National Drawing Award
ARTSPACE
29 November – 20 December 2008
It is a mystery isn’t it, this thing called ‘drawing’? Such a mercurial activity…what the hell is it? Is it all about the support, should it always be on paper? Is it the medium? Can that be paint or liquid (or only dry and graphic)? Can it include collage or photography? Is it a completed artwork or is it only part of a process, one stage in a chain of activities?
Let’s say, for the sake for argument, that drawing is essential to most art preparation. (It might not be now.) Does a show like this one at ARTSPACE treat the activity with seriousness and dignity? Is a competition with hundreds of sheets of A4 paper – entered by individual artists - the way to go? How is it that ARTSPACE, The Physics Room and Enjoy can present such an ill-conceived exhibition without blushing? This event obviously believes it has credibility. What a delusion.
The reason I say that is that the motivation for the event is not to investigate the merits of drawing as a thinking tool but about door numbers. It is about trying to attract big audiences to ‘under populated’ venues by promoting a specious notion of democratic participation – all entries welcome, and a ‘people’s vote’. If it were a sincere search for excellence, or an examination of a conceptual tool, it would focus on a group of artists esteemed for their use of the method and (using a panel) invite them to submit suites of work (more than one work is essential to establish a context) that involve sensibly sized sheets of paper.
Then we would something palpable to discuss. A small body of work from say, half a dozen varied individuals committed to the activity. Not dabblers, which competitions like this invariably attract.
So rummaging through this 2008 gig. Is there anything worth salvaging out of this dog’s breakfast? Well my personal tastes drew me to Elliot Collins (39) for his use of language as image maker, Jeremy Unkovich (123) for his investigation of random bacteria-like forms, Rob Gardiner (142) for his exploration of space in a corner, Candy Cho (166) for her eclectic use of motifs from applied arts and lettering, and Mark Solters (193) for his drawing of somebody drawing a square.
The exhibits that won prizes, from John Ward Knox, Peter Madden, and Ruth Cleland, were there for their technical facility and not (in my view) for explorative conceptual qualities. Whilst it is terrific for the individuals concerned to get the recognition, both Ward Knox and Madden anyway have significant reputations for reasons quite removed from their works in this show.
I think shows like this are a big mistake. A trivial gimmick. ARTSPACE (and the Physics Room, and Enjoy) are ignoring their regular committed audiences in favour of brief appeals to temporary ‘non-art’ visitors in the hope of greater numbers. Forget them. Build on the client base you know well.
