▽ ODED HIRSCH

In the middle of a central Liverpool shopping district, a rustic, industrial elevator has seemingly erupted from the ground.  In the initial days of its appearance all sorts of questions had arisen amongst the city’s people. They questioned where it had fallen from and how something as this could occur.  Many curiously gazed above the disaster site in an eager attempt to find its source but disconcertingly, they would discover no logical justification– just an empty, grey Liverpudlian sky. However, this was neither a disaster nor accident; it was in fact a mixed media installation by Israeli artist Oded Hirsch, as part of the Liverpool biennial. Made out of heavy, industrial materials such as black tin The Lift disturbs the seductive environment of Liverpool One retail district and thus conforms to the biennial’s primary exhibition The Unexpected Guest, as it appears an unwelcome scar on the attractive, flawless shopping area. Even though the piece has clearly been installed in a way, which makes it look inherently realistic, the piece is realistically illogical.  The concrete slabs of the pavement are authentically broken making the elevator appear as though it has erupted from an unknown subterranean space.  This superficial realism, however, does not prevent the viewer from realising its irrationality.  As it is placed in the main commercial area of the city it is not unusual for one to regard the piece as a criticism of consumerism.  I personally feel that the piece aims to disturb the uniformity and artificial perfectionism that consumerism inspires; it essentially aims to create chaos and disarray in a controlled, orderly consumerist space.

On another level, I feel that the piece’s purpose is to make people ask questions. Whilst shopping one does not usually think about important worldly issues, they simply harbour superficial thoughts on either what they are planning to buy or how much they are going to spend. The entrance to the artificial elevator is mirrored and this is possibly an attempt to incorporate the viewer into the piece. Perhaps Hirsch wanted viewers to reflect on themselves and their consumerist actions whilst they inhabit one of the most commercialised parts of the city.

What I appreciated most about the piece was the fact that, just like most of the biennial pieces it has come out of the gallery space and into the public realm. The advantage of this is that it promotes the accessibility of art. People who rarely get the chance to visit a gallery are given direct access to art. They can come into contact with it whilst going about their everyday lives and without having to pay any admissions. 

▽ DOUG AITKEN

Doug Aitken’s The Source is an inspiring, psychological exploration into the genesis of creativity, as well as the individualistic processes by which artists allow their ideas and thoughts to transform into creative manifestations.  Located next to Tate Liverpool The Source is essentially a freestanding pavilion in which the public can enter and view six simultaneously running screens of acclaimed cultural figures discussing the formation of their creative ideas.  Upon entering the pavilion I personally felt that I had passed into an obscure, psychological microcosm of the artistic mind - a plane outside of time and place - a sphere of ideas. If one stands in the centre of the pavilion they hear a discordant mixture of voices and opinions produced by the simultaneously played videos; the result of this sounds like a sort of psychological orchestra – the verbal thoughts and ideas, which are expressed concurrently are the instruments but they are somehow unsynchronised, and do not play the same composition. Ironically, this allegorical remark makes an uncanny reference to the piece’s emphasis on individualism. The different voices have individualistic views and you can literally hear their collective conflict in the unharmonious mixture of audio playing throughout the space. What Aitken reminds us is that individuality is central to how creativity is channeled. Thus, the source of creativity varies depending on idiosyncratic matters.  However, I noticed that quite a few of the artists described their ideas and creative foundations as being chaotic and sometimes nonsensical; it was their role to shape or ‘sculpt’ as some put it, the chaos into something which passes as art.  Musician Beck claims, in his interview with Aitken, that his songs are practically “shaped chaos”. Therefore, the idea of an artistic creation being an unlikely combination of disarray and sequence is inspired.

Even though I really appreciated the concept of The Source and how the artist becomes the central subject matter, naturally there were certain aspects of the piece that I felt quite critical towards. First and foremost, I would like to address the way in which the piece was executed. With several videos playing simultaneously in the same space it was quite problematic I believe; whilst trying to listen to one video, audio from others was hearable, and this consequentially made it difficult to focus on one specific interview. This aspect was unfortunately detrimental to my overall experience of the piece, but if the videos had somehow been displayed in separate spaces, this would not have been the case.

On the other hand, I felt that the range of artists interviewed by Aitken were predominantly, if not all, American or European. What about artists outside of western culture? Wouldn’t it be interesting to see how artists outside of the main art arena work?  As a biennial piece I thought it was a shame that Aitken did not include artists of a more diverse array of cultures and backgrounds, as after all biennials are international manifestations of modern art. Fundamentally, I felt the piece was predominantly a source of inspiration and empowerment for other artists. I think that an aspiring artist, musician or performer visiting the piece would be able to acquire a great deal of inspiration and philosophical motivation for when they implement their own work. However, I do not think this means that those without creative outputs lose out on the experience, as they will surely learn from Aitken that there is no real secret to creative genius - no distinct instructions to the acquisition of it. Ultimately, individuality dictates where our personal source of creativity is found whether it is internal or external to our being.

▽ JOHN MOORES PAINTING PRIZE CHINA

Running now for two consecutive years the John Moore's Painting Prize China is a recently developed branch of the established Liverpool-based competition. Just as the main competition it has been significantly encompassed into this years Biennial.

During a visit to the Walker art gallery’s Talk Tuesdays I received an intriguing and informative walk-through of the pieces exhibited within both the John Moores painting prize and China painting prize.  When one visits the two exhibitions, which reside next to each other they will notice a somewhat conspicuous difference between them. This was specifically brought to the attention of one lady, who had also attended the weekly talk. When we were permitted to offer questions regarding all of the works she questioned why there seemed a notable difference in so-called traditional artistic ability between the two exhibitions. She suggested that the works from the China competition implied greater artistic talent and skill. The exhibition guide’s response to this was both insightful and interesting. Her response denoted that art education in China today differs greatly from that in Britain; it is still very much concerned with placing emphasis on developing atypical artistic skill and becoming a practiced artisan. Whilst Chinese art students may still attend life-drawing classes, British art students are subjected to a curriculum that enables them to work in more liberal and conceptually-driven way. It was certainly engrossing to see the cultural differences in art education reflected between the two exhibitions, however, I did not believe, as my fellow talk visitor did, that the Chinese art was superior to the more conceptual pieces of the John Moores prize simply because it reflected classical artistic skill and talent more directly. In my opinion, art does not have to possess conventional aesthetic value or demonstrate high artistic ability in order to be recognised as ‘good art’. I firmly believe that a profound concept and an effective expression of subject matter should be valued equally as much as an artist’s technical ability.

Subsequent to the interesting discussion regarding the juxtaposition of the two exhibitions I acquainted myself more with the prize winner of the China competition.  The winning piece is by the artist Nie Zhengji and is entitled Being. It discusses the representation of migrant workers in China - individuals from impoverished areas who relocate to urbanised regions in search of employment. Within the piece Zhengji implies that even though migrant workers are practically central to the urbanisation of particular regions in China, they are not rightfully appreciated by society. Zhengji has also suggested in relation to this piece that migrant workers in China are unjustly overlooked and detached from the city’s wealth and prosperity. The grey, melancholic palette incorporated into this piece immediately reflects and embodies the despondent subject matter addressed. The figure within the piece possesses no face and practically fades into the dark, sombre landscape in which it inhabits. This seems a clear reference to the lack of voice and significance that one supposedly feels as a migrant worker in China. Into the distance of the bleak landscape discreet objects, which arguably symbolise the commercial prosperity and wealth of a city can be seen; these objects are conceivably a taxicab and flashing city lights. Zhengjie may have intentionally made these objects a diminutive aspect of the painting, and seemingly distant from the painting’s figure, in order to suggest that the commercial wealth and prosperity of the city is not something that the everyday migrant worker is familiarised with. 

Being, reminded me a great deal of the work of Lui Bolin. Widely known as the ‘Invisible man’ Bolin camouflages himself into his surroundings in an attempt to artistically manifest the idea of being a societal outsider. The idea of having no societal importance or political voice forms the foundation for both Bolin’s work and Zhengji’s prize winning piece. Reading into the context of this year’s John Moores China pieces, it seems that they all to some degree discuss political or sociological issues.  Consequentially, it seems that gaining an esteemed political voice through art is a common shared goal for today’s contemporary artists of China.