Sculpture in the Close 2017
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Jesus College, Cambridge Sculpture in the Close 2017 26 june – 17 september 1 Sculpture in the Close 2017 Text copyright © 2017 the Master and Fellows of Jesus College, Cambridge Photographs copyright © Phyllida Barlow and Louise Bourgeois, Hauser & Wirth; Mona Hatoum, White Cube; Shirazeh Houshiary, The Lisson Gallery; Kim Lim, Alex Turnbull Studios; Cornelia Parker, Frith Street Gallery; Agnes Thurnauer, Valerie Bach Gallery; Rachael Whiteread, Gagosian; Alison Wilding, Karsten Schubert Jesus College Cambridge Works of Art Committee: Colin Renfrew (Chairman), Rod Mengham (Curator), Jean Bacon, Anthony Bowen, Andrea Brand, James Clackson, Donal Cooper, Juliet Mitchell, Sian Stinchcombe, Bill Stronge, Preti Taneja, Claudia Tobin Catalogue notes by Rod Mengham Editing and design by The Running Head Limited, Cambridge www.therunninghead.com Printed in Great Britain by Swan Print Ltd, Bedford www.swanprint.org.uk Proceeds from the sale of this catalogue go to the Friends of Art at Jesus College fund Cover photograph from Phyllida Barlow, Untitled: stacked chairs (2014) Foreword The Master and Fellows of Jesus College are delighted Valuable assistance was provided by the Manciple, once again to host Sculpture in the Close. In so doing Simon Hawkey, the Development Office under Richard we acknowledge our gratitude to Lord Renfrew, who Dennis, the communications officer, Helen Harris, the so imaginatively launched this concept during his head gardener, Paul Stearn, our maintenance manager, mastership, and we celebrate the fact that this year’s Richard Secker, maintenance supervisor, Chris Brown, exhibition is the fifteenth in the series. Jesus College and our Head Porter, Grahame Appleby. We are also is known throughout Cambridge, and indeed beyond, grateful for assistance from Deborah Mansfield in the for these marvellous exhibitions of contemporary Bursary and the Ecclesiastical Insurance Company. sculpture. The generosity of the sculptors in The vibrancy and success of modern art exhibitions lending their work for this exhibition is gratefully is increasingly dependent on donations, notably the acknowledged. We have also received absolutely support of the Friends of Art of Jesus College. In invaluable assistance from their galleries, who have particular, the continuation of the Sculpture in the been exceptionally committed and supportive in the Close exhibition programme has been made possible preparations for this exhibition. this year through the success of the College’s new print The works of art committee of the College, led portfolio – one quarter of the edition of 100 has been in such an excellent manner by the curator, Dr Rod sold so far. We are indebted to Mrs Mary Mochary and Mengham, has been responsible for mounting this the Kasser Mochary Foundation for the seed-funding exhibition, working closely with its advisor, Tim that enabled us to launch this project; and we are very Marlow, Director of Artistic Programmes at The grateful to those who have already purchased copies, Royal Academy. Tim has been the essential link in for helping us to continue the vision of bringing the chain connecting the College with the wider art exciting and edifying contemporary art to Cambridge in community. The committee has also liaised with a College setting. the gardens committee, chaired by Dr David Hanke. ian white, Master 3 Phyllida Barlow Letters in ochre indicate the work’s position on the map One is tempted to see this highly suggestive on page 24. sculpture as an allegory of contemporary art, riskily asserting its value and importance regardless of A Untitled: megaphone audience reaction. Like the myth of Echo and Narcissus, B Untitled: stacked chairs it is a cautionary tale, with moral implications. Even when not needed, the chairs combine into an assertive Phyllida Barlow intends her two Untitled works of presence; perhaps especially when they are not needed, 2014 to be shown together. One includes a large they form a large and intractable mass; and yet each one cone-like funnel resembling a megaphone, while the is capable of implying an individual human presence, other consists of a large number of stacked chairs. a reminder that people are not mere echoes of one The viewer of the sculptures is bound to imagine the another, but are unrepeatable mixtures of thoughts, emission of sounds that have long since ceased, and feelings and perceptions with unique histories of the rapt attentiveness of an audience that has long experience. The megaphone, on the other hand, is not since departed. There seems to be more than an echo a guarantee of human presence, but is just as likely to here of the myth of Echo and Narcissus that has often represent human absence; if not disconnection, then been used as the subject of artworks. The imposing remote connection to a source of dubious authority. megaphone that is angle-poised on its tall mast recalls The implied attitude of audience to speaker is one the figure of Narcissus leaning over his pool, while of passive reception rather than interaction. And the the pile of redundant seating implies his neglect of his somewhat oversized dimensions of the megaphone lover, Echo. In the myth, Narcissus’ rejection of the are a strong hint to the imagination that the balance nymph Echo causes her to fade away until she dwindles of power in the relationship is unequal. Barlow’s to the function of a sounding board, echoing whatever combination of elements in this installation is very he says. She is nothing more than an aural mirror – the emphatic – its silence is intended to be deafening. It equivalent of a reflecting pool. The duplicate chairs of challenges the artist never to take for granted the terms Barlow’s assemblage are visual echoes of one another; of transmission in contemporary art, and challenges moreover, they are folded flat and have lost both the viewers, the imaginary audience, to act up whenever volume and function. the signal threatens to fade out. 5 6 Louise Bourgeois C Eyebenches granite accentuate beds and mirrors while leaving out other items of furniture. They resemble distorted memories The eyes, and their role in the development of the self, which the passage of time has calibrated to focus on are right at the centre of Louise Bourgeois’s art. Her the sources of trauma and obsession. Access to the entire oeuvre revolves around certain acts of witnessing interior of these spaces is generally barred, imposing and the complex feelings aroused in the witness unable on the inquisitive viewer the status of voyeur and either to avow or deny the nature of what they have would-be intruder. And there is often an area that seen. While still a child, Bourgeois became aware of remains invisible unless by means of reflection in a her father’s acts of infidelity with her own governess, in mirror. The viewer is placed in a position evoking that a relationship that persisted with the connivance of her of the child who has stumbled across the secret of adult mother. Navigating her way through the contradictory sexuality without being able to see it for what it is. nature of this experience turned Bourgeois into an The two enormous eyes of stone that stare out from artist for whom acts of sight are always caught up the end of Library Court in the current exhibition are in an unstable and troubling negotiation between completely unseeing, but their place in the oeuvre of permission and prohibition. Louise Bourgeois makes their blindness psychological. Many of her installations, especially the Cells In Greek mythology, Medusa turned to stone all those series, complicate the act of viewing. The name Cells who gazed upon her, but was turned to stone herself by itself suggests how the building blocks of life can the reflection of her own eyes in the polished shield of be used to construct limitations on our freedom of Perseus. The subjectivity encoded in the work of Louise manoeuvre. The artworks assembled under that name Bourgeois is paralysed by the contemplation of a secret are makeshift constructions that combine elements of on the verge of being revealed; a truth that the eyes of an early twentieth-century domestic setting that might the mind may not acknowledge, short of destruction. 7 Mona Hatoum D Bunker mild steel tubing and spatial distance; exilic in the pull they exert on the artist’s sense of self as relics of a familiar world made The work of Mona Hatoum is marked by the condition strange – as reference points and means of orientation of exile from the Beirut where she was born and that seem the more essential the more they grow brought up as a member of a Palestinian family obscure. itself already in exile from its country of origin. But although these works have specific origins, She was in London in 1975 during the outbreak of they are presented as part of an art exhibition in the Lebanese civil war and has been based largely which their reception ties them to the category of in the UK for the subsequent forty years. Her work sculpture. Viewers are unlikely to grasp immediately Bunker (2011) consists of a series of architectural the historical experience intrinsic to their production forms that reproduce the proportions of buildings and will recognize instead their similarity to the classic in Beirut damaged over the period of long drawn- works of high modernism. They echo the forms and out conflict during her absence from the city. They materials used in a tradition that emphasized pure are stylized substitutes for the original buildings, all abstraction from the burden of representation. Hatoum constructed in sheet steel pierced in the same grid seems to occupy this position strategically in order to pattern in a formalized representation of the effects restore the link between art and history, aesthetics and of shellfire.