▽ GLAM! THE PERFORMANCE OF STYLE @ TATE

Last Thursday evening, a revival of audacious 70’s culture swept over Liverpool with the highly anticipated Glam! The Performance of Style opening at Tate Liverpool. Art aside, the exhibition and the evening itself, was quite a spectacle. Upon arrival guests were greeted by a huge, beaming image of Mark Bolan’s face, projected onto one of the dock buildings and this was just a taster of the flashy, garish evening that was to follow. Outside of the Tate a huge, glittering disco ball threw glints of light across a long queue of exhibition attendants; inside, however, there was music, drinks and I dare say a reasonable amount of sequins and glitter, as some attendants had enthusiastically embraced the theme of the night through their attire. Whilst the buzzing atmosphere did unfortunately put me in a mood that was not entirely suitable for viewing art, the high level of energy present in the Tate foyer corresponded fittingly to the spirited nature of the exhibition. Naturally, as it was residing on the bottom floor, the night began with a viewing of the Sylvia Sleigh exhibition. I enjoyed the draughtsmanship within Sleigh’s pieces and I valued the chance to see an exhibition, which denoted traditional artistry, as I would clearly later experience a much more pop-driven exhibition, expectedly lacking in this. Nevertheless, Sleigh’s work made a suitable starter for the evening, as her paintings featured many androgynous figures, and androgyny was of course central to glam culture and style.

As Glam! The Performance of Style is the very first exhibition to explore 70’s glam culture in depth, and to consider it in the context of art, I must admit that I withheld rather high expectations. However, I was extremely pleased to ascertain that the exhibition possessed a keen art focus, as I did worry hitherto that it would be mostly pop-focused and merely full of memorabilia. Even though I knew this was an illogical thing to expect from the likes of an established artistic institution like Tate, I did initially have my doubts, as glam is fundamentally a pop movement. Nevertheless, I need not have worried as Tate ingeniously denoted evocative links between some of the most celebrated artists of the twentieth century and leading figures of the glam movement. For example, Warhol’s connection to Bowie was addressed explicitly. One may note Bowie’s song Andy Warhol, which paid tribute to the artist and his curious character on his 1971 album Hunky Dory. On the subject of Warhol, I was extremely pleased that some of his eminent shoe illustrations from his time working as a commercial illustrator had been successfully employed into the exhibition. The whimsical style of the illustrations evidently linked well to the flamboyant fashions that epitomised glam culture and there was, in fact, plenty of these on display - they seemed to appear mostly in the Glamscape UK part of the exhibition. Possibly my favourite fashion relic exhibited was the beautiful, extravagant Brian Eno costume designed by Carol McNicoll. I had actually recalled seeing the costume a few years ago at the V&A, so it was nice to be reacquainted with it again; it certainly is a great design, which in itself encapsulates the overt garishness of glam culture.

Although a great deal of the pieces on display, whether they were art or memorabilia, could have been viewed as unconventional, and in some cases controversial, I felt there was seldom anything that one may consider too overt. The only exception to this for me was Allen Jones’ fetishistic mannequin sculptures - Chair and Table. Although I understood the relevancy of these pieces within an exhibition such as Glam!, I did not enjoy how the pieces seemed to celebrate sexually objectified women, and I was also uneasy at the fact that they conveyed women morphing into domestic objects. Furthermore, it was evocative to see such pieces as this displayed when there was clearly a feminist exhibition residing on the ground floor.  Without doubt, my personal highlight of the exhibition was Candy Darling on Her Deathbed, a beautiful photograph taken by Peter Hujar. As someone intensely interested in the Warhol factory scene I am familiar with Candy Darling’s story and therefore found this piece very moving. I loved how Candy is still glamorous and beautiful despite her impending death. Even though the glamour, the makeup and the intention to appear as a woman may be understood as a façade, Candy seemed to be saying that this was his true self and therefore this is the way in which he wished to leave the world. The photograph moved me in every possible way, as it revealed how identity does not have to be something we are all summoned with at birth, but rather something we can choose and develop. Interestingly, this stance is arguably central to the likes of a pop movement such as glam, as it enabled youngsters to reinvent themselves in new, exciting ways through their means of fashion and musical taste. 

In terms of curation I was almost entirely impressed. There was a coherent structure to the exhibition with it being split into two distinct parts, or ‘Glamscapes’, as they were called. I also appreciated how glam memorabilia had been placed amongst the art, as it seemed to make the statement that the objects were art within themselves. The only problem I had with the curation was its system of captioning. One was required to consult an exhibition guide that had been handed to them on arrival if they wanted to lookup any particular pieces. There were no captions on the walls, just numbers next to each piece; it was the viewer’s job, to link a piece’s number to its corresponding caption in their exhibition leaflet.  However, conversely, I suppose if there had been captions on the walls the exhibition may have looked extremely busy. I was also quite disappointed that I was not able to see Man Ray’s Marcel Duchamp as Rrose Selavy. In my search for the piece, one of the gallery invigilators had informed me that there had been a bit of trouble with the curation of the piece beforehand. Apparently, there was great debate as to where to display the piece, but it ended up getting late, the exhibition was due to start, and the piece was eventually not put on display. As much as I admire Tate’s care for perfecting their curation I think keeping the piece hidden from the public probably caused more of an inconvenience than it being inadequately placed within the exhibition.

Prior to attending the exhibition I did not possess a succinct definition of glam, and still, after my visit, I somehow maintain this deficiency. However, my general opinion of the exhibition is unquestionably positive. On the whole, it was extremely refreshing to visit a much more lighthearted, pop-focused exhibition after months of heavy conceptually-driven art taking over the city with the biennial a few months ago. Likewise, it was stimulating to be in an environment where works of fine art and pop relics cohabited, as this made the exhibition’s narrative more coherent and provided an incessant array of beautiful visual stimuli, as one walked throughout the various spaces.