Aberhart
Forum > ReviewsLaurence Aberhart
Laurence Aberhartat City Gallery Wellington
13 May 2007 - 29 Jul 2007
0 Votes - 0 Stars
35 Comments
 The place is Wellington’s City Gallery. It’s wintertime; but instead of tucking himself away in his comfortable woodland home, the Hedgehog has ventured forth on a Quest for Art. He’s at a photography exhibition. Not any old photography exhibition, though: this is Aberhart – a major retrospective of the iconic New Zealand photographer’s work, ranging from images of churches, lodges and gravestones, through to behind-the-scenes museum displays and even photographs of family members. It takes up the entire top floor of the City Gallery. There’s an expensive hardcover monograph associated with the exhibition. This is obviously An Important Event.
The Hedgehog wanders around. Some of the photographs catch his eye and he lingers. Others he passes by more quickly, vowing to return at a later date to do them justice.
One image that certainly resonates is that of a group of stuffed owls in a display case – lifelike, seemingly staring out at the viewer. It’s well known and often reproduced. The Hedgehog can understand why: he gets the uncomfortable feeling that he’s the one being watched. It’s as if he’s intruded, unannounced, into a private meeting at which he’s most definitely not welcome. It’s hard to believe the birds are stuffed, so full of personality they appear. In another room he’s “watched”, too, by a carving. It’s standing in front of an upright piano, eyes staring, lips pursed – almost as if it’s issuing a challenge: “Come and play it. I dare you!”
The Hedgehog’s struck by the drama in some of the photographs: a non-symmetrical view down into a church from its rafters; clouds behind a house that streak the sky like a vision of the apocalypse; a view of a collection of Elvis records – forming a vortex with the inward pulling power of a black hole.
Even when the subject matter is mundane, the Hedgehog notes that the symmetry and technique of the photograph is of interest. It’s as if the photograph becomes an abstract artform – the object depicted becoming lines, shapes and textures to be appreciated in their own right. “I suppose it might be a bit farfetched,” thinks the Hedgehog, “but I see Aberhart as occupying much the same territory as McCahon in this regard: landscape becoming abstraction.”
He wanders around for a little longer and then departs.
Back in his comfortable home he thinks, “I really must write a review of the exhibition for Artbash. But it’s a daunting task – such a vast survey of an artist’s work. Where on earth would one begin?”  Pictures from events associated with this article:   |
| RSS: this topic's comments | Post to Facebook | Printable version |
|
35 Comments, showing 1 to 20
|
Fair comment or balderdash?
It's rather like ordering everything on the menu at a fine dining establishment, or listening to all of Beethoven's string quartets in one sitting. Less can be more.
I think just so long as you go in and don't expect to be able to take it all in, it's a great exhibition. And, yes, it's marvellous to have some less familiar images alongside the better known ones.
Here are some questions one might ask...
Are there thematic clusters? Pronounced divisions of content within the show...
Is there a directional feel to the visiting experience where you feel you are being guided towards something?
Is the spacing irregular to keep the viewer guessing about what is round the corner?
Are the works varied in size - the way they react bodily with the visitor?
Is the framing and lighting of a muchness from room to room?
Are there thematic clusters? Pronounced divisions of content within the show...Yes, some clusters are more interesting than others...occasionally there are some surprise alignments...not that I can quote any specifics.
Is there a directional feel to the visiting experience where you feel you are being guided towards something? Not really over the whole show, but the larger gallery has been roomed off to segregate the clusters above...exhibitions, within exhibitions.
Is the spacing irregular to keep the viewer guessing about what is round the corner? No, standard height (there may be some double hanging)...but a sense of..I wonder whats in the next "space"...very regular overall...the exhibition design could have been far more adventurous in this respect, and part of the problem in being confrionted by a daunting prospect.
Are the works varied in size - the way they react bodily with the visitor?Small, smaller, smallest print sizes (as you would expect from Aberhart), I love this aspect of his photographs, the fascination is in the detail and sharpness.
Is the framing and lighting of a muchness from room to room?yes
With Aberhart, you'd want slow, and sustained, and contemplative and quiet, and impressive in its scope and the sheer number of works. Nothing fancy required in terms of the hang. Just like they've done it, really.
That is the way it should be. Curators should have a subtle presence through the structure of their selection - and not upstage the artist.
However there are occasions when curators need to save the artists from themselves - such as when there is clearly too much material. The artist is often too close to the work, thinks that everything they've ever made is great, and cannot grasp the wider, bigger picture of how the selection will look overall in the space. Curators in institutions need to have the last word, so it is a very delicate, political negotiation, that process. After all you want the artist to be happy, but you also want the show to be the best possible option.
From "The crafted container" at Objectspace; "The home as an instrument of self articulation and the idea that the home itself is inscribed and impressed with traces and stories of the occupants" My god, they must be desperate to give research money away with rationales like that. This is the kind of brain-dead semantics that make artists the butt of jokes. Just google "Martha Stewart" and you have someone saying the same thing only to a bigger audience. You little wonders you.
Well as long as it is clear what the respective roles are, and who is responsible for certain texts.
Artists have a lot of power. If they tell a curator to bugger off, the curator can't argue - they have to leave. Yet a curator can offer very good advice if the artist wants to listen.
"The artist is often too close to the work, thinks that everything they've ever made is great, and cannot grasp the wider, bigger picture of how the selection will look overall in the space."
John's right, I am at times guilty of those shortcomings. Having said that, I do get suspicious of curators that claim curating to be an artwork in it's own right.
I approve of that suspicion. One reason for eg. why I prefer Brian Butler to Tobias Berger, his predecessor at ARTSPACE. He has a sensitivity about him, a friendliness than is without an insistent ego demanding to be the centre of attention all the time. Confident, assertive, but not loud. Tobias on the other hand obviously saw himself as an ARTIST and the artists he selected were actually materials chosen to help make His ARTWORK. He didn't care if their work looked crap - as long as He was the one being talked about. There have been a few around like that. Artists get tetchy if they feel the curator is on a power trip.
Having said that, sometimes curators are too much the other way: dormice - totally invisible. Not only in personality but also in their shows and essays. Totally colourless. It is nice to have a curator with a point of view, that says something memorable.
