One & Other: But is I Art?

Posted in Art & Architecture, One & Other with tags , , , , , , , on 12 July, 2009 by Dan North

GeraldC

As the time for my own turn on the Fourth Plinth in Trafalgar Square approaches, I’ll add the occasional post on the subject here. You can catch up with all of my updates with this link.

Announcing the first day of the Anthony Gormley’s One & Other, which, for the unaware, puts members of the public atop the Fourth Plinth for an hour each, 24 hours a day for 100 days, Sky News asked the headline question: “Is it art, or just a highbrow Big Brother?” It’s a tired refrain by now. The question of whether or not something is art is such a blind alley: what it really seems to ask is “what is art?” or worse, “why isn’t it speaking directly to me?” That there is disagreement over whether something is a worthwhile piece of art should never be a surprise. It should probably be a requirement.

I don’t know if Sky News ever communicates with Sky Arts, but if One & Other is a “highbrow Big Brother” (i.e. highbrow because none of the participants have been manouevred into positions where there’s an increased chance that they’ll punch or shag each other), then Sky must bear some of the responsibility. What started out as a intervention by the ordinary into the ceremonial, dragging and dropping people from their habitual environment into the most public of spaces, has been turned into rolling news to be examined from every angle, tweeted about and photographed. Their weekly round-up of the “best of the plinth” suggests an attempt to turn it into a competition, with each plinther compelled to be more entertaining or eye-catching than the last.

Although I’ve dipped into the live feed from the Plinth and found it occasionally compelling, even when “nothing” (slang term for moments where people stop dancing or shouting through a megaphone) is happening, it has raised the question for me of where the “space” of the plinth is. Is it a spontaneous relationship between the material reality of the plinth and the people passing by, an ephemeral, unrepeatable performance or a hypermediated spectacle that can be paused, rewound, re-examined and catalogued? I can’t help feeling that the physical space of the plinth is affected by its parallel existence in multiple “virtual” spaces around the world, though this doesn’t have to be a negative effect. This morning I enjoyed Michelle, who took a very contemplative approach. To many observers, I suppose she “did nothing” or “just stood there”, for the hour, but she seemed to be having a serene, private moment in front of all those cameras. And surely that’s fascination enough, right?

Having said all that, the sight of Gerald dressed in a Godzilla suit playing swingball and stomping on a cardboard Houses of Parliament at 8am made me smile for almost a full hour. I think it was the mixture of personal, self-absorbed enjoyment and focus on the chance to play around, and the awareness of a very public spectacle that made it completely charming. If you have to ask whether or not its art, then please adjust your definition of art.

King Kong Escapes Again…

Posted in Uncategorized with tags , , , , , , , , , on 9 July, 2009 by Dan North

King Kong Escapes Poster

In my earlier post, about King Kong vs Godzilla, I pondered what the appeal of Japanese movies in which big monsters beat the living cack out of each might be to their devotees. You know, apart from the obvious: monsters fighting, metaphors scrapping to gain the semic upperhand or hold the ideological fort, can hardly be less than entertaining. Which is not to say that fans of kaiju eiga are undiscerning, more that different criteria of quality apply. Cult films, those which attract loyal adherents and completists who arguably adopt alternative critical frameworks of appreciation, tend to feature tend to feature hermetically sealed, aesthetically consistent environments. It is this opportunity to spend time in a familiar diegetic space that makes them attractive for repeat viewings rather than customary adherence to traditions of quality. As I’m fond of noting, Toho monster movies create a parallel world of lovingly crafted miniature sets, a place where global events and political struggles are dwarfed by the more pressing concern of massive lizards, moths and robots blundering around through wafer-thin cityscapes, a more colourful visualisation of cities rendered pathetically vulnerable when uncontrollable weapons are deployed.

vlcsnap-4241368

Madame Piranha (Mie Hama) and Doctor Hu (Eisei Amamoto)

In the Toho King Kongs, which borrow and rework RKO’s best known character, the big gorilla is, as Godzilla sometimes becomes, a heroic figure fighting for the good of Japan and humanity. In this one, a Chinese-Japanese alliance (actually, the villains never discuss their nationality, but there are strong hints: the main villain is a Fu Manchu-style master criminal called, gloriously, Doctor Hu) aims to take over the world.  Doctor Hu builds a giant robot version of King Kong to do his bidding. This Kong is going to help him mine a mysterious, world-conquering “Element X”, which he will sell to the Japanese, represented by the mysterious Madame Piranha, played like a Jackie-O supervillain by Mie Hama, still most famous to non-Japanese audiences for her role as Bond Girl Kissy Suzuki in You Only Live Twice (and perhaps also for being the first Asian woman to pose for Playboy). With inexplicably fast costume changes, she makes an alluring, if unlikely  supervillain (you get the impression that all of her commandments would be fashion-based), timidly representing “a certain country”; though it’s never named as Japan, she changes her plans as soon as the mayhem she casuses threatens Tokyo. When it becomes clear that Robokong can’t dig up Element X because the magnetic forces interfere with his circuitry (don’t they have regular equipment for mining stuff?), Doctor Hu decides that controlling the mind of Kong, using a cute blonde as bait, will be a better strategy.

The robot King Kong prepares to go digging.

The robot King Kong prepares to go digging.

Like King Kong vs Godzilla, Escapes selectively restages scenes from the 1933 original, this time the scene where Kong fights a Tyrannosaurus Rex while “the girl” (this time played by Linda Miller, looking not unlike Naomi Watts) is stuck in a tree. It even repeats the jaw-snapping killing blow, and ends with a flight up a tall tower (though here Kong battles his robotic alter ego rather than the local military).

Linda Miller in King Kong Escapes

Linda Miller in King Kong Escapes

King Kong punches out a dinosaur.

But unlike the earlier film, Escapes is a more fully integrated Japanese-American co-production, so there are none of the clumsy inserts of media commentators to explain events for external observers. Instead, there’s an American research team, led by Commander Carl Nelson, played by Rhodes Reason. Stop a moment and think about that. The lead actor is called Rhodes Reason. They don’t name ‘em like they used to. The research team plans to study Kong in his natural habitat (rather than, for example, drugging and dragging him back to New York to star in his own hit show), and a struggle ensues for the soul of the big ape. In my previous post about King Kong Escapes, I offered an excerpt from Vincent Canby’s 1968 review, which I’ll reproduce here to save you clicking back and forth:

The Toho moviemakers are quite good in building miniature sets, but much of the process photography—matching the miniatures with the full-scale shots—is just bad. The English language dialogue that comes out of the mouths of the Japanese actors could well be Urdu, and the plotting is hopelessly primitive, although it is littered with found symbols, most of which have to do with a (perhaps Hiroshima-inspired) national death wish. Really unforgivable, however, is what has been done to King Kong himself. The great, dignified, 80-foot ape-hero of the 1934 Hollywood classic has been turned into a spineless, grovelling Uncle Tom in the community of prehistoric beasts. At the direction of the simpering blonde heroine, he destroys the world domination plans of some Chinese Communist agents, pining all the while for a love that—for quite obvious reasons—cannot be.

So, does this criticism stand up? Well, yes I guess:  except that Kong is hardly “spineless” in this case. He battles against the odds to kick the cogs out of his robot nemesis, risking his own life for his girl. He doesn’t give a flying feck about the geopolitical wranglings going on around him. It’s all about the blonde. The same blondeness has been restricting Kong’s decision-making capacities in all his incarnations:

Fay Wray in King Kong (1933)Jessica Lange in King Kong (1976)Evelyne Kraft in The Mighty Peking ManNaomi Watts in King Kong
Fay Wray in King Kong (1933), Jessica Lange in King Kong (1976), Evelyne Kraft in The Mighty Peking Man (1977), Naomi Watts in King Kong (2005)

Perhaps the consistency of Kong’s desire across so many films indicates how the character is used as a dumb vessel for an agglomerated set of signifiers pertaining to the spectator’s desire as previsualised by the films’ producers (it’s not that fanciers of non-blonde alternatives don’t exist, just that they show up as a smaller piece of the demographic pie-chart when these things are calculated), and that desire is not just sexual but acquisitive. Guys, Kong is you in your dumbstruck, amorous consumer guise – he sees it, he wants it, he’ll hang onto it regardless of what happens around him.

King Kong battles his robot self.

King Kong battles his robot self.

But this film isn’t all about the monsters. They’re proxy warriors moved into position (Kong Kong vs Godzilla did this quite literally by dropping Kong into the battle zone with giant balloons) as mascots for broader human concerns, be they environmental, political or supervillainous. It might be grandiose to suggest that, in the final showdown between Kong and Mechakong, the film constructs a dialectic between reality and simulation, organic and synthetic. In that sense, we’re on comfortable science fiction territory, with the machine’s emotionless brute force and efficiency finally overpowered by the real ape’s lustful persistence and exercise of free will. Or, as free as a horny giant gorilla can get.

Day One & Other

Posted in Art & Architecture, One & Other with tags , , , , , , , on 7 July, 2009 by Dan North

Statue (Anthony Gormley's One and Other, Fourth Plinth Trafalgar Square)One and Other

[See earlier post for more information.]

Anthony Gormley’s public art installation on the Fourth Plinth of London’s Trafalgar Square started up on Monday, when Rachel Wardell stepped off the cherry-picker and onto the little stage that will hold 2400 people, one at a time, for the next 100 days. Actually, some other guy beat her to it, climbing up the plinth to make some protest about people smoking. Or was it a protest against the smoking ban? Or maybe I didn’t imagine it – he wants to ban smoking in films! A contemporary art installation kicks off with a plea for greater censorship? Hey, it’s a free country. In any case, he made way for the chosen few who, given plinthe blanche to do whatever they like for an hour, garnered an inordinate amount of international media attention.

I must say, I’m sure this hubbub will die down, and One & Other, as it’s called, will settle into something closer to its original potential – a cumulative experiment in collective responses to the experience of being temporarily monumentalised. The media will surely lose its appetite if the plinth becomes advertising space, a busker’s patch or a speaker’s corner; there are plenty of places for that already. I’ve enjoyed dipping into the live feed today on the official website: there’s a nice novelty value in checking what each person has thought of to do with their time (as I type this, a guy in a green t-shirt seems to be stitching himself into a coccoon of some sort, perhaps to shut out the running commentary from the accumulating youths at the base of the plinth), but it’s not a competition. I take a special interest in this, because I’ll be taking to the plinth myself at 8am on 23rd July, and I’m not planning to put on a show. I’ll be taking a notebook, a pen and a camera, recording my responses (I’ll also be muttering stuff to the webcam if you’d like to tune in, and hopefully I’ll stay out of earshot of the people below when necessary) and enjoying the paradox of having an hour all to myself (hold my calls, please) in full view of London rush hour.

Arguably, this is not Anthony Gormley’s project any more. He’s released it like a balloon into the public domain, where other hands will mould it and define its legacy, but the conceptual basis is his, and it’s success or failure will ultimately be pinned on him as a prominent author and unofficial art laureate. One & Other fits quite neatly into Gormley’s overarching project across many of his works to situate the bodies and works of ordinary people in prestigious galleries and public spaces. Adrian Searle in The Guardian considers the implications:

Gormley’s idea is a rich one. It combines a very old idea about images, and sculptures on plinths in public spaces, with the digital age and the spectacle of reality TV. We know that paying attention to an experiment often changes its outcome. Those who stand and watch have all sorts of expectations and fantasies. The square below is a space for the curious and the ghoulish, for voyeurs and louts; it, as well as the plinth, is a space of transit and for waiting, and for all sorts of performances and gestures. We are all actors here, under the watchful cameras of Sky Arts. Gormley offers the possibility both for action and inaction. This is where the project’s magic lies – and also its danger. It is probably his best work, even if it risks bringing out the worst in people. The artist has set up the conditions, and what follows is unknown.

Some contributors to the Guardian’s blog are perhaps less detailed in their responses, but occasionally inspired:

  • Jakc's profile picture Jakc

    06 Jul 09, 4:00pm (about 6 hours ago)

    I’m up there tomorrow guys.

    Come by and let me piss on your faces from on high!

    It’s pointless!
    It’s boring!
    It’s modern art!

  • JimmyLazers's profile picture JimmyLazers

    06 Jul 09, 4:02pm (about 6 hours ago)

    I like Gormelys’ sculptures but this is shit. What is it? a cross between a David Blaine stunt and an Andy Warhol saying?

  • Arhoolie's profile picture Arhoolie

    06 Jul 09, 3:20pm (about 7 hours ago)

    I love this idea but I fear that all too many people will use their allotted time to publicise causes and organisations. In Edinburgh a year or two back we had the cow sculptures everywhere and each one done by different organisations. Some of them were beautiful and intriguing but then you get people like the local commercial radio station who just stuck an advert for their breakfast show on the side. The trouble with opening up a platform for people to say something is that so few people have anything interesting to say.

    Same could be said for these comment boards of course!

    I will from now on be making my comments through the medium of dance.

    • Meven's profile picture Meven

      06 Jul 09, 1:41pm (about 9 hours ago)

      Just saw it on the telly.
      Looked rubbish.

  • dh48's profile picture dh48

    06 Jul 09, 4:28pm (about 6 hours ago)

    I’m not in a rush to take part. I’m sure that one day my plinth will come.

Maybe One & Other is conceptual art’s version of an online discussion forum – it portrays and provokes an eclectic set of aesthetics and opinions and is subject to minimal content control (we’ll see if the organisers’ “hands off” approach to policing the display will hold true throughout). As a result, it won’t entertain all of the people all of the time, but it will yield diverse nuggets of interest, and ultimately put an open forum in a space usually reserved for the institutionally approved.

Tom Lubbock’s appraisal in The Independent suggests that the project has not yet hit the groove that it could attain if allowed to break out of the need to entertain people immediately. Rather than rushing to respond to the crowd’s demand for them to “do something“, already a common shout from the base of the plinth, the participants should be serene:

A stationary occupant activates the power of this pedestal, this framing device. It demonstrates what happens when you take something, something without any inherent interest, and put it a focus on it. It has to be something pretty boring, or the effect won’t work – or at least it won’t show. But when you find that you’re looking at nothing special, or at nobody special, but gripped, you know you’re in the grip of a picture. [...] If the Plinthers can only learn to be still, if they can just refrain for an hour from expressing themselves, they’ll have a power they never imagined. There is such a thing as absolute plain ordinariness. It can be absolutely fascinating.

[The photograph in this post is borrowed from the Flickr Group "Plinth Watch 2009", which is pooling pictures from the event. Click on the image for credits.]