WHAT DOES YOUR SCREEN SMELL LIKE?
THE ARTISTS
Sasha Bowles
Alice Eikelpoth
Phil Elbourne
Matt Gee
Wednesday, 1 August 2012
Tuesday, 31 July 2012
The Exhibition
WHAT
DOES YOUR SCREEN SMELL LIKE?
THE
EXHIBITION
THE GARAGE
.jpg)
THE
ENTRANCE
The opening
night was a great success with
over 100 guests attending.
A big thank-you to everyone who came to
support us.
Many thanks to Jasmin Mackenzie for manning the bar and to Charlotte Trower for her tireless help and enthusiasm.
CICADAS IN
THE SILENCE OVERLOOKING ANN-MARIE’S BOOKPLATES
THE FAR END
WE ARE ALMOST PERFECT
FROZEN LIME
PEARL AND SHELL
JASMIN MACKENZIE CHECKS OUT SASHA BOWLES AND TIM BARNES’ WORK
MATT GEE’S FROZEN LIME STANDS IN THE FOREGROUND OF SASHA’S TOPOGRAPHY OF DOLOUR
ALICE EIKELPOTH
AND PHIL ELBOURNE
TIM BARNES
EXPLAINS THE IMPORTANCE OF SILENCE IN SOUND SCULPTURE TO CHARLOTTE TROWER
ALICE AND MILO MEASURE UP FOR NEW TEETH
The Discussion
WHAT
DOES YOUR SCREEN SMELL LIKE?
THE DISCUSSION
Philip Elbourne took
charge of the proceedings and an intense debate ensued; at which point a
fearless large black rat popped its head out of the drain right in the centre
of us all and lightened the mood.
SOME
OF THE REFERENCES FOR THE DEBATE WERE:
Artie Vierkant’s The Image Object
Post-internet
Louis Doulas’ Within
Post-Internet, Part One
Gene McHugh’s Post-internet blog
Mark Hutchinson’s Painting in the Age of Digital Reproduction
Phil’s Questions/discussion points:
In contrast to mechanical reproduction, painting produces unique objects,
marked by the labour of the artist. In contrast to digital reproduction, it
produces a substantial, material surface. Paint has unique qualities…
The bias towards the surface of the screen, nudges artists towards
exploring different types of bodily shock effects. The relationship of
the body to the computer screen after all is different than that of the body to
the physical painting in space
These cybernetic relationships create a desire for clicking, scrolling,
and following—dynamic motion premised on sifting through an accumulation of
data rather than gazing for very long at a single pattern of light
Artists after the Internet take on a role more closely aligned to that
of the interpreter, transcriber, narrator, curator, architect.
Some of the subjects that came up for discussion were:
Phil Elbourne’s solo show on Ruben’s phone.
Nothing is in a fixed state: i.e. everything is anything else. Does
‘immaterialised’ necessarily mean ‘equalised’?
Attention as currency: has it always been, how do we deal with this? Is
power held by those who present things as worthy of attention?
The internet is more ‘real’
A
performative viewing process?
‘Hanging
out’
Artist
defined by the choices they make – i.e. indistinguishable from consumer.
Noise:
the white cube versus the blank page.
Specific questions:
Jeff:
Someone recently said of your paintings that ‘One of the reasons your paintings appear to keep updating themselves is
that in the face of our increasingly ‘virtual’ world of the digital, your very
real and tangible painted surfaces of bubbles (read pixels), pipes (read
optical fibre cables) and montage scenes (read computer windows opened together
on a single screen) are keeping Painting ahead of the game.’ Are these elements
of your paintings conscious mimicries of digital phenomena, and if so how do
you tackle the ‘perversity’ of depicting the immaterial in a very material way?
Anna: Your work examines the
notion of the party. ‘Amassing energy, collecting, grouping in order to
improve, impress, alter, intimidate or overwhelm. Events devised by, with and
for groups of people deal with the invitation as concept. The following
rhetorical formula is tied up in the work: to achieve a celebration - to
celebrate an achievement.’ Is it fair to say that both your medium and your
subject matter are people? So how does your work interact with the internet, a
medium that fosters isolation?
Tom: Coming from a gallery
point-of-view, have the ideas of ‘ubiquitous authorship’ and ‘ubiquitous
ownership’ affected the way galleries operate? Traditionally, a curator or
gallerist, as a single voice, in their choice of what to show, defines what’s
‘good’, which is usually a cultural object clearly authored by an individual or
small group. Now, images and ideas cannot be ‘owned’ exclusively.
Thank-you to everyone who came and joined in the debate. There were no solid conclusions made by the end of the discussion. The group all seemed to believe there was some role to be played by the internet in viewing art. Some people thought it was a better place to view it, being able to get even 'closer' than you ever would in 'reality', while others said they would not want to exchange the experience of seeing, feeling, hearing and smelling art in the flesh for the pixelated representation on the screen.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)