening inside your head, attempting to piece together a puzzle when you’ve only been given half the pieces. However, the work was more about the idea of this synthetic adult world we’ve created for children; tiny cars, tiny ovens, even tiny people. This seemed fairly reasonable, if not slightly cliché. We couldn’t shake the feeling that actually they were just nice looking photographs that they hoped would sell. Not that that’s a crime, they sure would look nice about the mantel piece where great aunt Ruth’s urn sits (RIP-in-peace), but perhaps a bit more could’ve been done to support the thinking behind it. 


Our next stop was Moderna Musset, similar to Tate in London with regards to its size, content and the fact that it’s publicly funded. We took a look round the permanent collection which is always fun in any big art museum; getting a glimpse of the classic including perhaps 30 works by Marcel Duchamp. Another great aspect of this was that, again similar to Tate Britain, their collection goes through different time periods and consequently different movements in art history. We definitely find this process of reflection and hindsight hugely beneficial; the lineage of art is something that comes into our practice and general research fairly frequently. They also had a special exhibition on titled ‘THE NEW HUMAN’. It was exploring our human condition in a fast-changing world. How do we perceive and understand ourselves? How do we live, socialise, organise and control each other? And what kind of future awaits us? These are all the sorts of questions that appeared to be being thrown out there at the same time as offering insights into a global war-zone of religious fanaticism and political extremism but also highlight examples of solidarity and compassion. As we watched each film the content seemed to oscillate between the hysterically absurd and the deeply serious, almost as if it was like a metaphor for mankind skirting the borderline between ultimate disaster and the emergence of something new (which really summarises the whole show). It was a superb line up of artists including some favourites including Ed Atkins, Harun Farocki, Frances Stark, Hito Steyerl, Superflex and Ryan Trecartin. The Superflex film was not one we were aware of and was certainly in the top of our list. It was called ‘The Financial Crisis (Session I-IV)’ and it’s all about the financial crisis and meltdown from a therapeutic perspective. A hypnotist guides you through your worst nightmares to reveal the crisis without as the psychosis within. During 4 sessions you experience the fascination of speculation and power, too fear, anxieties and frustration of loosing control, economic loss and personal disaster. In Session 1 "The Invisible Hand" you’re introduced to the backbone of capitalism, the idea of the 'invisible hand' as the benign faith in self-regulation that prevents markets and people from spinning out of economic control. Under hypnosis you are asked to interrogate that faith and to imagine a world no longer governed by the invisible hand. In the following Sessions we go deeper and deeper into the financial crisis. A truly thorough work and one that was genuinely thought-provoking but without being didactic in its delivery.


We’ve also got round to tweaking The SketchUp Residency website so go check that out >>>here<<< if you have a second and read the press release for Bob Bicknell-Knight’s work. Also if you’re interested in taking part them please do email us for more information, the next open call will be published soon! Something else that’s now up is our interview in Art Reveal magazine so head over >>>there<<< and give it a read.



Friday 9 December 2016

a r t a b o u t a r t



So the launch of The SketchUp Residency went well! We’re still attempting to iron out some issues with the model but the site is up and running! We’re also in the process of writing a press release that goes with the work on display. We’ve also sent off our answers to our interview that will be published in Art Reveal’s next issue so will post a link to it when it’s out.





Another episode of Artists and Friends has been recorded and will be up by the end of the evening so head over to that area of the world wide web to hear our thoughts on the Carroll Fletcher show ‘Looking at one thing and thinking of something else: An Exhibition in Four Parts, Part 2: Observations’ and the Evan Roth talk that went with it. We also recommend going to see Martin Creed’s ‘Work 409’ in the lift at the South Bank Centre and deliberate over some of the works in the pop up show by Hayward Gallery titled ‘The Infinite Mix’.


Some new research we’re embarking onto is that of fictional artists. This is a slightly different idea to that of William Cost or Millicent Place since we have not invented these artists; Gilda Dent is a good example of this. For those of you who don’t know, Gilda Dent, occasionally referred to as Grace instead of Gilda, is a fictional character that has appeared in Batman comic books. Associated with her fiancé (later husband) Harvey Dent, who becomes the criminal mastermind Two-Face, she has since been a recurring character throughout various Batman stories involving Two-Face. In her first appearance, Gilda is the fiancée of Harvey Dent the brilliant and handsome district attorney of Gotham City. Gangster Boss Maroni throws acid in Harvey's face during Maroni's trial, scarring half of his face and consequently warping his mind. (Now this is where our interest beyond that of the narrative lies); because Gilda is a sculptor, Harvey believes that she worships beauty; therefore (in Dent's mind), neither she – nor anyone else – could ever love or accept a person with such a monstrously ‘hideous’ face as his. Gilda creates a bust of Harvey, which he smashes with a mallet to symbolise his new, ruined self. Even as Two-Face begins a dual career of crime and Robin Hood-style philanthropy, however, he still longs passionately for Gilda, and she for him. So here we have what appears to be a somewhat mild character, with respect to others that surround her, yet she has a huge effect on the entire storyline. This has conceptual ties to other works we’ve produced that explore how art and artists are represented through popular culture. Bob Kane and Bill Finger (the creator of Batman) have decided that art is something which is aesthetically pleasing and conforms to traditional notions of beauty. This is not so bizarre since quite a large percentage of people definitely think this way. However, Kane and Finger have created this character which fulfils the stereotype, which I think we can all agree is a step up from just thinking something in ones head. This is a particularly interesting example due to her significance to the story – Gilda being this symbol of Harvey’s insanity due to her affiliation with the art world; it’s because she’s an artist that he doesn’t think she’ll love him despite his deformed face, maybe if she’d been a musician it wouldn’t have been so bad. We’re not sure how this will pan out into a work (or works) but it’s just some research we’ve been mulling over...