|
|||
No,
future takes its starting point in the idea of opposition, or perhaps a
better word would be “positioning” - the stance or
attitude that a work or an artist might take in relation to their
environment or circumstances. The work might mimic a pre-existing form
in order to do this, it might use the most immediate sources and
materials, or it might exist as raw energy, close to its origins and
incisive in its delivery. A work acting as an accurate reflection of a
given habit, code or form can reveal it as affectation or formal vacuum
and humour is often an important part of this dynamic, embodying a kind
of intelligent aggression. This show deals with the subversive nature
of all art making and demonstrates its essential energy. This is not to
say that the work is issue based, directly political or moral, on the
contrary - it is often evasive and ambiguous, seeking a free space.
No, future was developed from an idea by David G. Torres in collaboration with Graham Gussin and Sacha Craddock. David G. Torres is an art critic and curator based in Barcelona. David G. Torres: I always wanted to be in the Cabaret Voltaire in 1916 or in some other place such as punk London in the summer of 1978, and there are many more - in his book Lipstick Traces: A Secret History of the Twentieth Century, Greil Marcus talks about these scenes. I was not there, but in some cases I was at least a witness, for instance to the cultural euphoria after Franco’s death in Spain. Recently, in fact, always, I’ve been thinking about how we could come back to that intensity, opposition, stance, response, energy, subversive or rebellious nature, that for some of us is the basis of artistic and cultural practice. I think this is the starting point for No, future. Graham Gussin: How do you avoid being nostalgic with this? Perhaps those times are specific and cannot be returned to? What is being opposed now? DGT: I’m not nostalgic, that’s not in my character. Again, in Lipstick Traces Greil Marcus talks about the grinding of teeth you can hear when Johnny Rotten sings Anarchy in the UK. He detects or imagines that sound, for instance in Dada when Kurt Schwitters reads his poem Ur Sonata. Marcus was the first to suggest such a genealogy, in putting all of these people together. In fact, he is talking about intensity or energy or opposition. So, I’m not talking about returning to specific situations, I’m talking about discovering a sound, about whether we can hear that grinding of teeth today, to find artists that make that kind of noise and who agree that opposition is the basis of art and culture. Now I’m reading Richard Kelly’s book about DOGMA 95 (the Danish Cinema movement). He explains DOGMA 95 as an opposition to the Hollywood cinema industry, its schemata and stereotypes. So, what are we opposing now? Opposing everything - established ideas, common sense. Art, as I understand it, needs to encourage a critical sense in people. Antonio Ortega in Record of Kindness puts the question “what is kindness?” In short, the video shows him feeding birds with his own vomit - disgusting. But in fact, vomiting is, for him, a big effort, so he is generous and he is not looking at how that generosity or effort benefits him. Put that in the bigger context of kindness or sponsoring... Sacha Craddock: I never wanted to be “there”, wherever “there” may be; anywhere really, at any one moment in time. I was “there” - I suppose - through and during punk but honestly it was not very interesting. London in summer 1978, was, for me, more about squatting and politics and, yes, David, at one point we did run a Franco death sweepstake. Organisational opposition is never glamorous and not particularly about youth. My interest in the premise for this exhibition is to re-visit the idea that form can carry its own energy or suggestion - perhaps the energy or suggestion of exterior change - but mainly only the possibility of its own change. So this show is not about a moment, the past or about something missed, but more about an inherent shift in art and attitude. There has, and always will be, a bad seam that encourages retro-chic. But this is not about that. No, future promises an investigation of a particular quality and ability in art which cannot directly oppose anything other than itself. GG: I have to disagree with Sacha about the excitement of 1978. What the punk attitude bought about was an open space; it was that feeling of expectation. It was not so much what was happening with any particular band or in any particular song but more the idea that nobody knew what was coming next, where that might go. This seemed for me very compelling. Punk was exotic and intelligent as well as aggressive and abject. What I think David is saying is that it reduced things to an essential point that was about production and consumption - a band that you couldn’t get to see was more interesting than a band you could. This reduction leaves things raw… I like the question of whether we can hear the sound of grinding teeth but there is also a sense of euphoria involved here and this is closely linked to humour - a lot of the work in this show is painfully funny... DGT: Sure, humour is one of the keys. Let me make one point clear, Punk and Dada are references; I’m not interested in the concrete history because I’m not an art history teacher. I’m interested in the kind of euphoria or energy they represented. When Marcel Duchamp spoke about Raymond Roussel’s Impressions d’Afrique, he said that he was interested more than anything in the form which is an attitude. And a lot of things come together with that attitude: a certain aggressiveness against the stereotypical. That “No” we put in the title is reducing things to an essential point. It’s really an opposition or a stance: ‘No, I will do nothing’. Ernst Lubitch said that the greatest sense of humour came from the deepest existentialism. So again, a sense of humour and doing nothing appear to be linked. That’s why, for instance, the Ant Farm and Chip Lord video The Eternal Frame, made in 1975, is so important to the show. It is hilarious; it contains something aggressive and something critical against the icons of our society, but at the same time does nothing - it is just the reenactment of the assassination of JFK. They say it clearly in the video; their aim is just to try to re-visit that moment, so doing nothing. Objective but hilarious. SC: What is really funny is the way I think so differently to you both. It is important to talk of a legacy, but I detect differences between us in expectations for art and its role in history. The work we have chosen contains qualities that rub up against each other in a very particular way. It makes a powerful combination. The works will set up a full and yet challenging experience, I hope. By sliding associatively across the surface, slipping and careering into each other, compensating for each other, they will give a full, heightened, over blown, even exaggerated experience where the most simple physical gesture of say Cameron Irving wrecking a camera co-exists with the extra mile of caricature that tends to come with re-enactment, with something that takes you somewhere else. Take Mark McGowan’s “re-enactment” of the London tube bombing, for example; nothing really happens in the work because it already happened in reality. It is a touch of re-action, just the whiff of something – a revival of the excitement generated by the media, of the need for news, which ultimately makes it a wonderful funny piece. This work taps into the contracted horror and danger of the subject, to the extent that television viewers are offered a number to call if upset by the idea of what an artist might or might not be doing. GG: I’ve not been thinking about “relationships” very much. They’ve cropped up but I’ve been thinking more about the works in a singular way for this... It doesn’t matter about the overall form here as that seems to me to be too organisational for this subject. Direction and intent come after the event. Also, for me, there is a strong feeling of the insider/outsider relationship – I mean the way in which an artist or group of artists may take a form or occupy a space, which is deliberately appropriated in order to undermine or question it. By inhabiting that space and incorporating their work into a given form or accepted language in this way, the artists make the notion of criticism crystal clear. I think everything here is critical, aggressive or funny; everything here is all of these things simultaneously. |
|||
IGNASI ABALLÍ Lists (1997-2005) Waste (2001) |
|||
KARMELO BERMEJO Contribution of labour free of charge to Gucci (2007) Contribution of labour free of charge to Deutsche Bank Group (2005) Contribution of fuel-oil to the Costa da Morte (2005) |
|||
RAFEL G. BIANCHI http://www.rgbianchi.net/ Don't ask the ignoramus (2005) |
|||
JORDI COLOMER NO? FUTURE! (2006) |
|||
MATTHEW CRAWLEY Footstool (1997) Turning on a video camera, opening it up and poking around in there until it breaks (1999) |
|||
FRANÇOIS CURLET http://www.curlet.com/ Whassup! (2007) Script for a clip in a London street (2006) |
|||
BRICE DELLSPERGER http://www.bricedellsperger.com/ Body Double 16 (2003) |
|||
ANNA FASSHAUER Casino Royale (2002) |
|||
ORIANA FOX http://www.orianafox.com/video/ Our bodies, Ourselves (2005) Tale of Narcissus (2003) The Embodimet Workout (2005) |
|||
GRAHAM GUSSIN Poster (2007) Know Nothing (Self Portrait As X - The Man with X-Ray Eyes) (2003) |
|||
JENS HAANING http://www.jenshaaning.com/ The Refugee Calendar (2002) |
|||
CAMERON IRVING Petrol Plinth (2005) |
|||
LEOPOLD KESSLER Depot (2005) |
|||
SARAH LUCAS Boots with Razor Blades (1991) |
|||
PAUL MCCARTHY Use a Shovel to Throw Dirt in the Air (1972) |
|||
MARK MCGOWAN http://www.markmcgowan.org/ The Re-enactment of the Piccadilly Line Tube Bombing (2007) |
|||
JONATHAN MEESE Nofretete's Getreidesacklein (2003) Warsepp de Sau (2003) |
|||
<;;;br> ANTONIO ORTEGA http://www.antoniaortega.com/ A conversation - Reenactment (2006) Alice Friki (2007) Register of Kindness (1999) |
|||
ERKAN ÖZGEN & SENER ÖZMEN Road to Tate Modern (2003) |
|||
SIMON PATTERSON The Last Supper arranged according to the flat back four formation, Jesus Christ in goal (1990) |
|||
CESARE PIETROIUSTI & PAUL GRIFFITHS Eating Money - an Auction (2007) |
|||
TERE RECARENS More Glory (2007) |
|||
GUY RICHARDS SMIT Soldier's Unique Hopelessness (2007) Nausea II (2004) |
|||
FRANCK SCURTI http://www.franckscurti.net/ What is Public Sculpture? #4 (2007) |
|||
T.R UTHCO AND ANT FARM The Eternal Frame (1975) |
|||
CAREY YOUNG I am a Revolutionary (2001) |
|||
29 SEPTEMBER / 10 NOVEMBER 2007 BLOOMBERG SPACE , LONDON OPENING 29 SEPTEMBER 11:30 AM WITH MAXI GEIL! AND PLAYCOLT MySpace: MAXI GEIL! AND PLAYCOLT MAXI GEIL! AND PLAYCOLT IN BETHNAL GREEN WORKINGMEN'S CLUB |
|||
“THOUGHT IS MADE IN THE MOUTH.” Tristan Tzara |
|||
www.davidgtorres.net |