next >
reviews criticism

'greymatters', on-line, London, UK: 14th May, 2001 This exhibition was viewed under rather difficult circumstnces which both enhanced but marred the experience. Rather than conventionally considering the works on the wall, I went through the exhibition on-line. This presented some advantages: the ability to consider the exhibition as a whole as thumbnails; the ability to flick through the exhibition quickly, so as to examine detailed differences between the pieces; and of course availability. The downside with on line viewing is detail; presentation; size; and ambience--while it is a pleasure to virtually escape my desk, I would have prefered to wander around an exhibition. I also would have liked to consider framing and spacing between pictures... perhaps the ideal is to have an online connection to the exhibition in the gallery? As far as the works go, the artist, known to me as TallSkinny@aol or jb, considers the embodiment of 'womanhood' in contemporary (American?) society. What appears to be (at first glance) an identical body (female, nude, sans pubic hair, anatomically represented) addressing different 'questions': femaleness (in 'ovary and ovary again'; 'presentation is everything'; 'mush'--if we remember that muschi is German for pussy; 'open'; and 'do i have...'); relationships (in 'monogamy'; 'do i have...'; 'untitled'; 'stuck'); indentity (in 'ovary and ovary again'; 'within reason'; 'presentation is everything'; 'do i have...'; 'big hair'). These are not exahuastive lists, but they do mean to suggest that these three issues can be read in many of TallSkinny's works in this exhibition. The specific piece to which I want to draw attention is 'do i have...', with a mole on the left breast of the model drawing (most of these models do not have this mole); with 'Fuck me' written in reverse (are we supposed to read this command the right way while taking the model 'a tergo' or anally?); with more of a tan (all over) than some of the other illiustrations. Here, TallSkinny can be read problematising the sexual contract. The model is objectified, open, commanding, but is doing little to hide her desire to be taken from behind... in fact that is the only way to read her command the right way, as it were. But another reading of this is a small resistence to being sexually approached. And yet another way of reading the piece is the acknowledgement that the model is being considered sexually, and so putting up a last minute resistence to the phallis eye of the beholder. This multi-signification in the works in 'greymatters' is typical. A similar (re)readign of 'monogmay' (with its Admit one ticket) would be possible. Even the title copmmands us to think about the works on display as problematic representations of femininity and sexuality, as well as volition and objectification. One of the problems, as mentioned above, with looking at this exhibition on line is that not all of the objects can be made out. I have no idea what the objects are in 'flexible' or 'putting everything in perspective', although this is a part of the charm of these titles; a delicious irolny which runs throughout the exhibition. Other examples of this irony are 'stuck'; 'temporary'; 'rough' and 'fine'. We are compelled to reconsider the everydayness of the found objects through the lenses of femininity, sexuality, identity and embodiment. In this sense, the exhibition was very good. But, as I have said, it would have been nice to see these objects 'in the flesh', as the techniques used--especially using found objects--becomes very homogenised through a two dimensinal representation. Ivan Crozier, Research Fellow, Wellcome Centre for the History of Medicine at UCL, 24 Eversholt St, London, NW1 2AD, email: i.crozier@ucl.ac.uk 'ignorance is the first requisite of the historian--ignorance, which simplifies and clarifies, which selects and omits, with a placid perfection unobtainable by the highest art.' --Lytton Strachey