Since the early 1980's Toronto painter
Brent Roe has been exhibiting his work in parallel spaces, artist collective
exhibitions and in small annual and biannual shows at Wynick Tuck Gallery. He
first gained attention for a narrative cartoon-style of painting that commented
ironically on cold war politics. By the mid-eighties he had replaced the
caricature style and political references with a looser, schematic figurative
rendering accompanied by captions and texts describing conundrums, solipsisms
and random streams of consciousness.
The essential components of Brent Roe's
mature style have changed little since that time, but in spite of that his work
has evolved markedly. Figure ground relationships, paint handling, colour,
surface texture, canvas sizes and proportions have constantly changed in
relationship to each other in a concentrated on-going activity reminiscent of a
chemist's careful measuring and testing of the volatility of his compounds.
Through the waxing and waning of stylistic and ideological enthusiasms in the
1980's and 1990's it became apparent that Brent Roe had been focused on a
specific and unshakable mission. Just what this mission is, however, remains a
slippery subject.
In the quest to understand Brent Roe's
mission I organized a five-year, 31 piece survey at Cambridge Galleries in
1997. John Massier tackled an ambitious 10 year, 93 work survey of Roe's work
at the Koffler Gallery in 1998. The third and current survey, organized by John
Armstrong and Michelle Jacques for the Agnes Etherington Art Centre, falls
somewhere in the middle of the previous two. In the quantity of work and in its
1992 starting date, it is closer to the Cambridge survey. But like the Koffler
exhibition, this show also contains a selection of sketchbooks and the baroque
touch of the artist's idiosyncratic miniature graffiti on the walls between the
paintings. Also in a manner similar to the Koffler survey, the conventional
horizontal alignment of paintings at eye level is supplemented by the
additional hanging of works high above – salon style. An added feature of the
Agnes Etherington exhibition is the existence of a ping-pong table in the
middle of the gallery. Demonstrating perhaps a newfound tongue-in-cheek
interest in the decorative arts, the surface of the ping pong table and its
paddles have been painted by Roe in his characteristic manner.
Roe's characteristic manner is typically a
combination of a painterly abstraction with ironic, deflating texts. Often, the
texts seem to mock not only the pretensions of painting, but of all redeeming
notions of art. The belief that some larger meaning can be divined from
studying art, for example, is derided by texts like "truth and meaning can
be found within 5 metres of this spot" or "All those seeking meaning
line up behind this canvas," configured either as the visual voice
balloons of declaiming cartoon figures or slogans painted on an abstract and
expressionist ground. Expression, essence, truth and genius, and other popular
notions associated with art receive similar treatment at the hands of Roe.
Of course irony and sarcasm can quickly
wear thin, and thinness is the most common criticism leveled against Roe's
work. This perception is not diminished by the institutional and logistical
imperatives of both commercial and public galleries to emphasize solo
exhibitions. I don't think I have ever left a Brent Roe exhibition wanting
more, and in fact the artist has a history of crowded solo exhibitions, which
have included just too many works. It is my experience that these paintings
work best not in solo exhibitions where they can begin to seem like a string of
one-liners (and where one begins to suspect that he's got more than a million
of 'em), but in-group shows. There, surrounded by extroverted expressions of
earnestness and virtuosity, the negative ions thrown off by Roe's paintings
create deep rich spaces of calm and existential awareness – a cold steely
clarifying of the moment – not unlike the way a great wit can at once celebrate
and expose the pretensions of the guests at a party.
Never-the-less, a solo survey exhibition
gives us the opportunity to examine constant thematic and stylistic devices and
the conscious changes that the artist engages over a period of time. On the
occasion of the Agnes Etherington exhibition, the organizers provided
interpretative assists in the form of a colour-illustrated catalogue with an
essay by curator John Armstrong and an interview with the artist by Michelle
Jacques. A panel discussion focusing on Roe's use of language in his paintings
was held toward the end of the exhibition. An added bonus was the recorded
audio guide conducted by the artist.
Armstrong's essay introduces the focus and
the scope of Roe's art-about-art commentary and Jacque's interview reveals the
artist's playful, evasive, reflective and iconoclastic character. On the audio
guide Roe offers up startling details about the iconology of the paintings in
the exhibition. It is worth listening just to be able to experience the depth of his engagement with the ideas he presents. The symposium was less
successful, focusing perhaps too much on the history of texts and voice
balloons in art and not enough on what makes these devices effective in Roe's
paintings. Two comparisons made by Armstrong at the symposium, however, were
illuminating.
Beyond the common use of text, the
proximity of Roe's work to that of the senior American artist Ed Ruscha had not
previously presented itself to me so forcefully. However, their similar
preoccupation with the tensions between image and words and abstraction and
representation contribute to a shared ascetic mysticism and a riveting
evocation of the existential present. This is an aesthetic which has roots in
the early modernism of Picasso and Braque and which had its most theatrical
presentation in the work of Jackson Pollock and the abstract expressionists. It
is no accident that these are among the artists cited as influences by Roe in
the catalogue interview.
But why text? Why use language in a
painting, in a picture, which, as the saying goes, is worth at least a thousand
words? It seems to me that question is partially addressed by another image
cited in the panel discussion. An Annunciation by Simone Martini showing the
Virgin Mary being informed by the angel Gabriel of the immaculate conception
and the impending birth of Jesus. In an attempt to mimic the way words are
directed from one person to another, Martini has laid text on the surface of
the painting in a straight line beginning at the angel's mouth on the left and
heading toward of the head of Mary. Language and text in the biblical sense are
traditionally associated with the divine revelation of God's laws and
interventions. Applied to the painting's surface, text makes the image
revelatory.
Brent Roe's text balloons function as
gem-like personal revelations, and for the viewer they work like a cleverly
pointed reality check. I suspect however, that the issue for the artist is not
his use of language in painting, rather, it is what painting and language can
uniquely achieve when combined, for Roe is first and foremost a painter. Every
one of his paintings foregrounds the act of painting, with references to
painterly abstraction and other historical styles, or in his decorative
doodles, flourishes and graffiti inspired markings.
T. J. Clark, in his fascinating study of
Jacques-Louis David's Death of Marat, draws attention to the two letters in the
painting and contrasts them with the great expanse of scumbled, burnt umber
that occupies the canvas's upper half. Clark sees this large area of dark
ground as the objective reality of paint, the “endless, meaningless objectivity
produced by paint not quite finding its object.” He contrasts that with the
deception of the Charlotte Corday letter in Marat's hand, and the trompe d'oeil illusionism of the letter
on the plinth that appears to project into the viewer's space. In the visual
telling of this revolutionary tragedy, illusion and deception are in a struggle
against truth.
It is text that clarifies the activity of
painting, and brings us in someway closer to its uncanniness. But it is also
painting that makes language present, frames it – makes it more real. And
making both painting and language more real, may just be Brent Roe's mission.
Gordon Hatt
|
Sunday, 15 September 2002
Review: Who Means What / Brent Roe / Paintings / 1992-2001
Dan Kennedy: Shack of Deals
Because infants perceive only movement and
contrast, adults open their eyes wide, arch their brows, and raise the pitch of
their voice in an attempt to bond. This is how we learn that we are not alone
in the world - a revelation that must seat itself profoundly in that part of
the brain that records emotions. Is it any wonder, when our very first
existential crisis is met with a toothy smile, big eyes and singing happy talk,
that as adults we thrust Mickey and Minnie on our children for comfort, or find
ourselves seeking solace in pop stars with cartoon smiles?
The traveller notices it first - the
billboards, the magazine covers, the TV screens featuring unfamiliar yet
attractive, wide-eyed, smiling characters with indecipherable foreign texts.
You think, "Why are all these people smiling at me, and what are they
trying to say?" It seems like the world has begun to feel like a giant
crib, with dozens of strange relatives looking in and talking baby talk.
Westerners travelling from the old West Berlin to the communist East Berlin
used to experience another kind of shock. It was a shock of withdrawal - the
total and complete cessation of visual happy talk - no billboards, no backlit
signs, no glamour magazines at the newsstand. It was like the aural equivalent
of turning the television and the radio off.
Clearly, being accustomed to its sensuous
embrace, we become confused when commercial publicity is absent. The promise of
contemporary urban life is the satiation of desire, where you can get anything
you want, where no anxiety need go unaddressed, where no impulse lacks an
expression. The world of commercial imagery that surrounds us is a fantasy of
glamour and affection, providing meaning and security in a community of
economic values. Publicity and advertising assure us that even if we can't
afford it, even if we aren't good enough or glamorous enough, comfort exists.
***
Dan Kennedy's paintings in the exhibition
"Shack of Deals" have all been created since 1999 and comprise
aspects of two bodies of work. The painting Trick #6 comes from a series of
work of the same name and takes as its compositional format the conventional
advertising poster or signboard, where texts at the bottom and the top frame a
central illustration. Kennedy makes reference to these recognizable formats in
his Trick series paintings, seeking to create a layered, visual representation
of the voice of the huckster, combining the illusions of the sales pitch, with
the pictorial illusions of age in the apparently yellowing varnish and fading
enamels. Illusionism, the artist seems to be saying, is the property of both
the artist and the huckster.
A separate body of work is illustrated by
the title piece of the exhibition Shack of Deals, in which the conventional
graphic format of the posters is replaced by dense layers of images and text
that seem to float in weightless spaces. These painted collages conjure a world
filled with cartoon characters, comic pastorals and fragments of words in
commercial typefaces. No text is complete. No phrase resolves into a statement.
Instead, the words begin to resemble the aural detritus of a garbled salesman's
shill. All that remain are the superlatives and the false imperatives.
These are airless paintings, whose cartoon
figures are incomplete, fragmented, inverted, colliding and jostling in a
soupy, viscous space. Pastel bubbles appear to leak and hiss from the recesses
and cavities of this claustrophobic world. Pictorial spaces shift, from
illusionistic depths, to flat dripping areas of colour. Moments of innocent
charm - popular cartoon characters for example - seem overwhelmed and oppressed
by the crowded space in which they seem doomed to exist, like some Disney
version of Dante's Inferno.
***
Looking up from our cribs at our mothers
and fathers, sisters and brothers and extended family can be a both a comforting
and terrifying experience. As hard as they try, not all of those high voices
and exaggerated smiles manage to bridge the gulf between knowledge and
innocence. Aged faces scare babies, and why not? They provide a little bit too
much information about things to come.
It is hard not to feel that Kennedy's
vision is not dissimilar to the infant's view from the crib. Cartoons of
wide-eyed innocence exist side by side with caricatures of the wizened and
sinister. These images mirror the same emotional mixture of comfort and threat,
and beg the question: is this an isolated world view, or is this vision an
insight into a larger social pathology?
Much current speculation on the effects of
globalization and the penetration of corporate cultural values suggest that
social infantilization is the inevitable and even desired outcome. Benjamin R.
Barber has described contemporary marketing's targeting of children as ideal
consumers:
The result is a new consumer who is neither
a kid nor an adult, but a "kidult" with grown-up buying power and
childish, uniform tastes that can be catered to by fast food, athletic shoes,
T-shirts, cola drinks, Gap-style coed clothes based loosely on sports apparel,
and - the merchandising and branding engine behind it all - the global pop
culture of homogenized MTV music and Hollywood's cartoonish blockbuster films
and videos.(1)
The defining aspect of multinational global
consumerism at the turn of the millennium is the pursuit of economic self
interest and personal self gratification, to the detriment of all other values.
We are encouraged and enabled to pursue our most immature desires, to demand
from the world endless comfort and gratification, to consume out of our most
irrational fears and to forego the basic responsibilities of citizenship.
Dan Kennedy's work is not the product of an
isolated individual, but rather that of an observer of contemporary life. He
uses the tools of pop culture familiarity and character recognition to connect
with viewers and bring people into his work. At the same time, we may be
troubled and discomfited by his ambiguous, mysterious and toxic spaces, by the
shrill bleating of his advertising graphics and by the ominous signs of aging
and mortality that he builds into these paintings. These works mirror what
growing numbers of people feel - the simultaneous experience of desire and
disgust, of charm and alienation, of satiation and of emptiness, in the new
global market place - in this great shack of deals.
Gordon Hatt
End Notes
1. Benjamin R. Barber, "The Global
Infantilization: How We Became Kidults without Noting the Loss of Freedom In
Society," Tagespiegel Online, Tagespiegel Online Dienste Verlag: 2001,
<http://www2.tagespiegel.de/archiv/2001/09/08/ak-so-am-558006.html>.
|
Tom Bendtsen: Argument #6 (b)
with Cambridge
Galleries’ curator Gordon Hatt
GH. I'm
interested in how the book works started. Maybe you could talk a little bit
about that.
TB. It was in
Montreal, when I was part of a show called “Systems of Exchange” in 1994. It
was a cultural exchange between cities - a way of bringing together these two
cultural centres of Canada. What ended up happening was that people started to
parade and canvas around an issue of censorship – and this idea of community
started to break down. We started to fight with each other and then within our
city groups we started to fight amongst each other about titles and contents
and it just all broke down.
After that I
started thinking about this work. We're all influenced by and we all have
access to the same information, and yet we're able to construct vastly
different ideas and arguments. So I was thinking of the arbitrary nature of
‘conclusion making,’ or having opinions, or making arguments. It's not entirely
arbitrary, but can seem to be. Whatever your emotional state at the moment, you
can find a way of justifying it through common knowledge or academic texts. I
started thinking about collecting a large group of books that represented
knowledge – my knowledge, knowledge I had access to – and then just started
compiling them into different structures that represented ideas, monuments to
ideas. You can take knowledge and construct any argument you want based on what
you want. And I also like the idea that when they're done they're fixed. They're
heavy and they're immovable. They're made up of little parts, but they're
immovable once they're completed. They're also fragile.
So that was of
the genesis of the work, and that's why I built the wall, the first piece I
did. It was a house – a wall blocking off part of my studio limiting
‘potential’ for myself (Argument #2, 1997). On the outside of the house were
academic texts (more presentable) and on the inside there were Readers Digest
condensed novels, Hardy Boys, “how-to” books more ‘home’ and ‘comfort’ books
maybe the types of books you wouldn't want anyone to see, or know what you read
in private. At Mercer Union (Argument #3,1997) I built a column, mainly of art
and culture texts, and the idea of that was that a specific kind of history was
keeping the ceiling from falling in. In the exhibition “Canadian Shield,”
(Argument #4, 1998) I built a cave, which was a little more ambiguous, but I
think one of my more successful book works. You walked inside and it went up
about 14 feet all around you and you felt like you had walked into a cave, or
maybe even a cathedral. The power of the physical space – that was the main
thing. The content wasn't as specific. It was more architectural.
The piece at
Southern Alberta Art Gallery was monolithic (Argument #5, 2000). It represented
art in all its majesty. If you went around the to back there was a little
staircase. My thinking was that it was like the ‘Wizard of Oz’ – pomp and circumstance,
showmanship, and then if you knew how to get in the back, there's this little
staircase . . . And finally this piece in Cambridge, which is the idea of
ascension through knowledge, but contrasted by the content of the books, which
become more superficial as you climb up. It appears as ascension through
knowledge, but I'm contrasting that very utopian ideal with contents that
reflect the contrary.
I was also
thinking at this stage about cultural entropy, the fact that culturally we're
casting out subtlety all the time. I’ll use a flu virus as an analogy – the
genetic makeup of the flu bug has, say 100 parts to it and as it divides it
loses some of those parts – maybe 5% as it grows and expands out into the human
population. As it loses some of its genetic material it reproduces quicker and
spreads faster. It learns that it doesn't need all its genetic material. It
speeds up as it is able to transmit into the population until it reaches the
point where it doesn't have enough genetic material left to reproduce because
it's cast off so much. The same thing exists in nature, where certain trees
flourish in a forest. They're able to kill off other trees and plant life and
they grab more sunlight and more of the water. But then at a certain point that
tree is isolated and it doesn't have the other plant life and other bug life to
sustain it. Then it will also die. It is a condition in nature of speeding up
and casting out the unnecessary or the subtle detail.
I'm thinking
about this pattern as it relates to world culture. Things are speeding up at an
incredible rate – jettisoning extra languages and traditions and habits and
cultural patterns. In this piece I'm including the idea of ascension, but the
texts are becoming more and more simple.
GH. I think
people tend to believe that more information makes you smarter, and the more
information you have, the better the decision you will be able to make. Well
informed combatants or debaters can at some point shed their prejudices and
come to a rational solution. In a similar way, there's a general feeling that
there's more and more information all the time – we live in a more and more
complex world. But what you're telling me is almost the opposite of those two
very things: The volume of information we have makes no difference.
TB. I agree
that knowledge and education is a good thing tolerance and understanding of
other cultures is good for us, but if you look at the Internet, which is
supposedly the way that everyone has access to knowledge, access to all the
libraries, it seems to me that it has become just another television now for
the advertisers. I don't think it necessarily follows that because there is
more information, or access to it, that we become better educated. Maybe the
only information is Corporate America's version – the diversity of opinion
being essentially lost.
GH. What do you
think of the books as ‘objects.’ You're working with books, it's the material
you use, the building blocks signifiers in a way, but there seems to be a
fetish for the books themselves.
TB. I like the
idea that I can't reach them when they're in one of these things, it may seem
juvenile my resistance to knowledge, but it's also a caution. I've got this
cigarette rolling machine and every time I read a book I take the cover off and
I shred the book (I had to have read it all) and I roll it into cigarettes.
GH. They're
just paperbacks?
TB. Well, yeah,
I could take a hard cover off as well and just be left with the pages, so that
at the end of my two years (at the State University of New York in Buffalo) I'm
going to have a series of shelves displaying the cigarettes with the book
covers and however many cigarettes the content rolled into will be displayed
along side. I guess there's addiction consumption in the form of a cigarette,
and it's also a way of not taking it all too seriously. I want the knowledge. I
want to understand, but at the same time to make sure, I add a bit of caution
to the process.
GH. Do you ever
encounter people who find what you do with books offensive?
TB. Absolutely.
Not many people have seen the cigarette work yet, but some have said even the
stacking of the books is disrespectful.
GH. . . . you
should donate them to a library?
TB. Actually,
someone said exactly that a couple of years ago.
GH. Even since
the time since I first saw one of your book works, my attitude toward books has
changed. Because of the Internet, the way we very often get information now is
digital as opposed to printed text.
TB. There's a
nostalgic quality to books. Where they used to carry information now they're
old fashioned and you cuddle up by a fire with them.
GH. Book
publishers are spending more time to make the book an interesting object – more
of an attractive object to buy, so that the cover art and the actual handling
of the book is more appealing. The book becomes an art object.
TB. There's a
nostalgic quality to the dying medium – film is similar to books in that
there's this bit of information that's readable – it's right there in front of
you. It's not abstract (like digital text). It doesn't appear to you all of a
sudden on a screen. There's something about that hard technology that's
appealing to me. Film is sculptural to me – it's a physical thing.
GH. As opposed
to video?
TB. Exactly. Video
is just a series of electronic data. I was recently asked if I would consider
myself a Luddite.
GH. A Luddite?
TB. Yeah,
because of this nostalgic approach to technology. I had never thought of it
that way. But I don't think I am.
GH. Where does
your interest in science come from? You are able to talk very animatedly about
science and find metaphors and parallels in it.
TB. I guess
it's similar to art in that it involves abstract thought. Like people sitting
around their rooms or studios and coming up with crazy ideas and then trying to
illustrate them. I see it as quite similar.
GH. Okay, let's
just start from the beginning – just the program of Argument #6(B).
TB. This is the
sixth in the Argument series and the basic idea was that there is a limited
amount of knowledge that I have access to and these books represent that
knowledge – a sort of a Western Canadian's history. It's about me trying to
make sense and organize all that history and all the information that is
accessible to me. So this is an attempt, as the other configurations are, to
make ideas physical – like the idea of ascension. Others pieces I have done
have dealt with the history of contemporary art, personal reading histories as
opposed to public versus private reading histories. This one is about
ascension, or the illusion of ascension through progress and knowledge. There
is a general historical gradation in all of them. The foundation of our
knowledge is often in the legal system and religious beliefs very loosely
associated. That's the base. As we climb up we get into more academic texts and
more science, (again) our legal and scientific belief systems. It starts to
dissipate into psychology as we come out of the academic texts into the
humanities. Over on this side it is more literature based and around here we
have more art and contemporary ideas of art. On the other side maybe we have a
Canada rising out of a British tradition. Here it's not exactly linear, but we
have a lot of British legal texts (supporting) Canadian legal texts and then
these books here are journals of consumer products and marketing strategies and
then we come up into Canadian business, Anne of Green Gables, the Canadian Free
Trade Agreement, Norman Bethune, In Flanders Fields, The Klondike by Pierre
Berton, W.O. Mitchell . . .
GH. So this is
the Can-Lit section?
TB. Yes, and it
has a historical gradation up into Carol Shields, John Ralston Saul near the
top before we get into this layer here which is the Readers Digest Condensed
novels. That is for me the cut off point where all the stuff below it has
become homogenized into a pop culture framework or has become regurgitated. So
above we have the Readers Digest, then we have the Hardy Boys which again is
colour. A lot of it has do with colour as well. The legal texts and the Bible
are heavier so it makes sense for them also to go on the bottom just for
practical building purposes. But then similar to the base, the Readers Digest
novels reflect a new beginning – the homogenization of these more critical
texts or texts we take more seriously. Above the Readers Digest we get into
autobiographies, (Shelly Winters), popular fictions (Jurassic Park) different
sports figures, biographies, and we move up into more pulp fiction. As we
ascend we get into trashier novels, fantasy novels and romance novels. We have
heavier, denser content moving up into a lighter content. There is an idea of
ascension built by this piece that seems to be swirling upward but it is
actually contrasted by the content of the books, where they become lighter in
their content as they ascend. There is a euphoric, progressive feeling you may
get from this piece originally, but if you look at it closer, as it ascends it
dies out.
GH. So when you
are constructing this, obviously you have an idea that this section for example
is Canadiana, and then this is literature, and then this is art, chemistry,
statistics etc.
TB. The more I
build these things, the more organized the books become. The categories weave
into each other a little bit sometimes. I'm not following a specific content
structure from bottom to top. But it does still reflect that legal text into
academic text, into that acceptable older respected literature, more modern
philosophy up into Camille Paglia, How to be a Good Secretary and What About
Men. There is a little feminist thing right there so there are little pockets
of other things as well that are outside of the larger areas of focus.
GH. There is something
terribly Hegelian about this whole thing. The end of history starting with
religion and law, moving through art and then ending in philosophy.
TB. There you
go. And my ending is pop culture.
GH. And here
along the steps . . .
TB. Well here
we have a Bible, then we have British legal history, then we have Canadian
legal history.
GH. So this is
a reiteration of the overall . . .
TB. Yeah. We
move up step by step. Here, all the encyclopaedias are in one spot. There is a
colour choice made as well – you know the red looks nice beside the green of
the consumer charter and the blue of the “Protect Yourself.” It's a futile
effort to actually try and make sense of all the available history, so at times
I'm just trying to place them aesthetically – to order all of these texts
specifically as they relate to each other and myself would be virtually an
impossible feat. Here's a bit of rock history – Nick Cave and the Bad Seeds,
Elvis & Me, No One Gets Out of Here Alive, His Way: An Autobiography of
Frank Sinatra . . .
GH. I'm
interested in the fact that as you're building it, you're going around in a
circle so you keep coming back to sections that you're working on.
TB. Maybe they
connect as much this way (laterally) as up and down.
GH. The more I
talk to you about it, the more fascinating I find your engagement with the
books, your feeling from the books and also the personal way you approach it in
terms of Western Canadian history.
TB. My bias is
included in it right? To construct some utopian, fair world view would be
wrong. This is my bias. It's about my history and that's the only place I can
speak from.■
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)