Poultry Concept. Tamlin Blake at Bell-Roberts
Wednesday, April 11, 2007
According to the ever-reliable artist statement, the exhibition “explores the symbolic importance of farm animals and their slaughter within our contemporary society”. I’m not sure how simply presenting this reasonably varied assortment of post-mortem farm dwellers in faux-butchery poses is exploring any symbolic importance. It seems to just be stating “Chickens, pigs and cows are culturally significant” without actually delving into how or why. Fair enough beads as a material have specific connotations to them that would theoretically be bestowed upon the work but again that’s not really exploring anything about contemporary society, it’s merely extending an accepted material/culture association. Having said that, the exhibition works very nicely on an aesthetic level. The novelty factor of seeing these well executed (no pun intended) carcasses hanging in a gallery is great and makes for an entertaining if somewhat macabre gallery trip. Abundance (Nguni Hide)’s beaded cow hide is a lovely take on a “well-traveled” idea, while the slaughtered pig of Filthy Rich (Pig) provides an unfortunate proxy-conclusion to the exploits of the flying one in Storm Thorgerson’s Animals print, displayed in the front section of the gallery. The drawings aren’t too shabby either.
Labels: review
posted by Tim Leibbrandt at 12:42 PM
18 Comments:
paltry conceit?...
corporate art, good for sale to..er.. corportates. Africa made neat and white. And, oh, the chickens come home to roost, again and again and again
White artists don't know shit about black culture. Just stop.
I agree. I am white and my family has been here since the fuckin 1680's but that doesn't make me a 'white african', it makes me the descendant of colonialists whether I like it or not. It's a shite position to be in, but appropriating other peoples' culture when it's convenient is just opportunism
Cough Pippa Skotnes Cough Cough
precisely. to name but one
But then, should black artists be using oil paint...
That's kind of irrelevent don't you think? The debate's about cultural appropriation rather than material heritage. Or not.
please explain the difference
I may be wrong but I associate oil painting (for instance) as a material utilised to realise an artwork, whereas cultural appropriation relates to the themes/symbolism of the work. However a white artist chooses to create the work be it sculpture, painting or photoshop is irrelevent if it's a sloppy appropriation of black culture. Likewise if a black artist decided to make a cow-hide or Dala Acryllic work of Voortrekker identity, either way it's going to be a spectacular fuck-up.
unless the spectacularly fucked - upness was a conscious decision and indeed the point of the work.......
True, but then the intention of the work is to spectacularly fuck-up rather than appropriate and examine culture "objectively".
who is eric shinn? erection?
Does nobody else but me think paint just MIGHT be a tad political? It's about as neutral as the colonial culture that brought it to Africa. Or do we just accept that colonial culture is humanity and everyone else is a tribe?
speak when you're spoken to, alien...
Dear Sisters and Brothers,
Here I am having just recited 1000 Hail Mary's wondering: can any one out there, dear Jesus, tell me what culture is and then what cultural appropriation is?
Your servant in all humility,
Sister Bench.
en.wikipedia.org/Wiki/Culture
There is no culture that is neutral, bubble heads. The moment you start thinking it is neutral, the trouble starts. What point is busy being made to you throughout your entire life at artschool if not that painting has a politically loaded history. To see it as 'just culture' is to be really really dof
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home