Weird and incomprehensible objects, machines of unknown purpose, mystifying slogans and unprovable propositions: it must be Turner prize time again. All of the above, and much more, are to be found in Mark Titchner's peculiar arrangements of the mechanical and the hand-chiseled, the computer-animated and the mechanically challenged.
Titchner quotes Nietzsche and the biblical exhortations of trade union banners; he dabbles in phenomenology and new age nonsense — and I haven't the faintest idea what he is on about, or why he does what he does, the way he does. Titchner's optical art discs, whose pattern is borrowed from Roger Dean's original design for the Vertigo record label, revolve on their stands with an eccentric, mesmerizing wobble. Watching them turn, one is reminded of early Bridget Riley, of Marcel Duchamp's rotoreliefs and of a trillion teenage acid trips. TV monitors flare with strobe lighting, and dates taken from a Liberty human rights audit flash back at me. There are throbbing, animated Rorschach blots, a clackety racket of machinery and a deeper sonorous hum, tuned to the wavelength of the human brain.
It's like that scene in The Ipcress File, when the bad guys try to drive Michael Caine around the bend. Without a doubt, Titchner is trying to brainwash me. Critical resistance is futile. He will win the Turner prize. He is the best. Give him the money. He is the Master. I will obey.
PHOTOS: AGENCIES
The best I can say about Titchner's work is that it looks bizarre. There's the hand-carved wooden tree-thing-cum-hat-stand surmounted by a wooden model of a crystal, wired up to a heavy-handed Victorian pulpit-like object nearby, which is in turn connected to a number of boxes reminiscent of car batteries, each of which has on it a little jar containing the sawdust collected when Titchner carved the phrases emblazoned on their sides. There must be those who take Titchner's willful obscurantism for creative thinking and artistic depth, but his appeal passes me by. It's all too clever by half, I keep thinking: too many complications, too much self-conscious eccentricity.
The aesthetic is grim. Is this the kind of ugliness that we later come to see as beauty? It's the sort of question Rebecca Warren's sculpture raises. Warren has been nominated partly on the basis of her contribution to the recent Tate Triennial. Soon, artists will be nominated for the Turner prize on the strength of their previous Turner prize nominations. This is a much better show for the sculptor. I must confess to being bored by her Robert Crumb-meets-Willem de Kooning-meets-Helmut Newton big-arsed and -breasted clay floozies. Why must she always make a joke out of her sculptures?
What I like best here are her great globbery inchoate clay lumps. They bulge and seethe with life — nascent ears, tongues, orifices, nipples. They remind me of some of Lucio Fontana's sculpture.
In her deliberately scrappy, wall-mounted vitrines, Warren is beginning to go somewhere new. Inevitably, one thinks of Beuys's vitrines, of Richard Tuttle and a number of other artists. In these stage-set like interiors, populated with furry pompoms, mounds of clay planted with sticks, scraps of woodshavings, twigs, twisted bits of glowing neon, and odds and ends as seemingly inconsequential as a cherry pit and a single human hair, Warren manages to build up a strange and tense portentousness.
One work is called Sylvesternacht. Does she mean us to think of David Sylvester, whose best writing was on Giacometti? The work consists of two wall-mounted vitrines. Among other things, both contain large spheres. Is this meant to be the rotund Sylvester, hanging around in a studio or gallery?
Being comprehensible isn't everything. Art is not always there to be understood. Who knows what all the elements in Rebecca Warren's vitrines signify, or what, exactly, Tomma Abts means by what she paints? Abts shows 11 paintings here, all identically sized, all completed in the past six years. Each presents something like a spatial conundrum, with impossible perspectives and folds, inconsistent shadows and highlights, baffling geometries and unreadable progressions.
What is Abts painting, and what do her paintings allude to? Each is an event on a plane. You don't look at Abts' paintings, so much as observe them. Each is a foreign country, bounded by a vertically orientated 48cm by 38cm canvas. Sometimes the surface is marked with canals or walls, or has the appearance of scored and folded papers, struggling to achieve three dimensions. Some are reminiscent of the kinds of swirls one can only ever see in polarized light, their outlines as frozen as metal inlay in enamel.
Abts' paintings are somehow being produced at the wrong time, and belong to an alternative parallel history of modernism. She has spoken of wanting to make paintings that belong in the future. People talk about experiencing art in the here and now: hers exists at a tangent to the present, in an unspecifiable there and then. This, in part, is what is so good about them.
Some paintings depict a kind of imaginary space — inside the drawer of an old desk, the folds of a patterned handkerchief in a pocket. One thinks of wooden marquetry, of crumpled cellophane, of targets, unknown semaphores and flags. Why are these paintings so memorable? I think it is because of their evident conviction, the restraint and reserve with which each is delivered. Every painting is unmistakably by its author, each quite unlike its neighbor. The world Abts depicts is utterly consistent, even with all its anomalies and flaws.
Phil Collins was short listed for this year's Deutsche Borse photography prize, and his presence there struck me as something of a category error. Collins uses photography, and is concerned very much with what happens to people when they have a camera pointed at them, but he is not — at least not in a way I find interesting — a photographer; he's a filmmaker. Encountering his work for the first time, people might confuse his Turner prize show for the work of Kutlug Ataman, who was short listed two years ago (and not simply because Collins's subjects here are Turkish, as is Ataman, although that compounds the problem).
Collins' The Return of the Real (gertcegin geri donusu), originally commissioned for the 2005 Istanbul Biennial, consists of a number of interviews, each about an hour long. Because of a technical glitch during my visit, only one interview was being replayed, over and over. Cajoled into marrying a stranger on a reality TV show, Meral (“I marry a lot, so I'm used to divorcing a lot!”) told her life story — her abusive father, her psychotic brother, her many mistaken marriages. I was so fascinated with this damaged woman's story, I completely forgot it was meant to be part of an artwork in the Turner prize.
A second version of Return of the Real is in production in Bilbao, and Collins plans a third with British participants. He has built a fully functioning office within the Turner prize show at the Tate, called shady lane productions and staffed five days a week.
There may well be those who feel their lives have been ruined by their participation in the Turner prize, which itself includes a modicum of television exposure. Will the Turner contenders be queuing, in the full gaze of visitors to the show, to tell the stories of their ruin for Collins's project, after the winner is announced? Who should win anyway? Who is making the best art, and what does that mean nowadays? Abts and Collins are the most developed in my view. I think Collins has made more concise and telling works elsewhere. Abts' quiet and disturbing paintings seem utterly right and unexpected. They ought to win.
In late October of 1873 the government of Japan decided against sending a military expedition to Korea to force that nation to open trade relations. Across the government supporters of the expedition resigned immediately. The spectacle of revolt by disaffected samurai began to loom over Japanese politics. In January of 1874 disaffected samurai attacked a senior minister in Tokyo. A month later, a group of pro-Korea expedition and anti-foreign elements from Saga prefecture in Kyushu revolted, driven in part by high food prices stemming from poor harvests. Their leader, according to Edward Drea’s classic Japan’s Imperial Army, was a samurai
The following three paragraphs are just some of what the local Chinese-language press is reporting on breathlessly and following every twist and turn with the eagerness of a soap opera fan. For many English-language readers, it probably comes across as incomprehensibly opaque, so bear with me briefly dear reader: To the surprise of many, former pop singer and Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) ex-lawmaker Yu Tien (余天) of the Taiwan Normal Country Promotion Association (TNCPA) at the last minute dropped out of the running for committee chair of the DPP’s New Taipei City chapter, paving the way for DPP legislator Su
It’s hard to know where to begin with Mark Tovell’s Taiwan: Roads Above the Clouds. Having published a travelogue myself, as well as having contributed to several guidebooks, at first glance Tovell’s book appears to inhabit a middle ground — the kind of hard-to-sell nowheresville publishers detest. Leaf through the pages and you’ll find them suffuse with the purple prose best associated with travel literature: “When the sun is low on a warm, clear morning, and with the heat already rising, we stand at the riverside bike path leading south from Sanxia’s old cobble streets.” Hardly the stuff of your
April 22 to April 28 The true identity of the mastermind behind the Demon Gang (魔鬼黨) was undoubtedly on the minds of countless schoolchildren in late 1958. In the days leading up to the big reveal, more than 10,000 guesses were sent to Ta Hwa Publishing Co (大華文化社) for a chance to win prizes. The smash success of the comic series Great Battle Against the Demon Gang (大戰魔鬼黨) came as a surprise to author Yeh Hung-chia (葉宏甲), who had long given up on his dream after being jailed for 10 months in 1947 over political cartoons. Protagonist