Archive for September, 2017

20
Sep
17

Pans Horn Magic Grass by Michael Matthews

Advertisements
12
Sep
17

The second album: CHILDHOOD – INSIGHT INTO THE CAOTEE: 03 Insight into the Caotee

 

10
Sep
17

BACK IN THE 1980s

IMG_6270

Preparations for the Durban Technikon Art Gallery exhibition (1988).

10
Sep
17

BACK IN THE 1980s

IMG_6192

Preparation for the Durban Technikon Art Gallery (1988).

03
Sep
17

BACK IN THE 1980s

IMG_6262

The Dasart mobile (1988).

01
Sep
17

Eti/quiet in the Gallery – how to be/(h)ave: a more/al(l) issue?:

 
S/(p)ace and p/(l)ace: the whirl-wind of windy URLS. T/he gallery s/(p)ace in South Africa. T/he a(re)/rival of the virtual gallery and the vir(t)/url work is here. T/he artist is pl_aced in the chip-of-sim(b)/her. An alias t/hate functions in the cy/b(or)e real/it/(y).

When visiting the pre/sent/ab/sent gallery and the s/(p)aces of con/temp(t)/ory thou/n(aug)ht, the thing is to first access it from ho/me. Visit the WWW and browse through the badly conceptualisted and realised websites that take for/ever to down/load. (if you don’t be/leave me; go to the NSA website and wait for the flash to ar…rive; its like wait/i/(g) for the 4th pla(i)n e).

T/he pub/lic s/p(l)ace – t/he pub/lic’s p/(l)ace
“Trying to prove that you’re be/ter…”

When I first read Joseph Heller’s ‘CATCH 22’ it was no surprise to me to find that Yossarian went ‘mad’ at the end – h/is private space be/came public. His space was a simile of the war syndrome – anxiety. Could he do any different than censor the letters that his colleagues wrote home to their loved ones… Could he have done any/thing the same as sense/or the correspondences that his colleagues w/rote to the/re relatives. The physical act and the distaste of the message are so divorced. The space between his and the author’s vo/ice is so distant from our voice and yet the vo/ice’s are a cacophony of conflicting thought.

Types of vi/sitors to the virt/url Gallery:

1.                          Pragmatic visitors: These visitors rely on having routines by which information can be quickly and efficiently processed, and are most comfortable when they already have developed these routines. They are visually oriented, and like structures that call for matching logical structures with visual skills. They are easily swayed by how others think, but their locus of control is largely internal. They appear as efficient, detail-oriented, and in control. Interested in efficiency and order, and aversive to ambiguity or delayed responses, they seem to have a routine or process for everything, and will create a new routine to handle novel input. They are good with their hands and fine motor skills. They like to deal with concrete things and their locus of control is largely internal, they like also to deal with abstract things.

2.                          Critical Reception Visitors: The visitor relying predominantly on a Critical Reception Strategy favours the acquisition of ideas, which are valued for their form or place in an abstract order, whether or not this proves “useful” in any concrete way. The optimal experience for this group is the production of new models of the world. 1

In the URL gallery the space is not our pers/(a)nal space. It’s a pub/lic(k) space. Our space is carried as a trophy or burden of ignorance.

T/he pri(v)/rate s/(p)ace – t/he view/(h)ers p/(l)ace
“W\(h)e had the opport/unit/y to look inside and see the soft spot; to see our bo/dies, the bod/odity in that – magic b/all. T\he gallery is the womb that …”

Types of visitors to the physical Gallery:

1. The Utilitarian Approach: here the gallery is considered as a type of (work)shop for the acquisition of discrete, routinised skills or ideas. It leads to an efficient accumulation of a store of new information which has a concrete application outside the museum setting.2

2. (to be continued  . . .)

And the . . . “whore was hiding just outside the door. The knife came down, missing by inches, and he took off.” 3

…we need an o/pen mind to be/have in the Gall(URL)ery: the gallery s/p(l)ace is a maze and the 1 ON(E)ly in/side viewer the hanger of ritual/s.

 

 

 

Eti/quiet in the Gallery – how to be/(h)ave: a more/al(l) issue?: Part 2: How to unfret your past and embrace the future.
Art has long since moved out of the religious sanctuaries of Europe – the church – into the capitalist cathedrals of the global village – the gallery. The process was not sudden, but involved an unfretting of iconographic religious art, which was then wrapped up in the cellophanous growth of imitative high culture.

There has always been an overall organizing behavioural determinant in the readings of art and its objects. Apart from this predetermined organised behaviour, which is also reflected in the gallery system, there is the behaviour that the artist’s individual works provokes.

When the gallery system, the object and viewer are at odds, we can surmise that we are standing at a gateway that promises a drastic change in the organising behaviour behind visual attitudes. These changes can often be premonitioned through observing the current attitudes to the system/s that have been adopted – the gallery and what it represents at that period in history. The pastiche’ of categorising behaviour into classes may be passé. Nevertheless, the classification of current trends into categories may lead us to a further understanding of the future role of the gallery in the 21st century:

  • The voyeur: Preoccupied, staggering back and forth, looking for the experience as an experience in itself. A pre-modernist and individualist. The gallery offers t/he/m an opportunity for the continuous peep show. The concept of peeping presides over the meanings offered in the system. A rarefied behavioural phenomenon.
  • The Dilettante: Arrogant and presumptuous. Knows better than ‘thou’ and ready to show you why at the first opportunity. A modernist who tends to sway to (mis)functionalism. The gallery becomes disinfected in its blandness, a place that leads into itself in its concern with its appearance.
  • The Socialite: Less interested in the SYSTEMS and their meanings; rather, they are interested in being seen by the visitors to the gallery. This kind of behaviour isn’t suited to the virtual gallery – the flickering Poppish images in synthetic colour that stagger row by clumsy row into our private lives, the pocketbook plastic transient image of the new millennium is no place for mass euphoria. The socialite sees no need for the URL and is quick to defend the stability of snobbism, whatever they choose to name it at the time.
  • The Refugee: Uses the SYSTEM to hide from the world. The gallery offers amnesty from day-to-day crimes. The refugee seeks out the neglected histories and identifies with the politically correct aspects of the collection, aspects that have been carefully absorbed into the collection policy of the gallery and the SYSTEM itself.
  • The Terrorist: Slashing and smashing pots and pa(i)ntings, the terrorist type sees the gallery as the epitome of capitalist consumerism and exploitation. Their methods developed from the hammer and sickle to graffiti and more recently, to powdery forms (not the type of chemical to powder the Mona Lisa’s nose).
  • The Other: The gallery is seen as an elitist cathedral. It is a (dis)functional place that justifies the power of past colonialist regimes. Otherness is turned into a commercial commodity that perpetuates the exploitative colonial myth.
  • he amphitryon: Still attempting to instil pre-20th century values into art. Best summed up by Herman Hesse in his book ‘Demain’:

“We stood before it and began to freeze inside from the exertion. We questioned the painting, berated it, made love to it, prayed to it, we called it mother, called it whore and slut, called it our beloved, called it Abraxas…”




Advertisements