Visual art exhibitions and events with a platform for critical writing
The Prince Albert, Brighton
31 December 2004 - 31 December 2008
Reviewed by: Micheal O'Connell
A key activity of the newly formed Doomsbury Set, based in East Sussex, UK, will be to take the kinds of imagery and artefacts which escape critical attention more seriously. Generally it is seen as acceptable to state whether one does or does not like a displayed crafted or manufactured object. Presumably it is also okay to consider them in more depth. The producer might see this interest, rendered in the form of a written review say, as complimentary or at least useful regardless of whether the content is patently encouraging.
For a variety of reasons the inhabitants of Brighton are spoilt for choice when it comes to such ‘overlooked art'. The Open House scene emerged in recent years for instance and has grown to the extent that now a person leaving their front door open risks inviting an immediate flow of polite intruders. Most cafés and pubs display paintings, prints and 2D material, usually for sale. As well as those that are considered the more serious art spaces, the city is packed with craft-oriented shops and (barely) commercial galleries. Graffiti, bill board improvement exercises and apparently more subversive street art decorates the urban, yet unquestioningly somewhat provincial (not meant in the pejorative sense) landscape.
A reasonable starting point for examination is the prominent portrait of deceased radio DJ John Peel which adorns the outside of The Prince Albert, a pub and music venue located close to the main rail station.
If Marcel Duchamp pointed out that "bad art is still art" then this image, really bad art maybe, worthy of Brian Sewell-style tirade, makes a fair subject for our attentions. What kind of canonisation is this: the employment of a cross between Stalinist Social Realism and unoriginal Fantasy Art technique to commemorate the avant-garde talent-spotter? Blatantly inappropriate. If he were alive John Peel might disagree, he was no muso-snob, happy to take the Eurovision Song Contest seriously for example. A first question is whether the picture should be judged at all by its sensitivity to the subject character in question. We could be obscure and ignore the fact that this is a Memorial but for the sakes of argument let us imagine that the image's suitability for this purpose is a key criterion.
John Peel once appeared on This is Your Life and seemed reasonably uncomfortable with the focus around his personality and history. Listening to, collecting, playing records and talking to an audience through the medium of Radio were what occupied him most. Glorification, of the Albert pub wall variety, surely acts to embarrass that simplicity or integrity. Peel is not around so these arguments are hypothetical but should such an influence, one who was heard primarily, be celebrated through a crude enlarged mugshot, the visual equivalent of Snow Patrol say, at their most anodyne? Or the illustration is like those voices on radio who, following his death, mimicked Peel's intonations and habits, as if repetition of originality is still originality. What this image does is to dilute, or pollute, the collective memory.
If satire were intended then the fresco makes some sense but that effect would have to be palpable. Completely unnoticeable irony is not irony. Unfortunately the artist who took it upon himself or herself to make this, to include decorative edges, pseudo-Celtic touches around the frame, a nauseating, meant to be subtle, saintly halo to the already boringly executed central zone, was intending to produce an earnest and appreciative statement of some sort. Nothing at all is left for the imagination here, the piece argues with no one, is not deliberately imperfect in any way. Not that this is crucial but Peel peppered his radio show with plenty of, more than whimsical, wit and enjoyed highlighting his own errors: some jokiness would have been apt here.
A sense of suspense, some excitement, is built up because of the exact location: the whole portrait is not immediately revealed to those walking downwards from Brighton rail station. Perhaps the positioning could have been exploited further to unleash more of these inherent dynamic effects.
If the work was commissioned (by the proprietor of The Prince Albert say) then that is no excuse for the artist, similar to the usual ‘I was only obeying orders' justification for collusion with the indefensible. To employ an inappropriate analogy the Renaissance painters took risks to incorporate their own conceits and surreptitiously challenge their patrons. Diego Rivera did it with Rockefeller. Bighting the hand that feeds you is an admirable artistic strategy.
Other graffiti decorates the same wall, firstly a famous Banksy image, amusingly now protected by Perspex, then a photorealistic depiction of George Best, as seen from behind walking off, and a comic-style character head. All the parts, including the Peel head, are interesting and odd in their own ways. The wall is certainly seen and looked at. In contrast to galleries, which give punters the choice, outdoor imagery, whether placed there for commercial or other reasons, is imposed on passers-by. This wall incites a response: occasionally the Banksy picture is vandalised, then repaired. Some unconscious and bizarre curatorial collaboration has taken place, or still is taking place: it will be curious to watch how the ‘Albert Wall Collection' develops.
m@mocksim.co.uk |
www.mocksim.org
Venue detail:
The Prince Albert
Trafalgar Street
Brighton BN1 4ED
UK
www.myspace.com/theprincealbert
The classical notion of the frame involved creating 'edges' between pictures for them to remain self contained 'windows on the world'. The bigger the frame, the more gilded the better. It is easy to point out that the frames here on the Albert wall are not gilded, but why frame them at all? This is not even a wall that requires work. There is no guideline, no overiding ethos or criteria. Perhaps there should be... It stands however free for contributions, of which these small framed pieces are a curious example. The decision to frame such small works resonates not through size but through the sound of the decision. Volume, echos the elitist practices of the past. The frames are themselves not all uniform. Some pieces are actually framed by the residue of the glue that once presumably held the frame in place. These frames have fallen, which reminds us not of the personal inhibitions why an artist should not endeavour to touch the surface of her world, but the prohibition of this kind of touch that is monitored and controlled and managed towards a resolute full stop.
posted on 2008-10-01 by Lord Lloyd Ugo
The approach to 'The Albert' could be concieved twofold. Firstly, it may involve a critical strategy or an articulation of a particular viewpoint. Included within these 'particular viewpoints' could be those that contrive against criticism, not through engagement, or force of arguement but by absolute denial. "Absolute" denial of the thread that ties Aesthetic judgement with ethics. In rendering this critical thread impotent, certain arguements hold sway through sheer ignorance. It is the duty of the Doomsbury set to not engage with these games of non-engagement,and approach all subjects with a genuine will to understand. - True, this approach can seem leaden footed and turgid at times, but I believe serious graft and thought shed more light upon the state of things then do mere anecdotes. It is at this point that I would like to remind myself that the Paramount Comedy festival arrives in Brighton in October. Digression aside, approach also alludes to the physical encounter with 'The Albert'. As I approach I see. The Albert wall, comes in to view, The side wall of a public house comes in to view. Up to this point, the west facing wall of The Prince Albert public house has been refered to by the name of its featured contribution, John Peel Memorial. However, as mocksim points out in his original critique, other parts of the wall feature artistic endeavours, and it does appear slightly unfair to not appraise them with equivalent vigour. At some future point, the undercard of Mocksim's now legendary review should be discussed. Rather than simpy find ourselves 'talking about a wall', we could stir our coffees over two kissing policemen perhaps or find ourselves admiring the back of George Best. (This a an extract from a forthcoming review.)
posted on 2008-09-27 by Lord Lloyd Ugo
Mr Charman is correct when he discusses the tears in the eyes of John Peel. The feeling behind the mural is not in question here, whatsoever. - Infact the emotional pull of this mural, so stressed by Mr Charman is the magnet that draws in the set. Surely though, we are of stronger stuff then to believe our own taste? For if that not be the case then we must prepare ourselves, and our buildings and ready our eyes for all manner of inane mawkery. (For the record, Lord L is not working on a 12 x12 fresco of Ivor Cutler.) On the point of seriousness, Mr Charman makes a serious point. To lighten up, and to treat the subject matter, doubt seems to have been a deliberate strategy for the muralist. Using the context of the death of a celebrity, the individual, John Peel, is forgotten.
posted on 2008-09-03 by Lord Lloyd Ugo
Lighten up chaps! I think he'd have been chuffed by it, as Mocksim (rightly) points out, he wasn't much of a snob himself. The Albert's an indie/punk pub, advertising that fact is part of what the mural does. It's not a particularly good picture, but it was painted around the time loads of people were upset that he was very suddenly gone, and my first reaction on seeing it was positive - aahh, that's nice someone's done that. We're all stereotypes in one way or another, he just happened to be important to my own music taste. Agreed Radio 1 went totally overboard - especially as they were steadily marginalising him at the time - and there are imitators of his style (step forward Mr. Lamacq), but I've just taken it as amateur recognition of the effect he had on the music played in The Albert. I think it's quite nice really... I think he'd have had a tear in his eye, the emotional man he was...!
posted on 2008-09-02 by Shaun Charman
Mocksim presumes that it is okay to consider 'manufactured objects' in more depth. It should be perhaps demanded that this be the case, if the nascent manifesto of the doomsbury set be adhered to. Mocksim also points out that we are free to choose our taste. For this is a democracy after all. The point still remains however that some opinions or judgements are more informed than others. The doomsbury set wish to examine artistic judgement, seriously. What then makes an informed judgement when looking at 'John Peel Memorial'? It probably starts with the recognition of who John Peel was. It goes without saying that the artist has wanted to commemorate the life of a DJ, but at no place on the memorial does his name appear. It features as phantom, a form of cultural currency that cannot be denied. It is the stregth then of this currency that informs the artist. A semblance of representation is all that is needed, for 'all those who knew of John, will recognise of John'. This apparent ellusive touch is categorically undermined by the fact that it is by nature a commemorative mural - for whom? The mural lauds over a perfectly respectable wall. In a town where religion and worship are seen as suitably uncool, this mural takes on a strong messianic tone. A God for the unsaintly hipsters, the independents who know music from musak... An expression of cool remembrance for a humble human being that treats art not as symphony but as jingle.
posted on 2008-08-19 by Lord Lloyd Ugo
To post a comment you need to login
Back to top
One afternoon I approached the Albert wall, having dispatched the art ambulance from the mythical offices of the set as I had been informed that 'somebody's put framed little pictures on the albert wall'. Having arrived at the albert and confronted these 'framed pictures', I ventured inside to reconsider the potential for a review of such things. My brief was on the outside wall, and after three quarters of dutch larger (not wine), I realised I was writing about writing a review about something outside where I was inside. I began to wonder whether this was related to the position of the frames on wall - skiied, almost out of view up the wall. Bringing a certain Brian O'Doherty*, a seminal student tidbit of information tells me that hanging a painting higher than eye level was a result of the painting being either bad or of lesser importance to the wonders at eye level. The artist outside the Albert has clearly made some vital curatorial decisions here. Here rests a body of framed works placed high above the dustbins of the public house, they are in no place for casual, or even contemplative observation. This delightfully bizarre curatorial decision invokes two choices. The first is to not notice them, even at all, and the second is to crucially crane the neck - an act so uncomfortable that it must surely justify itself. (?) - Regardless of this height based issu, these pieces are indeed framed none the less, which elevates these works above and beyond an outside wall into the realm of O'Doherty's mystical world of hierachical hanging, into the wacky world of the institution, the white cube, the salon. This decision lingers with the writing of Mr Walter Benjamin it surely must be said. Who?
posted on 2008-10-01 by Lord Lloyd Ugo