Wednesday, June 17, 2015

An Artist's work is never done

This is an installation shot I took Gush refused to supply images of his images. Read into that
what you will. 

It is hard returning to the office after perusing an exhibition by Simon Gush. His ongoing thesis on work, which exposes how unnatural an activity it is, usually, if only temporarily, relieves you of the compulsion to, well, work. But can it really be removed? Even if Gush is able to convince you to make a beeline for your sofa where you binge on series while grazing on crisps are you disconnected from work? It’s a question I try not to ask when lying on my sofa licking my salty fingers, but Gush forces it on you. 

In person Gush tends not to gush about much, not even his work, but I imagine he would say you can’t ever stop working. For the purposes of journalistic research, I have spent many workday afternoons trying not to work and have found it virtually impossible, because it is either done under the guise of journalistic research (work) or I will spend much of my slothful time justifying how this free time, will better equip me to be more effective during work time. In this way lounging around is a preparation for ‘work’ and is only permissible or acceptable because it will be balanced out by a productive activity at some point. And then there is the fact that whatever I am doing – I remain an art critic. Even if the paper tells me not to write about art ever again – which they have done -  I’ve been doing it for so long now, that not only has it become an integral part of my identity but even if I want to carve out another identity separate from my profession, people around me prevent me from doing so.

Gush drives all these points home pretty strongly in the film Calvin and Holiday, a wry play on the Calvin and Hobbes comic, while referencing Calvinism and its opposite – holidaying. I’m not sure what Gush’s day-job is – I sense it is something he hates as his resistance to work and his observation in this film that most work is basically menial (is this true in the post-industrial age?) implies it is hugely unsatisfying. I suppose the only pleasure he can derive from engaging in work, is that by making work about work, turning it into art and something that can be sold, might be proof that he has subverted the system in which he finds himself quite thoroughly trapped. That is if you agree that art is not ‘work’ or is anti-work or, maybe in Gush’s instance – ‘meta-work’ – that is work centered on exposing the foibles of work. In this way Gush’s meditation on this topic almost always becomes the lens through which he attempts to discover what art is, or isn’t – sometimes its easier to find proof of its opposite. 

Cheekily, he exploits his inability to be liberated from work as an essential part of his art and his exhibition at the Stevenson Joburg, Workplace, is basically a display of “work” he made while holidaying in Mozambique and Europe. Gush makes work on holiday not only because he loves the contradiction, but as is the case for many of us who are slaves to one entity during the day, at night we try to (re)claim the part of ourselves that is repressed, which is prevented from ‘breathing’ – call that your ‘art self’.  Most of us keep our arty selves to ourselves – we make ashtrays in pottery classes or arrange vegetables artfully on a plate. Perhaps it is this kind of irrelevant creative expression that really isn’t work, because it isn’t sold and truly has no purpose other than pleasure.
Another photograph by me. The images are
pretty are they not?
Gush, however, squanders his free time luxuriating on the culture of work – which could only ever be a leisure activity really, because those who work for a living are seemingly unable to really pursue such a whimsical pursuit. It would be self-defeating and would take up time that would be unproductive. Or is exposing the artifice of our ingrained work ethic more important than work itself? In harnessing the political, social, economic and philosophical aspects tied to work, Gush gives his resistance to work, his leisure time meaning. If Gush was truly free from work – he would have no art to show us – his filmic works would consist of him lying on his bed staring at the ceiling, which might be preferable to the stark black and white films of banal city scenes with the noise of ‘work’ (drilling and such) going on in the background with overly determined phrases in between that eliminate any kind of ambiguity the images might offer. He does like to do the work for his viewers. Maybe he knows how lazy they are, when they step into galleries.

Thing is the real conversation about art and work isn’t really present in this show. Artists like to think they evade all the pressures us ordinary working folk confront – such as being persistently exploited. Most people are paid considerably less than their worth – that is how capitalism works. Some artists do quite obviously sidestep this, but they are very few and mostly dead. As someone quite succinctly phrased it the other day: “there is a reason why Ross Douglas has retired in France and I am still saving for a holiday in France.”

Gush believes he can work while rejecting the activity. He is clever at accruing meaning for his work and adding value to it by attaching it to fashionable discourses;  invisible histories, exploitation, etc and then shaping it into slick artworks that make his work appear so monumental, collectable. Its all so tasteful and right, you can hardly fault it and that may be its weakness, if you know what I mean. There is fuck all risk. Its too clean and neat given he is so entangled in this work mess. Maybe this is because it is a Stevenson show, the fountain of controlled art chaos.

In his Yellow Jersey series of photographs he maps a journey from the borders of Mozambique to Maputo, tracing historical ones that relate to the relationship between our countries with a specific focus on the recruitment of labour for South African mines. This pattern was set as far back as the late 1800s when the Witwatersrand Native Labour Association, Wenela, was established by South Africans to recruit labourers from that country and others on the continent. This isn’t an unknown phenomenon, though we might not have realised how far back it dates, but it is one well-worth taking an interest in, given the seemingly deep-rooted form of ‘Afrophobia’ that our society is trying to rid itself of, or even understand. You see: the show is über relevant.

While Gush is interested in the life and culture surrounding work and labour, he doesn’t depict people in these images. This has always been part of the strength of his work centered on work; he is interested in patterns not people per se and as such his projects are not about extracting our middle-class feigned sense of outrage or pity, empathy or problematic (over) identification with subjects.

There are a number of defining aspects to Gush’s off-beat Yellow Jersey series of images, which give it weight and evoke an inner friction. The first and most obvious being that it is quite irresistible. Seductive, mesmerising and tactile are some of the adjectives that come to mind and are a product of processing his photographs onto aluminum. These smooth, silver surfaces turn these images into objects. They are things rather than windows into the world – as photographs tend to be. The result of this is that the time and place in which these images were taken seem more immovable, have more significance though they depict fairly banal scenes of this journey – landscapes, buildings, facades of factories. He can't help himself luxuriating in the architectural features of buildings - does he not get a little lost in the aesthetics of industrialisation and perhaps are these images not tinged with a twisted nostalgia for this age? 

Not only does the object-status of the photographs memorialise (and oversentimentalise) the journeys, of those who came before to Mozambique to secure cheap foreign labour, and his own in search of this narrative, story, but they function almost as a template that can be used to keep reproducing the images, the journeys. Work is, of course, always tied to reproduction and the machines or mechanisms that allow for this to occur are prized because they are viewed as the kind of fecund device from which everything flows. Particularly, now in this post-industrialised era where nostalgia has grown around these outmoded objects. I’m thinking here of the old printing-machine that is located in the reception at Independent newspapers, where it functions as an artwork, a sculpture of sorts.

Photography then isn’t a coincidental medium for Gush as it too is linked to reproduction as is film (can be played over and over). By transforming the images into objects could be read as a desire to both present the ‘original’ image – the outmoded source, which now, cannot reproduce itself – it has become a memorial to itself – like the old press in the lobby of our offices – and as such prevents further reproduction from occurring.

This has ramifications for the work as art objects and for the content. Presumably, the photographs can’t be editioned or are less likely to be, given the cost. This allows Gush to halt the reproduction of his work – and the way in which art has increasingly become subject to hyper-commodification – though in doing so the works due to their rarity then attract more value. But it is this value that in some way lends credibility to the subject-matter – the sociopolitical cause that beats at the heart of the work – it ensures that it is not a product like any other. Yet isn’t Gush cashing in on other people’s exploitation? 

Does he counter this by memorializing these journeys and not depicting subjects? Or do these journeys really only belong to him and the narratives he creates around them. In other words, do these images only make concrete his own rather peculiar “work” as an artist – in his investigations into the notion of work, he never overlooks his own position and indeed in this exhibition it is no different as he also makes reference to it in one of the texts coupled with a series of images.

The work of an artist has no meaning without art products, especially in the context of a gallery and our consumerist culture. The inherent tactile quality of the images, their undeniable appeal, is in contradiction not only to the banal subject-matter but also this history of exploitation, which is evoked but never revealed, visually or through the texts. But these images do conform to this object-based obsessed world of ours, where we like to see the labour – hold it in our hands and weigh it so to speak.

Gush can’t really weigh in on work without touching on our history, not only to make his work relevant but there are topics that cannot be entered into without opening it up, particularly work, which is so tied to apartheid and its exploitative policies – it was the ideological tool of an extreme form of capitalism where securing cheap labour, and exploitation was tied to racial politics and prejudice.  Foreign nationals perhaps suffered the most then (as they do now) – as they were paid less and on the receiving end of the worst of it.

This link between the liberation struggle, labour and politics is touched on through a suite of photographs that presumably refer to a text about Ruth First and how in exile in that country she worked at destroying these recruitment stations and policies by the South African industry.

This brings us to another defining feature of this body of work – the role of the text, the image, text pairings. The texts are much more than captions, they establish the body as a narrative, a journey, while also harnessing some of its poetic nature, and asking questions, leading us towards layers of meaning that are not readily accessible. Does this point towards a failing in the communicative function of the artworks, or is it just a mode of working where text and image complement and drive each other?

In the films they overstate the meaning and leave no loose ends. Has Gush overworked his material here – is there a line at which he should stop making sense of his own work, perhaps this fixation he has with work is rooted in his inability to surrender not only to work, but the peculiar form of work that we call art, which sometimes works better when it has no determined or known conclusion.

Tuesday, June 2, 2015

Jenner: a sexist in women's clothing?

So, Bruce Jenner is a woman. I wish I could say I swallowed my TV remote when I heard, but I didn't. After eight years of Kardashiana I have come to expect anything from this limelight-seeking family. They run what must be the biggest reality TV franchise since MasterChef or Survivor, and to sustain our interest have pretty much done everything with the cameras turned on. I've seen them give birth, puke, piss, chase crocodiles, men, money, fame and food.

Ironically, as Bruce (this was prior to becoming Caitlyn) pointed out during his now-famous interview with Diane Sawyer for ABC, the biggest and most shocking revelation that might have featured in the Kardashian franchise escaped the cameras. Our gaze was on Kim and the girls, all the pretty women in the family who vied for attention and the fame and wealth it brought them.

The men in the family were pretty overlooked, apart from Scott Disick, Kourtney's husband, who attracted interest due to their rocky romance and his drinking and aggression. Bruce was in the background. He was this odd-looking character, who looked like he had spent too much time under the plastic surgeon's knife. In retrospect he didn't really fit in - probably because he wasn't as eye-catching or attention-seeking as the others and also, as we have now learnt, was trying to stay under the radar due to a big secret about his identity that he concealed, not only from the glare of the cameras but perhaps from his family.

Did Kris Jenner know? During his interview with Sawyer, when he surely must have broken the internet, he admitted he had told his first wife, who had brushed off the revelation as some kind of kinky fixation with women's clothing. Many people have assumed that Bruce's revelation is part of a publicity stunt. It is too painful and terrible a burden to be exploited, he purred during his interview. Hello? We are the Oprah generation; pain and struggle have more currency on TV.

Why did he need to turn his gender transformation into a TV moment and now a Vanity Fair break-the-internet moment? The Kardashians are ending, his relationship with Kris had come to an end, he could have slunk off into the sunset in a pair of kitten heels. No, my guess is his new identity is probably the grounding for his new TV incarnation - the Caitlyn Jenner reality show? (Why did she not go for a Kaitlyn with a 'K' like all the other Kardashes?)

After years of living in the shadows of those big-booty Kardashian girls has she worked out that being a woman is how you get noticed? Or at least that power is accrued via the 'image' - not just as a woman, but one that is already celebrated, like Jessica Lange. The revelations about his transgender identity surely must signal the death knell of these vacuous reality shows, given the "reality" factor, the truth, was concealed for so long - almost a decade.

When these sorts of shocking confessions come to light about someone starring in a fictional series they are received with surprise. But when someone in a reality show is revealed not only to have been acting, but playing a man, which is almost always viewed in a patriarchal society as an impossibility, given that masculinity is set up as a natural and irrefutable state of being, the whole illusion of authenticity that supports a reality show is eroded.

Bruce was playing a man instead of a woman, his true identity. And if Bruce isn't a man, who the hell are Kris, Kim, Khloe? The whole alliterative family dynasty crumbles under the weight of its artifice and reality TV is revealed to be nothing more than a distant and cheaper cousin to its fictional competitor.

This TV moment with Sawyer also revealed that the real confessional space in American popular culture remains the old-style one-on-one interview with the seemingly anachronistic figure of Diane Sawyer - the old-school journo who apparently has less and less place in the post-journalism world in which we have peculiarly found ourselves. The real stuff, the behind the scenes stuff doesn't happen in the reality sphere - who would have thought it?

Frankly, Sawyer was annoying as she embodied the voice of this unenlightened American, who understands gender and sex only in binary terms. If I had two hours with Bruce on a couch, I would have asked him to describe "a woman's soul", as I haven't the faintest idea what that is. It was such a sexist comment.

Caitlyn may have long hair and claim allegiance to the fairer sex, but she is the ultimate chauvinist - or does turning into a woman now preclude him from this  - as she assumes that not only are women different physically, but their 'souls' are distinctly shaped by their physicality. She may well wish to reject masculinity; it is hard being a man and living up to the expectations entailed, but does becoming a woman really present an escape from that?

Initially, after the interview, I was annoyed with the fact that Jenner appeared to be able to choose when and how he would become a woman, the terms of his femininity. That was before I saw
Caitlyn's appearance and what kind of woman he would choose to be. Now, post the Vanity Fair, break the internet image, it is clear that he embraced the stereotypical female ideal, which he was always hinting at in the interview with Sawyer. Yes, if you are going to become a woman it would be wise to make sure you chose to be beautiful, because our society continues not to celebrate women who do not conform to this. In this process of refashioning his identity, he chose well. All women would chose to be beautiful; this is apparently the only position from which we can really draw power.

In the widespread celebration of Caitlyn, our society has further confirmed that this is indeed the case. If Caitlyn was not beautiful would we have celebrated this transition? We also need to ask why the transgender moment and similar moments in popular culture (Laverne Cox, Conchita Wurst) have been heralded by men who have transitioned to women and not the other way around.

Back to Caitlyn. If Caitlyn's identity and shift in identity hinges on being a beautiful woman, what does that mean for women? Caitlyn's sexist attitudes, which were revealed not only in her notion that women have a generic 'soul'  but the patronising tone she took with Sawyer - "so do you understand?" she reiterated as if she was a child - showed that while he was coming out as a woman, there was an old-fashioned man buried under that long hair. How can he assume to know a woman's soul, when he is drawn to the aspects of womanhood that woman are trying to escape - the limits of being defined by their bodies?  Has he appropriated the best of what he assumes women enjoy and remained a man at heart? We have to ask these questions.

The world has remained silent on his appropriation of femininity because it is always assumed that men 'own' women - as Judith Butler has suggested the female identity is conceived as an extension of masculinity. It is defined by men as a means of shoring up their identity. Jenner has not collapsed the binary gender positions, because he can only conceive of gender through the lens of binaries, and has further entrenched them by embodying the cookie-cutter female identity. In his mind, it appears as if being a woman means looking like a beautiful Vanity Fair pinup. Unfortunately, for most women and transgenders this isn't the lived experience and it signals a condition where their acceptance by society remains conditional on their appearance? How does this advance the liberation of women? If my soul is not a woman's soul, does that mean I am not a woman. Oh Jenner!  - an edited version of this first published in The Sunday Independent, May 3, 2015.