Art in Review
The salient characteristics of his film installations are their physicality and narrative openness: the first is a strength and the second is sometimes a problem. In particular, Mr. McQueen relies on post-modern ambiguity, and the viewer's ability to supply alternative readings, in a way that can be overly familiar.
On the physical side, however, there is clear originality. Mr. McQueen favors wall-to-wall, ceiling-to-floor projections that thrust images into the room to visceral effect; extreme camera angles and passing shots that make one super-conscious of the camera as both an object and a participant in the action, and dramatic sequences that emphasize the human body either in gigantic close-up or in motion. The artist, who appears in several sequences, and his actors are black, which makes race an intrinsic element of the work, a kind of linchpin between form and content.
Paul asked me to look into how British artist Steve Mcqueen responds to questions of race in his art or statements of intent along those lines. All I have seen is purposeful evasiveness. My task is in response to my personal idea that the reason I am so impressed specifically with the work "Bear" is as follows: When encountering "Bear" you enter a room in which the film is projected larger than life on a wall filling the whole surface. The image presented is that of two black males in various stated of physical and non physical engagement. Sometimes grappling, some times leering, sometimes outwardly smiling at one another. The film is very minimalistic and is shot in black and white. What I was presented with was at once so simple, and so open ended that I was confounded suddenly. I was confounded not because of some complicated piece of empotional of graphic manipulation, I let my own self, my own personae and history fill in what I was looking at. my reaction was fueled by personal notions and societal perceptions of race, gender and sexuality. Once I was able to set those aside I was able to see that what I feared hindered me to seeing what was really great about the piece. What I find amazing is the simplicity of the beauty of movement, the dance, the humanity that is displayed. What I absolutely love is that there are two black males displayed on screen and in one fail swoop it I can see that it is about black males but not about race...but it is. It IS about race for me in that there is nothing specificly being said visually about this piece that says it has to be black males. There are no props, no location, just two bodies. There is no verbal dialogue to place national or regional dialect. This piece if it had two Caucasian males would have almost none of the same potential baggage. But since that baggage even the sexual implications is contextural to society we ourselves place that upon the piece.
For me the triumph is that the piece is about representation of black males in film and being able to read it as pure and without stigma. I am going to assume you are following this because I am not very good at explaining when something is not about race when it seems like it is...and it is...not! All I know is that thus far I have not found any interview in which Mcqueen speaks directly about the importance of race, rather there are numerous occasions in which there are representations of black people in his pieces. They are "black" by nature of being born with a melanin disposition of dark skin, they are included in the films based upon personal associations and mutual interests(ie siblings, friends), and exist fundamentally as people in a film that by the director verbally disavows as being about race.
It seems to me that being able to use language to talk about race is useful and necessary but can also be problematic when it becomes defining or expected of the artist. I think in Mcqueen's case he uses things that are quite simply unsettling at times. The usage of such device forces a emotional and intellectual conflict in the viewer. If the viewer can get though this, they allow themselves to view the real beauty of the "thing" presented. But to boil it down, make it about race, or something else makes that struggle too easy to write off . Race for example is constructed, it has no real scientific foundation for the hierarchical staging of our society. So therefore we see race where it does not exist, but it does exist in our mind. So then what is true?
No comments:
Post a Comment