BLOG Category: StudentAmbassadorProgram

Edinburgh-born artist Hew Locke grew up in Guyana.  His work builds upon his own heritage and experience to provide insight into the themes of colonial and post-colonial power.  Part of European colonial competition since the sixteenth century, Guyana fell under British control in 1814.  Locke witnessed the birth of independent Guyana in 1966, and his work explores the ways in which artists created and expressed nationhood.

Locke employs a variety of symbols in his work to explore colonialism and its legacy as well as themes of cultural identity.  He uses modern materials in a range of media (painting, photography, sculpture, installation) to consider the impact of a wide array of historical phenomena.  His work alludes to the European ‘age of discovery’ as well as the roots, height, and downfall of British imperialism.  He identifies with the Windrush generation, commenting on the mass migration of people from the Caribbean to Britain in the wake of the second world war, and considers their ongoing struggles with national identity.  The layering of materials in his work reflects the complex variety of past and present realities he explores.

HINTERLAND

Locke has layered paint over a photograph of the statue of Queen Victoria in his hometown of Georgetown in Guyana.  During the socialist uprising of 1970, the statue was dumped in the Georgetown Botanical Gardens before being restored in 1990.  The painted images of skeletons and oppressed peoples over the monument symbolise the exploitation of native peoples under empire.  Queen Victoria’s statue becomes a symbol of the oppressive and exploitative nature of colonialism.

This work also provides a fascinating insight into how Guyana relates to its own past and nationhood.  The act of dumping the statue represents the casting off of more than a century of oppression; however, its restoration shows how British imperialism forms an inescapable part of Guyana’s nationhood and cultural identity.  Perhaps the faded, almost ghostly figures indicate that, despite this statue’s restoration, the past cannot be forgotten or ignored.

SOUVENIR

This series is made up of a collection of busts of Queen Victoria and her family, like those displayed in middle class Victorian homes.  Thus, they represent British cultural identity and symbolise imperial pride.

Locke ornaments these busts with a collage of lace, metal, and various symbols of colonialism.  He includes military badges and medals from the Benin campaign and the Ugandan and Zulu wars.  These bloodthirsty wars of the late nineteenth century destroyed African kingdoms and cultural traditions in the name of British imperial domination.  By draping these busts with medals, Locke illustrates the heavy burden of history and the atrocities enacted in the name of British imperialism.

Not only do these busts symbolise the formation of British identity, and the warlike nature of colonialism, they also symbolise the loss of native cultures.  Cowrie shells can also be found in the collage.  In the past, these shells were used throughout the Americas, Asia, and Africa as a form of currency.  These are juxtaposed with English coins, stamped with the image of the royal family, to show how native cultures were stamped out and replaced by symbols of British imperialism.

FOR THOSE IN PERIL ON THE SEA

Timeless and universal, boats can be extremely evocative.  They symbolise travel, trade, and warfare and are employed by Locke to explore themes of globalisation and colonialism.  This haunting installation comprises 70 miniature boats hanging from the ceiling, filling an entire room.  The procession of ships travels through the air, noticeably bereft of sailors and passengers.

A mixture of contemporary and historical boats, this installation symbolises the timeless nature of sea travel.  Boats become symbols of hope, danger, happiness, and despair.  Thus, these pieces constitute a memorial for all of the lives touched by global sea travel and its consequences.

SEA POWER

Another large-scale installation, made up of cord and plastic beads glued to the wall, Locke’s Sea Power is truly awe-inspiring.

This piece uses the symbolism of boats to reflect on the very roots of colonialism, the so-called European ‘Age of Discovery’.  It draws on ancient and Renaissance imagery as well as images of contemporary shipping and oil refineries.  The skeletal imagery illustrates the exploitation, warfare, and suffering made possible by European discovery and sea travel.  The legacy of imperialism, in the form of globalisation and consumerism, or ‘neo-colonialism,’ is also visible.  Thus, in this piece, Locke utilises the symbol of the boat to point to the centrality of sea travel in colonialism and its ongoing legacy.

Royalty and boats are only two of many symbols employed by Locke to explore themes of colonialism and national identities.  The juxtaposition of modern materials and historical subject matter sheds light on the ongoing legacies of European colonialism.  Such symbols are so important to his work that his own website is categorised in this way.

Locke’s Official Website

Artists and topics on the Art Story that connect to similar topics and are interesting to explore:

• Kara Walker
• Kehinde Wiley
• Identity Politics
• Harlem Renaissance

Just as Pablo Picasso challenged realistic forms of presenting a human and Vincent van Gogh revolutionized colour, Sol LeWitt pushed the boundaries and definition of what constitutes art. His art focused on the concept of art rather than the physical craft of making art objects. Working as a night receptionist at the Museum of Modern Art let him become friends with future art critic Lucy Lippard and artists Dan Flavin, Robert Mangold, and Robert Ryman. And he was introduced to the work of artists such as Robert Rauschenberg, Frank Stella and Jasper Johns, who influenced his later career. Admiring their art made the young LeWitt think that an idea behind an artwork was more significant than its material form.

In 1967, in his essay Paragraphs on Conceptual Art, LeWitt claimed, “When an artist uses a conceptual form of art, it means that all the planning and decisions are made beforehand, and the execution is a perfunctory affair.” Abandoning the belief that the role of an artist is to be a craftsman, he decided to approach art from a different angle. He was guided by the idea that creative thoughts in the head are more important than products made by hand. “The idea,” he said, “becomes the machine that makes the art”.

If art is a creative human activity that stimulates emotionally and intellectually, then Sol LeWitt’s works are most certainly art. They make us question the things we’ve been taught by history and allow us to experience colours, spaces, and structures differently. All famous artists have been remembered because they were creating something new and very often incomprehensible to their contemporaries.

LeWitt’s Wall Drawings – They look easy, but they are not.

The creative works of this artist can be compared to the work of an architect or composer. They give rise to magnificent structures and songs, but without workers and musicians, these great ideas could not be experienced by an audience. Sol LeWitt’s Wall Drawings could not be admired by the audience if it weren’t for other artists and museum staff who install them. The Wall Drawings are site-specific installations that begin as instructions written by LeWitt and are then executed by others. In consequence, every mural will be different as it will be prepared in a different place by different people. While the drawings often appear simple, preparations take up to a few months, and the process involves many precise calculations, planning, and specialised equipment. 

Sol LeWitt designed more than 1,250 Wall Drawings that raise a lot of controversies. Whenever museums and collectors acquire a Wall Drawing, they receive a certificate with LeWitt’s instructions for the creation of the mural, but many questions arise: What is the actual work of art here? Is it the painting on a wall? The piece of paper with instructions? Or is it the intangible idea itself? Adding to the complexity, the drawings on the walls are ephemeral: most of them are exhibited only temporarily in a gallery or museum and then simply painted over, but the intangible idea of the drawing remains immutable. That is also why LeWitt’s art is so different. Very often, the way we view artists’ works change when curators present them with a different narrative. The reading of the Wall Drawings will always remain the same because their feature is that they will always be drawn or painted in a different way by someone else. 

According to the artist, Conceptual Art is “made to engage the mind of the viewer rather than his eye or emotions”. I look at LeWitt’s Conceptual Art as another step in art history. From idealized ancient sculptures, breath-taking paintings in the vaults of basilicas, and inspirational political posters and collages, Sol LeWitt asks us to rethink everything we know about art, not only as the end product of many years of painting and sculpting practice, but also as ideas, philosophies, and beliefs.

If you would like to learn more about Sol LeWitt’s life and his other artworks, you can read it on The Art Story website.

Written by Zofia Nowakowska, Student Ambassador for The Art Story. I recently, graduated with a BA Fine Art from Anglia Ruskin University, Cambridge. I’m passionate about conceptual and socially-engaged art, and my research focuses on the impact of digitalisation on the art world.

Baroness Elsa von Freytag-Loringhoven was a German artist, poet and pioneer of Performance Art, working in the early 20^th century. Often adorned with extravagant found-object costumes she rejected the limitations of traditional mediums such as painting and sculpture. The publisher of The Little Review, Jane Heap, described the Baroness as “the first American dada […] dresses dada, loves dada, lives dada”.

‘The Baroness’, as she was known, was a true embodiment of the movement. Why, then, was she not celebrated in her lifetime, ultimately dying in poverty with very limited success of her ground-breaking works? When we look back at Dada, Marcel Duchamp is hailed as the most influential figure of this movement (and the very father of Conceptual Art, a god-like status for the artist), however, the Baroness’ work paralleled his experimentation with the nature of the art object.

From her early sentiments of desire and admiration, the Baroness had a change of heart towards Duchamp in the 1920s. Her poem Graveyard Surrounding Nunnery (1921) starts with the lines “When I was/ Young—foolish—/ I loved Marcel Dushit”. This scathing comment underlines the animosity she felt towards him. In another poem, Café du Dome (1927), published in the year of her death, the Baroness criticised the recognition and success that male figures received for their work while her accomplishments were largely ignored. Again, the Baroness directly refers to Duchamp with the line “Marcelled—”. By converting his name into a verb, she presents the elevation of Duchamp’s status and success within the art world as a common occurrence. Male artists are “Marcelled” into success, while the Baroness’ triumphs are overlooked. In the first line, the Baroness portrays her frustration by replacing the ordinarily used expression “for the love of God” to “For the love of Mike!”, substituting God with a contemporary male name, thus elevating the male figure to a divine status. Later in the poem, the male image is presented as a Christ figure on the cross with suctiondiscs, alluding to nails in his palms and “Topped avec rubberthistlewreath” as the crown of thorns. Significantly, the images which should invoke suffering, in this instance do not: sharp thorns and nails have been replaced with inoffensive rubber. The Baroness uses God imagery to ridicule Duchamp’s status and present him as a false prophet, which subverts the very language she once used to express her admiration, calling him her only God. The poem refers to both the Baroness’ criticism of Duchamp and the gendered exclusiveness of the art world.

Another example of the Baroness’ criticism of Duchamp can be seen in her Portrait of Marcel Duchamp (1920-22). The abstract portrait is an assemblage of collected found objects: fishing lure, metal cogs, and feathers bursting out of a wine glass in an extravagant display. The overall image of the sculpture is hectic. It is busy with objects that distract the viewer, and the showy exterior potentially conceals a lack of substance referring to the Baroness’ view on Duchamp. Fundamentally, though, there is no value or substance to these objects. Many elaborate elements refer to the sitter, the ostentatious peacock feathers protrude outwards, alluding to Duchamp’s female alter ego Rrose Sélavy, which he used in many of his artworks. However, it is possible that the Baroness was presenting Duchamp as a rare bird and praising his creative endeavors, but it is more likely intended to mock the artist. The trinket-like collection of items acts as a physical embodiment of the Baroness’ view that Duchamp’s work is insubstantial, echoing her poems.

The Baroness’ view on Duchamp changes throughout decades of working alongside him. Male artists have contributed to the development of Modernism, being recognised for the achievements and developments in their fields, whereas the Baroness and other female artists were, until the recently, almost forgotten in the narrative of Modernism, or more often relegate ed to the male artist’s muse. The Baroness often addresses the exclusivity of the modern art world in her work. The difference in acceptance between Duchamp’s and the Baroness’ artwork reveals a patriarchal society and calls for a reexamination of rejected or lost female artists. 

Next: choose to explore to explore further these artists and movements:
Elsa von Freytag-Loringhoven
Marcel Duchamp
Dada
Readymade and The Found Object