Blending Primaries

I’m working on a new curatorial project. This ‘Me’ of Mine explores self in relation to context and questions whether we can effect change in our context or are we bound by it. The context specifically undertaken is memory, socialization and limitation, such as ageing. These three things, so defining in their influence on us in life, take on a sinister control within the exhibition. The works themselves are not disturbed on first appearance, but with contemplation, a sense of unease becomes evident and the struggle between self and context comes into question.

Philosophically based in The Fold by Deleuze, this exhibition also considers questions of psychology, sociology and the impact context has on our being, physically and emotionally.

The artists in the show are: Aly Helyer, Edd Pearman, Julie Cockburn, Hayley Harrison, Melanie Titmuss, Annabel Dover, Kate Murdoch, David Minton, Anthony Boswell, David Riley, Sandra Crisp, Sarah Hervey, Shireen Qureshi, Cathy Lomax and myself.

The new blogsite is www.thismeofmine.wordpress.com and you can follow us on Twitter @ThisMeofMine. We hope you will visit the site as it continues to develop and engage in discussion with us there.



…as a follow on from the previous post…

What truth do we invest in? Why and what does it say about us?

This discussion brings into question all sorts of things. What is truth? How far does abstraction go? Is there a boundary between the personal and the universal? Do we accept ‘symbols’ (in this instance the actors) too readily and do we have any alternative? Do we have any choice but to accept symbols? Would we even be able to communicate without them?

David M. is absolutely right, what is truth? There is no question truth is as subjective a thing as there is. Through interpretations and mis-communications an ‘account’ emerges and what does it mean if we believe the account? Does investing our belief in a story mean that we agree with it or does that invested belief signify something deeper; a profound trust, an empathy, a similarity? Why do we believe or not? I don’t mean why do we choose to believe or not, I mean what is the function within our humanity which causes us to have the need to believe? Does this need give rise to using symbols?

Apocrypha does happen as Elena said, is there any way to stop it from happening? Is the best we can do is as Judith Barry did; present a close proximity in order to remain close to truth? Is truth simulacra?

I think I will just have to accept the niggle because I can’t really say why or what causes it or even how to assuage it.

Thank you again to eveyone who posted a comment below – fascinating!


Convergence is happening again. I’ve just read the Judith Barry interview in the December issue of Art Monthly Magazine, discussing …Cairo Stories with Omar Kholeif. I’m filled with questions about the personal/universal, which is a conversation I’ve just been having with Elena Thomas here on the blogs. Now these questions are in relation to my own beliefs in abstraction. Here is the kernel of the question, does specificity prevent or enhance the universal and likewise does abstraction prevent or enhance the universal? I have made the choice to work in abstraction because I believe strongly in the function of abstraction to convey the universal but I’m not sure if others see abstraction in this way.

Through conceptualism we’ve learned to ‘read’ the meaning behind the specific object, in effect abstracting that meaning in our minds as a ‘concept’ which carries the full weight of function, implication, order, process, application, significance and the idea of that object; turning the specific into the universal via a process of abstraction (mental though it may be). In …Cairo Stories, Barry has used actors to portray the women telling their stories, sometimes the woman behind the story was photographed and presented in the piece but not always and Barry discusses the various reasons for this in her interview. The representation of these women by actors raises questions for me, not least of which is why I am bothered by the removal of ‘the actual'(the woman telling her story) by an ‘abstraction’ (an actor portraying the woman telling the story). To be clear, I absolutely understand and accept the reasons Barry gave for why the use of actors was employed, I have no argument with her reasons at all. Simply put, the context dictated the outcome. My questions reside more in the function of the work. Does the removal of the person (the personal) give way to a universal rendering of the story? The story is still the personal story of the woman who has been replaced by an actor. But is it, because Barry gave the actors freedom to change the language of the story if they felt it was in keeping with their ‘character’ – the person has become character (the universal ?). Has the truth of these women’s lives been turned into apocrypha? Why am I even remotely bothered by this?! Well perhaps this is one reason, in Barry’s effort to present truth trying to overcome stereotype and hegemony she has presented stories which have the potential to become apocryphal and therefore not believed.

In every instance here, the actual has been translated into an abstraction in some form or other and it makes me question my own steadfast beliefs in abstraction, even though it should be reinforcing them because it is a reinforcement of how I see abstraction. Perhaps I have an even more steadfast belief in the truth.



As I work in three distinct areas of art, studio production, writing and curating, I find my views have broadened. My position is no longer just that of an artist striving to create and exhibit work. The other two activities cause me to stand not just in one place as before, but to stand in relation, which is a far more interesting proposition. Writing stretches my criticality and curating allows me to explore through other artist’s work; it lets me develop an idea beyond the limits of my own work.

In my artwork, I’m still exploring the possibilities of melding late modernist gestural abstraction and conceptualist concerns of context to define a post conceptual view of self. There are dualities appearing such as inside/outside, perception/relation, movement in a static field, space/scale, presence/transience, cause & effect/intention; all of which I feel reflect some of the issues we face now.

When I first set out on this path I wasn’t sure whether I was onto something or completely barking up the wrong tree. I mean, I knew what I wanted to define but I wasn’t sure it was anything anyone else was even interested in. But in September when I co-curated the Core Gallery Open I discovered many of the artists chosen for the show were expressing and exploring some of the very same issues I was; I was greatly encouraged. It also meant, to some extent, the selectors had these concerns in mind too when choosing the work. It was a wonderful opportunity to see how these artists were treating these things in their work. The chance to look deeply into and consider these artists’ work has deepened my understanding and conception of post conceptual abstraction. There is a resurgence of abstract art happening and it is exciting. Interestingly many of these abstract artists express a desire not to relate to or be equated with what is considered the self-indulgence of late modernism. This is an interesting thing and I think the crux of the whole return to abstraction.

Self-indulgence was a bi-product of a changing society, especially in America where ‘the American consumer was praised as a patriotic citizen‘. After the war, there was a redefining of self and society taking place and psychoanalysis had a big influence, particularly on those iconic NY artists charged with being self-indulgent.[1] Perhaps what seems self-indulgent to us was instead a coming to grips with a changing world. But considering abstraction in relation only to post-war is a very narrow scope of time, if it is recognized, as Sebastian Egenhofer suggests in his essay, Figures of Defiguration: Four Theses on Abstraction, the ‘path of self-critique’ in abstract art was brought about by the invention of photography.[2] This makes the argument against ‘self-indulgent’ abstract art lose all steam in my opinion because technological advancements caused a shift in purpose in art, as it always has, rather than some notion of self-importance by artists themselves. So called ‘self-indulgent’ art was a product of its time and the natural progression of art creation in response to technology. Our world is changing too but in different ways and a self-centered attitude is not viewed favourably. We have learned how to ‘find’ ourselves, something they were just discovering how to do in the 40’s and 50’s, for us though the challenge has become finding ourselves in relation to everything else. They were trying to find themselves; we’re trying not to lose ourselves.

Abstraction isn’t self-indulgent. It is a means to look at the intangible and illusive emotions of a psychologized identity in a complex world.

Some of the artists from the Core Gallery Open[3] working with these issues:

Iain Andrews

Lindsey Bull

Johnny Williamson

Emma Cousins

Gabriella Lockwood

Alison Hand

Rachel Wilberforce

EJ Major

Joshua Uvieghara

Lisa Muten

[1] Bois, Yve-Alain, ‘The Publication of Possibilities in New York marks the coalescence of Abstract Expressionism as a movement’, art since 1900, Hal Foster, Rosalind Krauss, Yve-Alain, Benjamin Buchloh, Thames and Hudson, 2004, pp. 348-54.

[2] Egenhofer, Sebastian, ‘Figures of Defiguration: Four Theses on Abstraction’, Painting/Documents on Contemporary Art, ed Terry R. Meyers, Whitechapel Gallery and MIT Press, 2011, pp. 209-16.

[3] Purcell, Chantelle, Core Gallery Open Catalogue, 2011, found at: http://issuu.com/chantellemay/docs/coregalleryopencataloguefinal1



When I was a photography student learning about colour photography, I had to learn about the properties of light, how it broke apart and how it blended together. It hurt my head. I remember really struggling to accept that green could be a primary colour. Basically, I was being taught physics by someone who understood physics no better than I did.

I learned though, that primary and secondary colours of light are different to those of paint and mixing them together produces vastly different results. As you know, mix red, blue and yellow you get mud, but mix red, blue and green, the additive primaries of light and you get white light. It’s the same if you mix the additive secondaries, cyan, magenta and yellow – further than that you’ll have to ask a physicist.

This is the metaphor behind ‘Blending Primaries’; mixing three related activities to find clarity. I’m developing three distinct art practices – studio practice, art writing and curating into one full-time activity and enjoying every minute of living my artistic life.