HANDLE WITH CARE

When people are in control of their history, they are able to build community, wealth and stability. At the very least, they have control over their identity. But when that sense of your own culture and history is lost, it takes generations to control and solidify that identity again.
– Andrew Voogel

When granny and grandfather were stolen from the islands, all island practice and tradition was stolen too. Our people were made to speak English and even call their children English names. Our culture is a combination of island traditions fused with culture inherited by the plantation owners.
– Jasmine Togo-Brisby

I

Throughout history, external forces have disrupted and re-routed the trajectory of unsuspecting lives being lived in far off lands. Sugar production — the foundation for much of the British Empire and an insidious driver of slave labour — has been one of the most violent influences. From the Spanish and Portuguese impact in the Atlantic Islands to the arrival of the British and French in the Caribbean in the early seventeenth century, the expansion of sugar plantations and the laborious task of sugar cane cultivation drove an insatiable demand for labour, in turn accelerating the trade of African bodies.

With the gradual emancipation of African slaves from the early 1800s, plantation owners looked for alternative sources for cheap, or free, labour. John Gladstone, a British Statesman and sugar plantation owner living in British Guyana, turned his thirst to India. He arranged for hundreds of Indians to be brought over to work in his fields. Many followed his lead, including European Colonial plantation owners in the Caribbean islands, such as Trinidad and Jamaica, and South American mainland countries, Guyana and Suriname. Over the next 80 years, hundred of thousands of Indians would be deceived, coerced and forced onto boats to cross the seas and satisfy the desire for cheap labour.

II

One of the Indian individuals deceived into indentured labour was Sita, a 22 year-old married woman with a daughter named Kwaria. In January 1911, Sita was offered overtime at the factory where she worked assembling dolls for a British company. She accepted, leaving Kwaria with a neighbour. When Sita arrived at work, she, along with other factory workers, were forced to walk to the Port of Calcutta, a trek that took nearly a week. Along the way, hundreds of other Indians were collected. These individuals, uprooted from their homes to work on the sugar plantations in the Caribbean, along with the numerous others hoarded then herded onto ships, would collectively come to be known as the Jahajis: ship travellers. Sita would never see her daughter again.

Andrew Voogel, a descendent of the Jahajis of Guyana and Sita’s great-grandson, recalls this moment of violent departure. The title of his installation — Kalapani: The Jahaji’s Middle Passage — co-opts the phrase ‘The Middle Passage’, which refers to the ‘triangle’ trade route between Britain, Africa and the West Indies, traversed to ship trading goods from England to Africa, slaves from Africa to the Caribbean, and processed harvests back from the Caribbean to England. The Middle Passage, however, doesn’t fully account for the experience of Indian indentured labourers. Kalapani: The Jahaji’s Middle Passage names the lesser-known sea voyage that those captured were forced to undertake. Kalapani, which translates into English as ‘black
water’, also references a traditional Hindu taboo on crossing the sea, which could result in an individual losing their caste status. The passage to the Caribbean was therefore doubly-violent, not only uprooting a person from their family and home, but also from an observance of their own self-determined ways of living and belief systems.

Voogel’s installation includes video focussed on a single point in the ocean, projected in a darkened room. The work invites contemplation of the vast waters. The artist’s intention is that a viewer, plunged into darkness, will gradually perceive the image. Asked to occupy an empathetic moment of uncertainty, the viewer can grasp their own understanding of the sea. Might it be as a site of trauma, an archive for history, a possible place of healing?

Displayed alongside Voogel’s video projection are the passage papers that record the arrival of the artist’s great grandparents, Sita and Bhoja, to Guyana as indentured labourers. These documents, known as Colonial Form No. 44, reduced individuals to a series of details that assessed their suitability for labour. The juxtaposition of the video and documents reflect two different ways of thinking about history: through its formal, bare documentation that are the end result of a power imbalance, or through something more speculative that allows room to imagine the experience and feelings of the people who lived through them.

III
In an adjacent gallery space, a mass of skulls cast in resin and sugar sparkle eerily in gallery lights. This installation bonds together motifs of death, sugar and anonymity. Despite the horror of the skulls, the sugar crystals glint seductively. The effect is unnerving, calling to mind the fact sugar, like tobacco and rum, was never a basic necessity. Rather, slave economies were supported by the consumer’s desire for a leisure product; a recreational sweetener that distracted from the atrocities.

In the late 1800s, the lure of sugar spread to Australia, where the Queensland government encouraged the establishment of sugar cane plantations. Lacking the once steady stream of labour from incoming convicts, the government and plantation owners turned to the Pacific. 62,000 recorded — and many more unrecorded — islanders were kidnapped and enslaved on these plantations from 1863 through to 1904. This history of is often referred to as blackbirding, a widely used but euphemistic term that romanticises a Pacific slave trade.

The peoples that were forcibly migrated to Queensland to work on plantations became known collectively as South Sea Islanders. In the early 1900s, a White Australia policy prompted the deportation of South Sea Islanders who were still alive in Queensland. Many, however, stayed, and a small community exists to this day. Jasmine Togo-Brisby, an Australian South Sea Islander, has an arts practice that is personally
motivated: like Voogel, her great-grandparents were among those coerced into indentured labour. Her great grandmother was only eight years old when she was stolen from Vanuatu. Togo-Brisby’s work considers how to create spaces for healing by acknowledging this recent and still raw yet largely under-recognised past. Bitter Sweet, made from 2012 to 2013, was prompted by the unmarked mass graves being
unearthed by Queensland farmers. Much of the history around indentured labour privileges documentation: the numbers of labourers taken to Queensland, quoted in the vast majority of texts, are based on the number of extant documents. Bitter Sweet points to the undocumented labourers, the voiceless who are unaccounted for in history.

As a meticulous process, casting is one that has a particular duration. Though the cast skulls are multiples, each has been individually handmade, going through a process from finding the right liquid ratio of raw sugar and epoxy resin, to pouring, then solidying, and then prising open, and finally to maintaining the integrity of the objects. There is a intimacy that the artist shares with the works, that counters the disregard for human life expressed by plantation owners and slave traders.

IV
The wounds of the recent past are still being peeled back, with new information being
unearthed and fuller recognition still being sought.4 The importance of recalling these
specific histories — which for both artists is still very much present in their families, traceable to a specific person only a few generations removed —seems self evident. The contemporary condition of their respective cultural communities are inextricably linked to histories of indentured labour. Notably, the terms South Sea Islander and Jahiji are used to describe a group of otherwise diverse peoples, formed by the process of forced migration.

Speaking within the context of Aotearoa New Zealand, a country very much shaped by
histories of colonisation and migration, curator and artist Ahilapalapa Rands considers how we grapple with confronting histories. She writes:

We can’t move forward until we know where we are right now, and where we have been. But there is an emphasis on care that I think is important. How do you acknowledge the painful shared histories we have, especially in spaces like Aotearoa that have been shaped so heavily by colonisation and imperialism? And within that acknowledgement, how do we empower through challenging and recontextualising the archive’s narrative, while avoiding reproducing that trauma?

This question of how to remember but not re-enact trauma is central in the work of Voogel and Togo-Brisby. Drawing upon oral traditions as the primary archive, both Voogel and Togo-Brisby instill an emphasis on ‘care’ in their works. As stories surface and are passed down the family line, these works require from the artists a degree of care as guardians for their familial memories. But the works also look forward, thinking about what role they may have in opening a space where their communities can feel recognised, to have their stories told in a public place.

Yet when we turn to remember the past, we often rely on records. Voogel’s work notes that indenture documents, which reduce a person to their biological markers, are all that might be recorded of his grandparents. Similarly, texts on South Sea Islanders use the records on contracts to estimate the number of indentured labourers. Even in writing this essay, it seemed inescapable to begin with a skimmed history that focused on macro shifts rather than humanising those who have been historically treated economically.

It seems to me that part of approaching traumatic histories with care is to recognise and create archives that exist beyond the practices of recording that were in themselves tools of exploitation; reductive and deadening, using documentation to speak of history like a fixed, finished moment. Kalapani: The Jahaji’s Middle Passage and Bitter Sweet are both marked by an absence. What we are asked to encounter are the silent passing of waves and presence of unnamed skulls. The works are emotive, promoting a response rather than dictating historical data. In this space, there is room to reclaim histories that cannot be recorded beyond what can be held in a real or imagined memory.

Beyond the display case

11223792_10205317296715512_7241609891468098890_n

I know it might seem odd to start with a group photo, but I wanted to begin this talk by first introducing how I position myself within the New Zealand contemporary art landscape.

My arts training began at Victoria University of Wellington, where I studied Renaissance and neo-classical Art History. My foray into a contemporary art sphere only began when I moved up to Auckland to work in a diverse range of galleries, including Objectspace, which focuses specifically on craft, applied arts and design and Artspace, which positions itself at the forefront of international contemporary art. I’ve also interned, produced exhibitions and written for Tautai Contemporary Pacific Arts Trust: an Auckland-based arts organisation that supports and promotes artists of Pacific-ancestry. Being part of this community has given me access to a thriving hub of Pacific diaspora artists, and in particular introduced me to a group of emerging artists of Pacific Island descent, who share a similar background to me: New Zealand born and often tertiary trained. I consider these artists to be my peers, and often my mentors too.

These experiences have shaped me into something of a ‘generalist’ curator within a New Zealand context. I’m glad to now be curator at Te Uru Waitakere Contemporary Gallery, a recently opened space in West Auckland. We have a broad remit and notably, the word ‘art’ isn’t in our gallery name: a signal that we wish to embrace to a wide range of practices and material culture.

At a recent workshop I attended, where this photo was taken, we were asked to introduce ourselves by stating what ‘master’ we serve, which I thought was a great way of declaring our personal agenda. As a ‘generalist’ curator, I have to say that my current allegiance is to the artist. My curatorial drive is to enthuse: to share with audiences a genuine love that I have for the artists work, and to ensure that the artists voice still has a presence despite other institutional priorities.

Despite having this very personal, rather than political approach to curating, when it comes to working with contemporary Pacific arts for a New Zealand context, it feels like the political is impossible to avoid.

With that in mind, I wanted to present two things in this talk:

  • The first is a key issue I’ve encountered when presenting ‘contemporary Pacific art’
  • The second are a couple of curatorial experiments that attempt to negotiate this issue.

MY FIRST EXPERIENCE WITH THE POLITICS OF PACIFIC ART CAME EARLY.

In 2013, I was commissioned by Tautai to curate a performance series to accompany an exhibition at the Gus Fisher Gallery, produced by Jeremy Leatinu’u and Kalisolaite ‘Uhila. In developing this two-week performance series, I was asked specifically to work with artists of Pacific heritage.

The provocation for both the existing exhibition and the performance series was the site itself. The Kenneth Myers Centre has been the setting of some of the most pivotal moments in New Zealand’s performance history. It has functioned as a government-owned national radio, a home for a number of television stations, rehearsal and recording spaces for many local musicians, and is now a School of Creative and Performing Arts.

Interestingly, this history is rendered invisible because of the building’s architecture. Its 56 cm, double-layered brick walls and the triple-glazed glass prevent sound from travelling in or out of the building. Furthermore, from street level, you can’t see the three stories that descend below the slope.

Jeremy Leatinu’u, Spatial Resonance, 2013, moving image still
Terry Faleono and Pera Afato, Umbrella, 2013, performance documentation
Nastashia Simeona-Apelu, Untitled (whip performance), 2013, documentation

The performances sought to disrupt the site’s cocooned nature through a series of interventions: Bringing performance produced in the dance studios into the street, using performance to lead audiences into the cavities of the building, occupying and activating the liminal space between the street and structure, calling out from the roof, and using the body to both create and stifle sound were some of the strategies used by the invited artists. Together, they exposed, interrogated, satired and disrupted the architectural and spatial features that so dominantly demarcate the building from the public.

The performance series was later reviewed online:

Mark Harvey, ‘In Certain Places’, Eyecontact, 8 April 2013.

“[The] project focused on attracting communities not traditionally associated with contemporary art and performance to their site – Pasifika peoples”

“This [the performance series] played with some of the cultural stereotypes associated with Pasifika people as a blue-collar church-going other, particularly in the context of the surrounding white-collar university complex.”

“Gordon-Smith, ‘Uhila, Setoga and Jeremy Leatinu’u were choreographing us into their experience of what it means to explore a colonial building from their position as Pasifika”

“While Leatinu’u may appear on the surface to be pointlessly mucking around, he was playing on the cultural stereotype of the ‘happy-go lucky’ Polynesian, historically until recently an outcast in institutional locations like this.”

Mark Amery, ‘The Fest Test: Pacific Crosscurrents’, The Big Idea, 11 March 2013

“I love how the Pacific Island artistic community with this project have in effect, from the roof to the stairwells, taken over this historic physical symbol of media power.”

These two reviews are totally valid. There is something potentially empowering about a group of young, Pacific-heritage artists occupying a building that is used to transmit images, sound and learning. However, the readings are also somewhat reductive. The spatial engagement with the site was marginalised, and instead imposed assumptions of ‘Pacific exclusion’ as well as ‘Pacific art intentions’ were applied.

These responses are indicative of a much wider problem. It seems to me that contemporary Pacific arts, in New Zealand, suffers from a continued, stereotypical imagining of what it means to make art as someone of Island heritage.

This framing of Pacific arts practice in New Zealand isn’t new. Twenty years ago, the Curator and Artist Jim Vivieaere made a key observation. He wrote:

Contemporary Pacific Art in New Zealand is like a three-legged race. It is both a novelty and a handicap event … and [is] at the same time constricted by the art world itself —which offers only a narrow opening — a vision of an imagined Pacific Island world — through which the work is admitted to a public space [my italics].

I’ve italicised the last section of Vivieaere’s quote (which is an abridged version of his full statement), because in 2016, I would argue that the art world continues to gate keep and perpetuate a narrow vision of Pacific art. This imagining of a Pacific Island world results from a number of factors.

Since the late 1980s, a number of Pacific art group exhibitions have been staged to give visibility to the growing number of New Zealand-based Pacific artists. Curator and Pacific Arts Advocate Ema Tavola notes that that “The more popular and regular these ethno-specific Pacific exhibitions become, the more there was a sense that a Pacific aesthetic emerged.”

Over the years, the idea of a Pacific aesthetic — one that is colourful and motif-driven — has been coupled with an idea of a particular politics, such as identity, diaspora and representation. While these are urgent issues for a number of Pacific-heritage artists, and Pacific diaspora peoples more generally – this homogenisation of artistic concerns continues to be put forward through a process of ‘othering’, a fetisisation of Pacific-heritage artists who are conceived of only in terms of their novel points of difference.

There are two particularly damaging repercussions that result from this imagining.

1: Firstly, it flattens a diverse diaspora of Pacific peoples.

In Aotearoa New Zealand, the ‘Pacific’, when used without qualification, usually doesn’t encompass the full ‘Pacific Ocean’, from which the adjective derives. Rather, the ‘Pacific’ is used more conventionally as an abbreviation of the Pacific Islands; a term that consistently excludes Aotearoa New Zealand and Australia but is otherwise used somewhat at will … this use of the word ‘Pacific’ in reference to a much smaller grouping of nations privileges the most central region of Oceania, maligning other nations without overtly declaring that bias.

2: Second, this imagining of a Pacific World flattens the diversity of contemporary Pacific arts practice, as well as the multiple readings that might be generated from single artworks. In New Zealand, we have an incredibly, rich, diverse, and prolific ‘contemporary Pacific arts’ scene. Nevertheless, the phrase ‘contemporary Pacific art’ is frequently invoked to imply a set of shared artistic concerns, when really what we’re actually referring to is membership in a shared, often peripheralised, community. If the term ‘Pacific’ fails to represent the diversity of peoples from the region, then the term ‘contemporary Pacific art’ groups together that same diverse group of people who are making an even more diverse output of art.

NEW MODE OF CURATION

 

For me, the primary challenge facing Contemporary Pacific art in New Zealand is the need to reclaim its diversity. Curating offers one means to combat persisting limitations.

Ema Tavola’s 2015 exhibition That’s not Pacific Art, for example, embraced a new wave of artists, confronting popular expectations of what Pacific art is / should be. It was part of a wider ‘Winter series’ of pop-up exhibitions that took place in a barber and tattoo studio in the central suburb of Mt Eden. Collectively, the series had a self-stated aim of broadening an awareness and understanding of Pacific ways of seeing and being in Auckland.

Pacific Materialities, curated by Natasha Matila-Smith, STUDIO ONE TOI TŪ, March 2015, Image credit: Artsdiary

Similarly, Natasha Matila-Smith’s 2015 painting show Pacific Materiality was made in response to “a perceived notion of a Pacific aesthetic”. For the most part, the artists she included in the exhibition weren’t often recognised as being of Pacific-heritage, and the self-conscious positioning within a global lineage of modernist and abstract painting was also defied expectations.

Over the past couple of years, I’ve been trying to negotiate how to curate work made by Pacific heritage artists that reclaims its complexity: acknowledging their Pacific heritage while also allowing space for other references points to come to the fore.

 

A Sense of Place, Papakura Art Gallery, Auckland, 2014

My first conscious attempt to undertake this was group exhibition co-curated artist and curator Talia Smith.This was another exhibition commissioned by Tautai. Consequently the same agenda from the More Than We Know exhibition applied here too: to support and promote Pacific-heritage artists working in New Zealand.

Talia and I thought the best way to achieve this was to position the work of three Pacific artists — Jeremy Leatinu’u, Salome Tanuvasa and Anita Jacobsen — alongside the work of non-Pacific artists, including some seminal works in recent New Zealand art history, such a Laurence Aberhart photographs, Robin Morrison’s images of Ponsonby Road, a Robert Ellis Motorway painting and a print of Michael Tubberty’s photograph of Dame Whina Cooper at the beginning of a hikoi.

Notably, each of their Pacific artists’ works were place-specific: Jeremy’s video was made in response to fatal hit and run on Church Road in Ōtāhuhu, Salome 16mm film was specific to her experiences growing up on Queen Street in Panmure, and Anita’s photograph captured a dairy at night in Papakura.

Reading the works as informed by their positioning in highly Pacific-populated suburbs was made possible through supplied contextual information. Situated within a wider thematic curatorial umbrella,Talia and I also encouraged audiences to interpret these works as investigations into how public spaces function to choreograph experience.

For me, positioning Pacific arts within wider contexts offers many possibilities for expanded readings. At the same time, I’m also interested in unpacking and interrogating in depth the practices of Pacific-heritage artists in solo exhibitions.

My next project is a collaboration with artist Janet Lilo on a solo survey re-mix exhibition. Janet Lilo is uses digital video, photography and installation to document a variety of situations. She is known for her conviction in championing what is usually-excluded in the art world. With a firm foot in her local community of Avondale, Auckland, an acute awareness of the growing role of the digital in our everyday lives, and an unapologetic interest in the ways that we adapt and define ourselves through popular culture, her practice raises timely questions about the role of accessibility, distance and representation in both the gallery space and the wider world at large.

Despite an approach that is simultaneously vigilant and sprawling, Janet, for me, has often been turned into a poster child for either ‘pop-influenced’ work or a younger generation of Pacific art. The survey exhibition is in part an attempt to re-assert Janet’s expansive repertoire and re-assert the importance of her work in outside of single-lens contexts.

For that reason, we’ve given the exhibition the tongue-in-cheek title ‘Status Update’, which is a nod both to Janet’s well-known use of social media as media, as well as a provocative, self-aware use of the exhibition as a way of clarifying Janet’s position within mainstream contemporary arts.

Furthermore, the survey exhibition takes a deliberately de-centred approach. The remixing of previous works to create new work is both an attempt to recognise that her practice has often been ephemeral, and thus resists re-showing, as well as an attempt to wrestle interpretation of the work away from previous reductive readings into a space where things are defined on the artists’ own terms. As part of that agenda, the exhibition used the four categories of text, image, video and installation as the axes around which Janet explores a number of themes, including all but privileging none.

I wanted to conclue this presentation with a couple of quotes from Janet Lilo, taken from the first issue of Mana Motu, which accompanied with first Contemporary Pacific Arts Festival, held in Melbourne in 2013:

The first articulates her concern to engage multiple audiences:

The difficulty I find with being a consciously educated Pacific/Maori artist is that I am trying to engage with various audiences on different levels without compromising my ideas and to tell the truth I find it really hard. It’s not a matter of trying to please audiences but to have a balance. This is where being dynamic is a challenge for me. The other challenge is related to the context of where work sits in relaon to all of these considerations. I’m interested in making work that is based on simple ideas and is open for discussion at any level of sophistation. I welcome criticism from grassroots to academic equally.

Janet Lilo, Mana Motu, Issue 01, 2013

The second quote questions how we, as arts professionals, frame Pacific-heritage artists, even as they attempt to engage multiple peoples:

When I was on Maori TV , I was presented as a ‘Maori artist’ and when I was on Tagata Pasifika they called me a ‘Samoan artist’ which I found quite funny. My Niuean Grandfather (bless his soul) would be upset with that. I wonder what I’d be if I was on Crimewatch – who would claim me then?

Janet Lilo, Mana Motu, Issue 01, 2013

 For me, the question of who claims contemporary Pacific art is vital. We need more curators, more writers, more academics to engage with Pacific art. And as much as we need more Pacific-heritage peoples in these roles, contemporary Pacific arts also needs to be claimed by generalists. We need to acknowledge that Pacific-heritage artists occupy multiple worlds, and subsequently position Pacific arts in broader contexts where multiple reference points can co-exist in a constellation of possible readings. I fundamentally believe that the more we claim contemporary Pacific art for spaces outside of its current display case, the fuller our understanding of Pacific arts practices will be.

 

 

 

To and fro: a conversation with James Cousins

James Cousins has long been interested in the
contingencies that painting relies upon: how do
we recognise an image? What systems guide our
understanding? What processes might be used to
disrupt these assumptions?
His recent works made from 2009-2015, brought
together for the first time in the exhibition Restless Idiom, unsettle our
expectations of landscape images. Each painting consists
of a reproduced image, mostly sourced from colour plates
in a botanical guide. Though they may be familiar as types
of flowers or trees, layers of paint interfere with their
completion.
The systems used to puncture the image are an important
part of Cousins’ practice. In these works, layers of vinyl
stencils are applied to a base layer (or layers) of paint. An
image is reproduced on top of the vinyl before the stencils
are peeled away, revealing the ground paint beneath.
Cousins often then applies another added interruption,
though here the approach differs from work to work. Rolling
stripes of colour, using spray guns and smearing swathes
of paint are all techniques used to further fracture his
images. The recognisable is consequently de-centralised,
sandwiched between, under and on top of the abstract.
Notably, Cousins’ process involves constantly negating
whatever decision-making process came before, maintaining
a captivating tension between what might otherwise be
perceived as contradictory concerns and effects: the
figurative and the abstract; illusion and materiality; the
surface and the pictorial. The result is a captivating optical
instability not dissimilar to an ambiguous pattern, where the
eye constantly oscillates between seeing the painting as
operating in one way, and then another.
It is in this constant to-and-fro-ing that Cousins escapes
the reductive and binary tendencies of many of paintings’
‘isms’, allowing instead for his works to prompt an active and
prolonged act of looking; one premised on an uncertainty
of the image as well as the paintings’ constructions. By
placing the image into an equilibrial tension with the material
effects of specific processes, Cousins provokes the viewer
to carefully consider what it is that he or she is – or indeed,
isn’t – looking at.
Ioana Gordon-Smith: It seems to me that one thing that distinguishes your practice is how you unite often oppositional aspects of
paint: its illusory possibilites as well as its inescapable
materiality. The combination creates a compelling
oscillation — a sort of constant visual to-and-fro-ing.
Any thoughts?
James Cousins: One of the core motivations for my work at its beginning
was to ask ‘what is a painting? When does a painting
stop becoming a painting? And how does it operate as
an artwork?’ For me, it’s about setting up paradigms,
understanding its limits, and then trying to cross those
thresholds.
There’s a slippage that begins to emerge between how you
understand things perceptually in terms of the space: one
part of the painting will look like its operating one way then
it slips into another part and it begins operating in another
way. There’s a kind of oscillation between things, which
creates a sense of dislocation.
One commentator described the reproduced images
in your works as being specifically insignificant, but
familiar or recognisable. What attracts you to
a particular images or fragments – what are you
looking for?
Initially, at the early stages of the work, when I was working
solely from landscape, I had just returned from living
overseas, and I was looking to try to ask questions about the
legitimacy of images to talk about place in a meaningful way.
If you look at images of New Zealand — say for instance
the ubiquitous images of Mitre Peak — they say nothing
about the place. All they do is talk about a convention of
representation. They might say something if you take a
snapshot that is related to a memory, but when you seen
these images co-opted into tourism for consumption, there’s
a presumed transparency about the conventions that are
used. I was interested in trying to deflate that somehow
rather than deconstruct it. So when I chose landscape
images, they were very banal. I was riffing to a certain extent
off Gerhard Richter, from whom I’d learnt to use images
that are banal enough to allow a gap to occur for viewers
to generate multiple interpretations that aren’t didactic, but
instead ask questions.
If you look at the re-produced images in some of my older
works, you can see that they are simply types: a ridge; a
mountain; a river; a geyser; a waterfall. At the time, I was
interested in that discourse between photography and
painting, with both different types of assumption regarding
representation. There was a period where I was interested in
the painted representational elements being the illusion, and
the abstract being the real.
I then started working from photographs of flowers, for a
similar reason, but they additionally have a history of being
used in imagery as conventional symbols of beauty.
Can you talk a bit about the processes you use to
disrupt or deflate the image? In your earlier works, you
applied thin strips of masking tape to the canvas, often
in a grid-like arrangement, before painting an image and
removing the tape to reveal the ground beneath. More
recently, you’ve used vinyl cutters instead of tape and
introduced mechanical process or spray guns at some
points. What technologies do you employ and what do
they do for you?
The masking tape was an earlier device I used. My earliest
works using flowers had incredibly small, 2mm-diameter
dots made with masking tape covering the canvas, on top
of which I painted the image before removing the dots.
There were hundreds of dots — we had dot-removing
parties. It had an effect where if you looked at the painting
up close, it was abstract, and when you moved away, you
saw the image.
I had been working with a machine where I can apply a
whole lot of arcs into a piece of vinyl. And then I would
turn the canvas 90 degrees and cut the arcs again. So you
have this literal mapping of space outside of the support.
Before I started cutting the arcs, I would make a drawing of
the canvas by putting it on the floor, laying down a piece of
paper that was the same size on top and pouring black in
onto it. I would then use the physical characteristics of the
canvas to create a kind of mark, just picking up the canvas
and holding it for 1,2, 3, 4 ,5 counts. These were just rules
I would create because otherwise I didn’t know how to
engage with the work. But I would make rules and then try
to break them. So if I began by picking up the canvas from
one side and then another, I’d think, well, why can’t I pick it
up from the corner? And then things become complicated,
which is good.
Initially the stencils were one offs. The more recent
introduction of the vinyl cutter into the process allowed me
to make multiple stencils, broadening the scope of how I
used the screens. Of course this also introduced the use
of a computer into my practice and has had an influence on
how I approach the drawing of the stencils.
I’m fascinated in this idea of mapping. It’s a term that
you use quite specifically and it also crops up in Ruth
Watson’s essay Fast paint and interference: James
Cousins’ Signal painting and the de-territorialisation of
the image. Can you tell me more about mapping as it
relates to your work?
As a concept, one can make a distinction between mapping
and tracing. Tracing relies on recognition, in that you’re
merely re-presenting something: nothing’s changed, it’s
referent remains intact. Whereas mapping creates a new
understanding of something – or rather you might not
understand it, but it creates new territory. It means that
the process of mapping isn’t invisible. With photography
perhaps, you assume the process is invisible. These
processes here are for me a form of mapping – a coding.
It’s a bit like looking at a Mondrian: you can understand that
there’s a strict process of making behind the work; but you
can’t necessarily work it out.
It is difficult to decipher the order in which you’ve
painted the layers in your work.
You can explain to people that the reproduced image was
painted last and they still won’t see it that way. It’s related
to the way we think of positive and negative space. I’m not
really interested in the mechanics of the way we perceive
things, but that optical effect of moving between does offer
a ploy to encourage a duration of looking. When the work is
good, it’s about slowing things down.
Do you set up any type of rules or systems that are
deliberately contradictory to create the tensions that
encourage looking?
I think that’s what happens. Out of sheer desperation, you
start making a picture. And often you’ll use another painting
to start. I was pouring painting down something else and I
placed a canvas underneath that caught the drips, so that I’d
have something to respond to. It’s contrived completely, but
then you critique that or respond to it by doing something
that equally contrived but in a different way. You get to a
point where the painting tells you what to do. And perhaps
from there there’s nothing specific to locate about my
engagement with the work or the making of it.
I’m curious about relationship between your use of a
vinyl ‘screen’ and the computer screen. Do you think at
all about your work in relation to the digital world?
I think possibly the works echo something about the nature
of screens without directly talking about that, in the way that
other artists might. When you’re looking at a digital screen,
you’re looking at layers of flat upon flat upon flat: that’s now
how we negotiate space.
For me, though, the idea of screens is more closely related
to trying to create an opticality. There’s an artist who
employs op-like components in her work, R H Quaytman
who I find interesting: I like that way she talks about using
op patterns not to escape vision, but rather to make vision
more visible. You become more conscious of the fact that
you’re looking. The screens allow an image to be placed on
the canvas, but their main role is to activate a consciousness
of looking.
Ruth Watson, in her essay, notes that colour is used to
reinforce “the lacunary effects of looking, denying us
comforting hues or conventional spatial illusions.” How
do you approach colour?
The use of colour has become more complex as the
work has developed. In recent works, at first glance
the accumulation of colours has a tonal or gradient-like
referent. Each of the layers use colour to differing effect,
to differentiate each layer, one layer building upon and
responding to the previous. Colour here is used as a
kind of key or legend that plays with the varying degrees
of transparency, solidity, fluidity, etc. particular to the
process used. In more recent work, I’ve begun to sample
combinations of colours from potential images in a code like
manner, that might be used later in the work and incorporate
them into the layers. For me it’s interesting to see how these
decisions based on what has already happened and what
might happen combine.
It seems to me that your work might find more parallels
with international practices: for instance, you’ve
previously noted that you find resonance with the work
of Gerhard Richter. How does the international scene
inform your work?
Well, I was very influenced by my time in Europe and living
in the UK. I started making work again when I was living
there. Two of the big motivations for that was seeing Robert
Ryman and Gerhard Richter shows and also seeing Barnett
Newman’s work and becoming aware of the heterogeneous
nature of painting. It has this contingent reliance on
materiality but on the other hand it operates completely in
a completely different sphere. There’s something about
painting that’s not definitive: there’s something that’s up for
negotiation in painting.

 

What do you mean by that?
Well, the only way that I could see any validity in making
paintings was to ask that question: ‘what is this object?’
— but in a way that wasn’t restrained by that legacy of
abstraction in terms of non-compositional strategies and
using systems and processes that allude to the removal of
the hand, eluding any kind of expressive subjectivity so the
resulting works had some kind of legitimacy as ‘fact’. I really
like that idea, but I think it’s impossible.
And reductive too, I think.
It’s very reductive: it leaves begging the question of how the
work engages with the world.
I think there’s a particular kind of rigour about looking that
I’m interested in. Robert Ryman says you have to learn to
listen, to develop a certain kind of literacy, like when you’re
listening to jazz. There’s the same sort of looking that
happens when you look at painting. Whether it’s an illusion
or not, there’s a certain kind of rigour in investigating what a
painting might be afresh, for me anyway.
Restless Idiom covers the period from 2009-2015. Can
you tell me about these years? Do they represent a
particular shift in your process or concerns from what
came before? What concerns are of more significance
to you now?
I think work prior to this period had a focus on a certain
idea kind of contingency in painting. I would combine two
distinct elements, the grid and a sourced photographic
image to heighten the material and non-material aspects
of painting. Put simply, a paintings surface is something
you simultaneously look through as a window and at as a
surface. I was toying with how these ways of looking nullify
or negate each other. When reading the surface the illusion
or representational image is nullified and when viewing the
painting as a kind of illusionist space, its material presence
is nullified. I was interested in how these contradictory
modes of looking activated a potential split and what that
might mean. Eventually I tired of the reliance upon a type
of binary that the work relied upon and how the way I was
using the grid necessitated a kind of exclusion from the
world. I think the works presented in this show still engage
with a certain ideas contingency but they track moves away
from that previous sense of removal.
How do you know when a painting is successful
or a failure?
Failure is when there isn’t enough in there to activate that
durational looking. If the work doesn’t ask you to look at it,
then it won’t ask any questions about what you’re looking at.
Published by Te Uru
Waitakere Contemporary Gallery
on the occasion of:
James Cousins: Restless Idiom
28 November 2015 – 21 February 2016
Curated by Ioana Gordon-Smith
Publication design: Julia Gamble
Paper stock: Spicers Nettuno 140gsm
Edition: 1000 copies
ISBN 978-0-473-34433-7

Object Shift

In Stilleben, a 1997 documentary by German filmmaker Harun Farocki, still life paintings by sixteenth and seventeenth century Flemish painters are compared to advertisements photographed in the 1990s. In a series of narrated vignettes, Farocki’s camera alternates between images of the painted canvases to footage taken in a studio, where advertisements for cheese, beer glasses and an expensive watch are being made. Through these pairings, Farocki suggests that there is more than a resemblance between traditional still life painting and modern advertising. Both genres of ‘still life’ involve a complex and knowing construction of the depicted objects. In one studio setting, beer glasses are placed, after careful measurement, in a cluster of three, with a single glass poised above the grouping. Once the perfect tilt of the glass has been determined, a measure of beer is poured, and the photographer captures that fleeting moment when the foam rises to the top of the rim and bubbles effervesce. The final image evokes a product, a brand, a lifestyle. This is achieved not simply through the representation of a glass of foam-topped fizzing beer, but rather through the choreographed interplay between the object’s expected function, its relationship to other objects and its placement in a wider context created by the assembly of the display.

Object Shift brings together two-dimensional work by artists Kushana Bush, Elaine Campaner, Graham Fletcher, Georgie Hill, Marian Maguire and Neil Pardington with the intention of inviting viewers to consider the multiple meanings generated by objects. Much like Stilleben, Object Shift suggests that objects are understood through their relationships with the things and environment that surround them. Photographers Elaine Campaner and Neil Pardington focus on objects that exist in private or public collections. Iconic twentieth century furniture designs, though perhaps not immediately evident as such, are referenced in Georgie Hill’s watercolours. The vessels in Kushana Bush’s and Marian Maguire’s works, as well as the eclectic array of domestic furnishings in Graham Fletcher’s paintings, present imagined and synthesised objects based upon different classes of historically and geographically specific designs. Though this selection offers a spectrum of real or invented forms, what the works share in common is that they each present, document or stage objects away from their expected contexts and position them within unfamiliar — and at times fictional — environments. Columnist Ina Hughs once stated, “Objects are stories solidified”;(2) this exhibition explores the way in which objects placed in new juxtapositions and foreign contexts cause us to rethink the story, to reassess the ascribed function or meaning of objects we might ordinarily take for granted.

The desire to find new stories for objects finds sympathy with the agenda of surrealist artists, writers and intellectuals. In particular, writer and collector André Breton believed that by pluralising the contexts in which objects were encountered, the notion of an object’s ‘solidity’ would be challenged. In her examination of post-modern theory, cultural theorist Elizabeth Deeds Ermarth considers how plurality was understood by surrealists to throw the very materiality of objects into question. Her explanation is worth quoting in full:

This estrangement of objects from their ‘normal’ order calls attention to that order and to its arbitrariness. The final consequence of this estrangement is the disappearance of what we once took to be ‘the object’ into a function of the systems in which it appears. As it appears simultaneously in multiple systems, ‘the object’ is in crisis because its solid identity can no longer be established. One cannot resort to the crude proof of kicking the stone to verify its presence because we are not talking about an exclusively material world but rather a world of cultural formations where all objects are given identity. The surreal fact is that alternatives exist, and alternatives of the most fundamental kind.(3)

The possibilities of painting, photography and printmaking are relevant here. Because of their ability to frame unusual perspectives and defy the limits of reality, representations of objects can provide these alternative encounters. Speaking of his practice, artist Graham Fletcher notes, “the medium of painting offered me the freedom and immediacy to create imaginative combinations within a borderland world”. (4) In a similar manner, each of the works in Object Shift offer perspectives that transcend the possibilities of everyday life. Conjuring any number and manner of things, these works act as portals to new constellations of objects: they can take us behind closed doors and into imagined worlds.

Neil Pardington’s photographs give viewers a rare glimpse into the collections held beyond public access in gallery, archive and museum storage spaces around New Zealand. His two works in Object Shift look at groupings of carved Pacific spears and Māori tekoteko and kōruru — carved images of ancestors — which have been fastened onto walls. The view of these interior storage spaces raise interesting questions about what it means to collect and store objects. Divorced from use, these Pacific and Māori carvings gain something of an autobiographical purpose. Seen through the eyes of a non-Pacific and non-Māori culture, these spears and taonga are no longer living or functional but are instead categorised and stored; items that play a small role in a greater project of knowledge production and cultural preservation. Deemed important enough to acquire and safeguard, these spears and taonga have nevertheless paradoxically been both reclassified and relegated to a realm of indefinite exclusion. In these storage spaces, their status as treasure and castoff, taonga and specimen, vacillates.

The spaces beyond those dedicated to public display proves a fertile ground for exploring the different lives objects can lead. In particular, the domestic realm emerges as space in which the relationships between objects are continuously reconfigured. Indeed, as an expressive sanctuary, the home perhaps offers the most freedom for individuals to organise ‘their world’ through objects as frequently as desired and in the most extreme ways. Graham Fletcher imagines the re-location of ethnographic objects into hyper-affluent homes modelled on interiors of the 1950s and 1960s, largely based on images found in architectural journals, magazines and design books. In two exhibited works, Fletcher considers how domestic spaces can facilitate material encounters between Western and non-Western cultures, and how this complex negotiation constructs whole new worlds. 5 In Untitled (Lounge Room Tribalism), for instance, a bright room is densely packed with a disparate array of things. Floral-patterned armchairs, pink curtains, packed bookshelves and retro entertainment devices are just a few of the furnishing that fill the room. Subsumed into this eclectic array of textures, colours and collectables are three greenstone mere and the busts of two non-European figures. 6 Here, these objects ‘plundered’ from the Pacific are transformed and domesticated by their residence in these homes into mute ornaments.

In Georgie Hill’s watercolours, the furniture designs of modernist architect and designer Eileen Gray (1878–1976) are paired with designs by her male contemporaries Le Corbusier (1887–1965) and Émile-Jacques Ruhlmann (1879–1933). Gray worked primarily as a lacquer artist, furniture designer and architect. Following the exhibition of her architectural projects in Le Corbusier’s Pavillion des Temps Nouveaux in 1937, Gray’s name faded quietly away until the late 1960s, when her career was the focus of an article in Domus magazine. Though several reassessments of Gray’s practice have been published since then, it is really only since the late twentieth century that her status as a modernist design legend has gained momentum. The intermingling of different furniture designs in Hill’s watercolours destabilises any easy readings of design hierarchies. This narrative ambiguity is enhanced through Hill’s deft use of pattern as a camouflaging device. Often gendered and associated with superfluous decoration, pattern is here used to create optical uncertainty: dominating surface patterns both sit above and permeate the furniture forms. It is not until you are close to the work that you can decipher the iconic designs. Even then, like an ambiguous pattern, it feels impossible to hold in the mind’s eye all of the distinct forms and shapes at once. In Feint, a 2014 publication about Hill’s work, curator Aaron Lister describes the effects as one where “objects seem to emerge, dissolve and return within the space of a few seconds”. (7)

A different form of ambiguity is encountered in Kushana Bush’s The Throat of Summer. This triptych presents three clusters of people each reaching for ceramics and holding bouquets of flowers close to their chests. The first two groups cluster over blue and white vases while the third group gather behind a loose diagonal line of terracotta pot plants. In the catalogue All Things to All Men, writer Natalie Poland states, “Bush is aware of how the meaning or significance of an object is contingent on its historical and geographical location”. 8 Here, however, objects are stripped away from any clear historical or geographical setting. The pale grey backdrop offers no window view into the outside world. Instead, the unadorned space invites viewers to constitute their own meaning from the configuration of poses, figures and expressions.

Elaine Campaner offers a different take on vessels — as well as other objects that are intended to travel. In each of these five images, Campaner considers the narratives evoked through the surface designs of mass produced objects, particularly souvenirs. By manipulating the scale of these objects, she transforms their illustrations into landscape backdrops for staged scenes: a teaspoon becomes a lighthouse at the edge of a cliff just as a collection of mugs becomes the forest a tiny toy-man walks through. Viewers are here prompted to look ‘through’ the object to the scenery they replicate. The pleasing tromp l’eoil effect belies Campaner’s deeper interest in redeeming these objects from their ordinary function as commoditized keepsakes associated with touristic experiences.

The surfaces of objects are also of interest to printmaker Marian Maguire. Each of her imaginatively playful etchings employs the forms and decorative narratives associated with Greek vases to merge antipodean histories. Distinct in this body of work is a particular focus on the meeting of genders as an amplifier to the cross-cultural encounter. Satyrs, gods, and historical figures from nineteenth century colonial history meet in provocative couplings, suggesting something of a universal continuum and human connection across cultures and eras. By confronting our expectations of how these characters should behave, Maguire offers a more complex, humanistic reading of history. The inscription of these imagined narratives on recognisably ‘Greek’ vases can also be read as pointing to the role of objects in framing particular narratives or viewpoints. Like Neil Pardington’s photographs, these works undermine naturalised readings of objects often historicised in museum settings.

In uprooting objects from their anticipated environments and locating them in new spaces, these six artists reject unambiguous interpretations of objects in favour of opening up multiple readings. What are we to make of ethnographic artefacts in suburban homes? Why exactly are mysterious figures fawning over ceramics? Though they exist fixed on paper or canvas, the objects in each of these works are hardly still. As things shift from space onto canvas and paper, the contexts in which we encounter them expand, re-fashioning stories and provoking strange encounters with
what might perhaps have been familiar. It is in these two-dimensional contexts, these in-between spaces, that assumptions about objects can be challenged and alternative identities realised. The assuredness of where objects belong, or what they mean, is anything but solid.

 

 

1. Harun Farocki, ‘Stilleben’, 2007, http://www.documenta12.de/archiv/dx/english/news/films/f-still.htm, accessed 20 May 2014.
2. Ina Hughs, ‘Objects are stories solidified’, 2013, http://www.knoxnews.com/news/2013/apr/27/ina-hughs-objects-are-stories-solidified/, accessed 20 May 2014.
3. Elizabeth Deeds Ermarth, Sequel to History: Postmodernism and the Crisis of Representational Time, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1992, p.94.
4. Graham Fletcher, ‘Lounge Room Tribalism’ in Lounge Room Tribalism, Auckland: Mangere Arts Centre, 2012, p.17.
5. Ibid, p.10.
6. Linda Tyler, ‘From the collection’, https://cdn.auckland.ac.nz/assets/creative/about/art-collection-and-galleries/university-art-collection/Graham%20Fletcher,%20 Lounge%20Room%20Tribalism,%202010.pdf, accessed 20 May 2013.
7. Aaron Lister, ‘Ripolin’ in Feint, Wellington: City Gallery Wellington, 2014, p.12.
8. Natalie Poland, ‘Home and Away: Travel, Place and The Cosmopolitan Art of Kushana Bush’ in All Things To All Men, Otago: Hocken Collections, University of Otago, 2012, p.6.

Making Visible

8 November 2014 – 17 January 2015 The New Zealand Steel Gallery Franklin Arts Centre, Pukekohe  Artists: Lonnie Hutchinson | Toa Tahi Taihia | Janet Lilo | John Vea | Talia Smith | Salome Tanuvasa  

“Art does not reproduce the visible, rather it makes visible”.[i]                                   – Paul Klee

Making Visible brings together a selection of work from six contemporary visual artists who each consider how art can document, represent or suggest the presence of people who are often overlooked or unseen. The very notion of ‘making visible’ implies that there are certain blind spots or unacknowledged realities in our lives that need to be redressed. In this exhibition, the impulse to draw attention to the little noticed reflects a strong sympathy for migrant and Pacific workers whose labour often goes unacknowledged. Continue reading “Making Visible”