Gilbert-Rolfe, Jeremy. "Cabbages, Raspberries and Video's Thin Brightness", Painting in the age of Artificial Intelligence, Art and Design (May/June), pages 14-23, 1996.
Some members of Danny's reading group (none more obviously than our illustrious James) were frustrated and angered by Jeremy Gilbert-Rolfe's essay-style exploration of his various thoughts on "how things look and what that implies", specifically in relation to video and painting's positions in the mid-niteties art scene. The fact that the article was written fifteen years ago and is hereby naive by current comparisons is as significant as James' reasonable comment that Gilbert-Rolfe seems to waffle on somewhat whilst making many unsubstantiated generalizations and failing to bring any of these ideas to a point of logical conclusion. However, some of Gilbert-Rolfe's observations caused me to recall an essay topic of mine in 2010 which revolved around the idea that technological developments only serve to strengthen painting's position as opposed to making it obsolete.
Gilbert-Rolfe observes that the medium of video "offers painting another surface to which to refer". In this sentence the writer has underlined a very pleasing idea that I have explored in relation to painting which is that painting's historical recognition as a form of social commentary means that any new technology that would supposedly make the medium of painting obsolete, unnecessary or (to use the intolerable cliche) "dead" in fact only strengthen painting's position as an art form. A mere moment of invention or advancement in society signifies a change in history which ultimately adds another layer to the chronicles that painting, as commentator can refer back to. this is true from anything from the invention of camera-obscura to Facebook.
And what better example to use than Simon Ingram's practice as recently seen in his current Gow Langsford show (incidentally the author and subject of our second reading). Simon offers a simplified explanation for his practice in stating that "Machinic practice in painting is the running of a machine in reverse"(Ingram, p.43). In this sense Simon's paintings mirror the machines that assist in their making, or directly reference them creating in turn a bizarre and often humorous commentary on these technological elements outside of their obvious functions.
References:
Ingram, S. (2004). Machinic Practice in Painting. Junctures, 2, 33-44.
I thought this was a really useful insight. It made me think of my own practice, of course (that's what I'm here for), and how the moving image in contemporary art has struggled to find a wider range of things it can "refer back to" the way painting can. That is to say, painting has evolved to include such an expanded repoertoire of subject matter and effect, whereas the moving image in contemporary art seems to be corralled into a much more narrow space wherein it continues to refer to nothing but itself. Film can only be about film, apparently. At least that's often how it seems. I suppose I'm envious of the latitude granted to a painting practice. But I'm also encouraged to see more recent moving image work and discourse breaking some of these bonds.
ReplyDelete