|
|
| Context and point of reference... Santa Mičule, Art critic Review of Grafika-S exhibition at Riga Art Space 24.01.–06.03.2014 and 16th Tallinn Print Triennial exhibition Literacy – Illiteracy at Kumu Art Museum 07.02.–01.06.2014 | |
| Two mutually unrelated exhibitions of graphic art were unveiled in early 2014. Both events were motivated by completely different conditions, and their simultaneity is a mere coincidence – the exhibition entitled Grafika-s at Riga Art Space (RAS) had been conceived as an attempt at emancipating graphic art and the understanding of it in the context of latvian art, while Literacy – Illiteracy is yet another point of reference for the highly refined estonian graphic art tradi- tions cultivated over many years. No less different were the aims, formats and scales of the expositions; therefore, instead of comparing both events i offer a brief insight into two different ways of contemplating the topicality of graphic art in contemporary culture. GRAFIKA-S The Grafika-s exhibition, organised in cooperation with the “grafikas kamera” association and curator inga Šteimane, was advertised in the media as the largest and, therefore, the most significant event devoted to graphic art over the past twenty years. the exhibition was an endeavour at creating an all-embracing overview of current latvian graphic art, acknowledging the presence of this scene in the works of artists who work in both a traditional and interdisciplinary manner. Notwithstanding the ambitious bid to highlight graphics as a significant medium in contemporary art, the conditions of the exhibition considerably narrowed down its scale – it included only works created in past three years, raising doubts as to whether such a short time frame is able to duly represent what is up-to-date and give an insight into the diversity of graphic art. As Grafika-s to a greater or lesser extent reflected the status quo of contemporary graphic art within the latvian art scene, after seeing the exhibition, one inevitably had to resume attempts at defining its too blurred borders and compare one’s assumptions with the interpretation offered. the amplitude of the works on display ranged from having a technically direct to a purely associative connection with graphics; namely, graphic aesthetics had been rendered as legitimate a form of graphic art as works reproduced mechanically or digitally (frankly speaking, it was surprising that photographic and video artists had been ignored). Nevertheless, on the whole, such a position is not convincing; if anything creating associations with graphics can be a work of graphic art, the medium loses its independence and risks becoming a part of other media. the interdisciplinary character of modern graphics makes it difficult to formulate an unambiguous definition, while this state of uncertainty has a certain charm that was also felt in the RAS exposition. In terms of numbers, it was drawing and its form-building elements (line, shape, proportions of light and dark areas) that dominated the graphics, forging a link between the classical and the contemporary as the unifying criterion. too little attention was paid to reproducibility, which, in my opinion, is a more important feature of the contemporary art situation than drawing. it is the reproducibility potential that, in its day, made graphics into a socially important form of art and the most vivid manifestation of the possibilities of the “power” of an image. In the era of digital reproducibility, the relationship between the original and the copy has become even more subtle, interlacing our daily lives and culture in a number of complex ways – the possibilities for reproducing and spreading visual information are almost unlimited. in this respect, the installations displayed at Grafika-s seemed especially captivating because, as three-dimensional objects, they are the most difficult to reproduce, demanding the physical presence of the viewer. Works by laura feldberga and Artūrs virtmanis pleasantly balanced between the genres of dimensionalised graphics and installation, transgressing the rules of graphics and reproducible art; both works can be perceived only in actual presence, although their principal means of expression are graphical to the utmost. Works produced in traditional and improvised graphic techniques were displayed as equal, creating a wish for clearer borders between both, which was regrettably not offered even at the level of the display arrangement. however, the root of the problem extends beyond the concept of the exhibition. in the absence of any general analytical review on the development of graphic art in the history of latvian art it is not easy to see its significance for contemporary art. in the RAS exhibition, where works by classic artists were displayed beside technological experiments, the former left an unduly old-agey impression, as the conceptual accents of the exhibition targeted the so-called trespassers and works by the younger generation. No dialogue took place between the two graphic art strategies, raising hope that representatives of traditional graphic art (gunārs Krollis, ilze lībiete, vladislavs grišins, imants Krepics and others) are still to see the triumphant exhibition they genuinely deserve. | |
 View from the Grafika-S exhibition. 2014 Publicity photo Courtesy of Riga Art space | |
| Due to this, special interest arose about works balancing on the border between traditional and non-traditional graphics. Works by maija Kurševa, inga Ģibiete and Reinis eglītis attract attention by disclosing and in a certain way deconstructing graphic technologies while remaining faithful to their fundamental principles. it is in the works of these artists that the evolution of graphic art and the ability to innovatively articulate the conventional means of expression is felt. On the whole, formal values prevailed over the content. Almost the only subject highlighted was the medium of execution, which thus became the main content of the exhibition. instead of actively expressing artistic ideas, feelings or narratives, one saw toying with the formal potentialities of graphic art and a search for “graphicality”. perhaps the exhibition format was to blame here, because it offered specific features of the medium as the main direction the viewers should focus on in their perception. While the accent was placed on the visuality of art, on its technical and formal qualities, the emotional and intellectual contents of the works more often than not went unnoticed. the works by veronika frolova, vilnis putrāms, Rasa jansone and liene Bondare should be highlighted as pleasant exceptions; against the backdrop of the overall formalism, they stood out with the capacity of accentuating the suitability of graphic means of expression for rendering the feelings of the era and matters topical for the society. Returning to the basic idea of the Grafika-s exhibition, it should be concluded that the wish to offer a holistic, all-embracing picture also turned out to be its main stumbling block, because the outcome was a show resembling the Art Academy’s ЯRMARKA (an annual student exhibition and charity fair); the absence of definite quality criteria or any other guidelines prevented the exhibition from becoming an art event with a capital A. the violations of traditional graphic art laws looked like small sidesteps, still leaving intact the umbilical cords connecting them with the tradition. the works were captivating each on its own, but the exposition as a whole was too fragmented and irregular to leave a convincing impression. LITERACY – ILLITERACY Due to the long-lasting traditions of the estonian print triennial and the country’s targeted cultural policy, the 16th tallinn print triennial showcases high-quality works while providing a deeper insight into the aspects that make graphics an art medium worthy of attention and a triennial. this year’s theme, “literacy – illiteracy”, seems ideally suited to the specific character of graphic art while enabling the associations created by the title to also penetrate a wider network of cultural codes. the title includes both the historical connection of graphic art with the traditions of book art and illustration and the language of art as one of the most specific types of human communication. the theme announced by the council of the tallinn print triennial has been addressed by artists specially invited by Danish curator maria Kjær themsen (including those from latvia: the Tekstgrupa “Orbīta” association, Darja melņikova, oļa vasiļjeva) as well as by artists who passed an open call (leonards laganovskis). this dual strategy can be regarded as the success of the exhibition, because the curator’s vision is supplemented with more varied interpretations of literacy and illiteracy that do not inhibit the homogeneity and focus of the display. At the triennial, the idea of literacy is expanded to include the ability to detect new codes of the modern world, indirectly declaring those as one of the most vital modern-day requirements for survival (perhaps estonians are thus implementing their version of a survival Kit?). the overall mood of the exhibition can be characterised as poetic irony about the information structures surrounding us, which increasingly determine the existence and identity of contemporary society and at the same time are being more deeply and more imperceptibly integrated into our daily habits. the concept of the exhibition, describes in detail in the triennial catalogue, emphasised the artists’ attempts at illustrating the most widespread models of communication among the public by graphic means of expression, seeking visual (read: graphical) alternatives to verbal language as well as reflecting on the ways those two interact in art and daily life. Admittedly, the outcome is more modest, and for the most part the exhibition features various methods of visualising verbal language: transfers of meanings, witty or paradoxical metaphors, obvious deconstructions and other conventional methods of contemporary art. | |
 Artūrs Virtmanis. The Writing on The Wall / measured, weighted, divided. Graphite powder, rubber powder. 2014 Publicity photo Courtesy of the artist and Riga Art space | |
| The largest part of the exhibition has been allotted to works related to the original object of literacy – books – and their ideological, graphic and architectural construction. this was obviously determined by the interest of the invited curator, themsen, in the book as an art form, which is demonstrated by several of her earlier projects and research. in the works of a number of artists, the aesthetics of book graphic art is played upon by means of letters, using them as visual artefacts unrelated to their meanings (Raul meel, cia Rinne). in a number of works the usual carriers of information (words, letters, identifiable signs, symbols, etc.) have been reduced to their basic visual features, precluding any narrative content or rendering it secondary in relation to graphical form (carolin Weinert, eglė vertelkaitė, peter thörneby, zofia Rogula and others). When viewing and trying to “read” these works, conventional methods of perception become useless and the viewer must once again learn to read, complying with the grammar newly created by each artist. Simultaneously with these semiotic games, the ability of graphic art itself to serve as a communications system is put to test. On the whole, the dramatic composition of the exhibition is very uniform, and thus the works deviating from the common guidelines and defying facile categorisation attract greater interest. in this respect, Radio Wall created by “Orbīta” is one of the most interesting works, and the context of the triennial has enabled it to unfold itself more fully than earlier exhibitions. this has happened not only due to the effective visual presentation of the installation but also the expanse of its language. in the majority of works at the tallinn print triennial, the language seems downsized, reduced to graphic signs, while in Radio Wall it is quite the opposite – it is elaborate, even hyperbolised, turning a syllable into a vast paragraph. At the same time, “Orbīta’s” installation stands out as one of the few that are able to overpower the sterile designer aesthetics of the exhibition. Now and then, the viewer can catch a glimpse of more romantic cross-sections of the triennial’s theme. Artists such as Andreas tali, claudia terstappen and Annabelle craven-jones have addressed other layers of language, exploring it, through themes of religion and psychotherapy, as an irrational means of communication and an almost magic ritual unaffected by logical conventions. A slightly mystical mood surrounds the photographs by Rūta Spelskytė and liina Siib, in which the literacy–illiteracy confrontation has been transposed into the contrast between nature and culture. Beside the official Grand Prix, i wish to highlight one more intriguing entry in the exhibition, namely, the work of a young estonian artist named johan elm. the work consists of photographs from his own childhood that have been displayed on the reverse side; it is not the image itself that is presented to the viewer but instead the brief description on the back of the photo. Against the exhibition’s overall background illegibilities, misrepresentations, absurdities and trickeries, elm’s work stands out as a well-pointed, unpretentious commentary on the relationship between text and image, appealing to the viewer’s emotional instead of intellectual literacy skills. On the whole, the 16th tallinn print triennial offers more illiteracy than literacy, the majority of works functioning as situations modelled by artists, in which the viewer must come to terms with his or her sudden illiteracy and learn to read in unaccustomed ways. one gradually and inevitably gets tired of this manner of viewing the exhibition and wishes to return to a milder model of the art–viewer relationship. the RAS exhibition did not make it clear to the viewer what can actually be achieved by means of graphics, while the tallinn print triennial has demonstrated media horizons broad enough for questions about the definitions of graphic art to seem naive, even unnecessary. Translator into English: Sarmīte Lietuviete | |
| go back | |
