Apertivo

The 3rd Year Sculpture Miniatures Show. 

Everyone is Welcome! 

Return to Sender Exhibition Review by Dominika Monicka

The ‘Return to Sender’ Exhibition is an exhibition currently being shown at the University of Queensland Art Museum. According to Dr. Campbell Gray, the director of the UQ Art Museum, the university museum differs from other Art Museums because it offers opportunities for young emerging artists and does not have any hidden agendas unlike the mainstream art galleries in Brisbane. Thus, the university museum focuses their exhibitions targeting not only the young student population, but also has the ability to engage ambassadors and donors. The current exhibition ‘Return to Sender’ does this by educating the student population and challenging their views as well as involving the older population by triggering recent local histories.

Although the artworks were highly historical and political due to the curator’s verbal presentation and monotone voice this was neither evident nor stimulating in the tour of the space. UQ’s associate director presented the tour with the assumption that all of the audience was familiar with Queensland’s historical background. Unfortunately this was not the case due to Queensland College of Art’s international student population. This exhibition began to decline in interest rapidly due to topics that weren’t clearly explained or familiar to everyone present. For example Fiona MacDonald’s work from Rockhampton was described by the curator to be based on the history of members of the indigenous people and immigrants. This had no significance to an audience who was not familiar with the violent histories. Later throughout the tour a student had briefly explained the brutalities the indigenous people had faced, which consequently sparked more interest.

Overall, the experience of visiting a different University Art Museum had its own excitement factor for art students who have only been exposed to the local Art Museums and Exhibitions. What would have improved the experience of the exhibition would have been a more excited approach to educating the audience about the artists’ stories and the historical events behind the artworks. Also engaging the students by quizzing them about what they know of specific events to gage what the audience already knows. 

The Churchie Art Prize Exhibition Review By Dominika Monicka

The Churchie Art Prize Exhibition consisted of artists such as: Heath Franco, Sam Cranstoun, Agenevieve Kemarr Loy, Ray Harris, Svenja Kratz, and Marion Glass. The Churchie Art Prize Exhibit is a prestigious art competition that aims to expose emerging artists and provide a stimulating art exhibit for students as well as the public. This Exhibit consists of all forms of artwork such as painting, drawing, sculpture, video, photography, etc.

One outstanding work in this exhibition would be the work my Ray Harrison called ‘let me go’. Harrison captures the slow decline of a relationship through a time-lapse video where a girl is placed on the floor in a sleeping position with a form of a human made of dough. The video begins showing her in a soft and comfortable place, but as time goes on she starts to struggle with her position and eventually is trying to tear herself out of the situation. ­­­This particular piece speaks as a metaphor to its audience and targets people of all ages and sexual orientation. It provides a visual chapter of a relationship whether it is sexual or plutonic. Harrison aims to ‘explore psychological space of unsatisfied symbiosis, the need for oneness lingering in hearts and psyches unremittingly’ (Ray Harris, 2012).

On the other hand, one work that I found to be particularly desperate for attention was surprisingly the main attraction in the exhibition, Heath Franco’s winning art work ‘Fun House’. The work was curated at the very front of the gallery and was annoyingly being projected across the entire space. The projected sound coming from the video made the experience nearly unbearable and thus did not resemble your ‘traditional’ and peaceful gallery space experience. Along side Franco’s video interfered with the viewing experience of other more discrete and traditional pieces in the gallery. It was as though none of the pieces really stood a chance in what had started to become a psychiatric episode.  

Overall, the Churchie Art Prize Exhibit provided a wide variety of media as well as conceptually diverse ideas. It showed over 40 Australian Artists and was effectively displayed by the curator in seemingly small space. Although the experience as a whole was stressful due to the winning work’s interfering nature, the exhibition provided the viewer with many other viewing opportunities. 

Hans New Media Review

The National New Media Art Award GOMA

The National New Media Art Award is a biennial event, and the most noteworthy new media award in the country. There is a substantial first prize of $75,000, is acquisitive and showcases the work of Australian Artists whose work is encompass “New Media. The New Media Art Award is in conjunction with the $25,000 Queensland New Media Scholarship for an emerging Queensland based artist, who is working in the field of new media, to develop their practice through ways like further study or travel. The National New Media Art Award showcased the works of artists such as George Poonkhin Khut (Award Winner) with an interactive Ipad Application “Distillery: Waveforming”, which consisted of several Ipads that viewers could interact with according to their heartbeat, creating movement on the screen that is amusing for the user.

Another Great instillation was a collaboration between Petra Gemeinboeck and Rob Saunders, who created the robotic instillation “Zwischenraume”, which at first glance I thought was a wall with holes punched through it and nothing more, but if you sit on the floor and stare through the holes, you will notice there are robots hidden behind the wall, moving about and occasionally peeking back at you through the holes they have made and acknowledging you. They seemed to demonstrate thoughts and know what they were doing, a very thought provoking piece showing the creative and clever capabilities of the Robots.

Even though this was an exhibition of all completely “New Media” I was absolutely amazed with the interest and beauty a lot of It brought me, it was exciting exploring the different pieces by the artist’s to see how they had used “New Media” to create their interesting and interactive pieces, including the Simple instillation “Polarised” by Leah Heiss, with a group of glass balls filled with a small amount of magnetic liquid in each of the balls, that had you standing in awe as a magnet moved beneath and the liquid would move and wave about softly, it really gave me another perspective on the mediums of work you expect to see in a gallery.

Hans Churchie Review

The Churchie National Emerging Art Exhibition

The Churchie National Emerging Art Exhibition is a competition, to promote and enhance recognition of emerging artists. The Churchie is not restricted by category or medium. This year 41 artists out of around 320 entrants made it into the exhibition, so  we were able to see many interesting works by artists such as Heath Franco (The Churchie prize winner) with his cheeky “Your Door”entry, Sam Cranstoun’s Drawing “Coronation”, Agenvive Kemarr Loy with a mesmerizing tradition aboriginal painting of a bush flower, Agatha Gothe-Snape (all judges highly commended) with her print “Headliners”, and Anastasia Booth “Marion Glass1906” sculpture, Sean Crossely “Templace” painting, and Dominic Reidy small “Plan for a neon victory” piece .

The Churchie (as stated above) aims to expose, and promote the emerging artists to enhance their recognition in the public (and commercial) field, and offers a generous prize to the winner. Because the exhibit is not restricted by category or medium we were able to see a great array of different pieces displayed, the work “Marion Glass 1906” by Anastasia Booth, Brisbane based artist, who works predominately in sculpture and instillations, really had me thinking, I found that when I came to Anastasia’s piece I had me wondering “what is it” the work was made with glass, leather and wood, even though I was standing there wondering what the piece was possibly used for (looking like a sort of fetish instrument), I couldn’t help but be intrigued by the piece, the beauty of the glass orbs, and in contrast with the leather straps and wooden stance of the piece kept me “wanting” to know what it is and glancing in its direction.

On the other hand we also had a sculpture by Dominic Reidy, a recent graduate in 2011 and also a local Brisbane artist, “Plan for a neon victory” is quirky and simple, having a go at, and questioning masculinity with its obviously small size of the whole piece, and the main wooden element in the piece is clearly a phallic symbol.

Even though there where a lot of tradition art pieces, the Churchie seemed to be very dominated with a lot of Media pieces, a lot of video instillations. It was great to see the diversity and a good mix of traditional and “New Media” in the exhibition, but it very much got to a point where a lot of the works seemed to be fighting for attention, with the small gallery space all the works were packed into and the length of some of the videos, it made it easier to miss some, or part of the works. I remember there were three pieces displayed closely next to each other and at points I was trying to watch all three screens so as not to miss anything or because another screen was flashing in my field of vision. There was a lot of noise happening in the winner’s work, Heath Franco, that could be heard across the other side of the gallery making that piece clashing in my mind when viewing and pondering other artists works, with his crazy characters welcoming people into the gallery and after walking away having it follow you around the gallery.

There were many other great pieces, and it showed that The Churchie had a great plethora of works to choose from and display in the gallery. They brought together a great range of styles and themes which gave a very interesting exhibition.

Hey Check this out.

While seriously considering my compare and contrast review... errr....like a good student that i am *cough*, came across some of Stephen Shaheens work and thought it was worth sharing.

 Its great concept of using old media in a new way.... i love it

check out some more photos here: http://www.mymodernmet.com/profiles/blogs/stephen-shaheen-headlight

Return to Sender

The Return to Sender exhibition was held at The University of Queensland Art Museum, located on The University of Queensland’s St Lucia campus. This exhibition of contemporary art showcased photo media pieces that were created in response to the political and cultural environment of the Joh-Bjelke Petersen era during the late 1970s and early 1980s (Return to Sender 2012). Return to Sender displayed the following artists who were originally based in Queensland: Barbara Campbell, Jeff Gibson, John Gillies (with The Sydney Front), Ross Harley, Rosemary Laing, Lindy Lee, Fiona MacDonald, Tracey Moffat, Robyn Stacey, Mark Titmarsh and Gary Warner. A key point of interest established by The University of Queensland Art Museum curator Michele Helmrich was that although each of the abovementioned artists departed from Queensland during the Joh-Bjelke Petersen era, they continued to focus on ideas that were circulating in Australian art during this period (Return to Sender 2012). The artworks that will be discussed throughout this review are as follows: Something More # 9 (1989) by Tracey Moffatt, Universally Respected No. 4 (1993) by Fiona MacDonald, and Ice (1989) by Robyn Stacey.

Tracey Moffat’s Something More Series (1989) consisted of nine cibachrome images; six of which were direct positive colour photographs, and three were gelatine silver photographs. Something More # 9 (1989) was the only image from this series featured at the Return to Sender exhibition. This image comprised of a wall with an artificial road painted onto it, juxtaposed with the actual road on the ground. A person’s body is splayed across the visibly rough bitumen surface. It may be assumed that the person is female as she is wearing typically feminine garments; such as high-heeled shoes, stockings and a dress. Her stockings have been ripped, her dress is hiked up, and her shoes have fallen off her feet – altogether depicting a person in a shambles. As the woman is laying face-down it is difficult to determine whether she is dead or merely asleep. Nonetheless, her dishevelled attire and the placement of her body on the road create a sense of distress. The viewer may come to the conclusion that something terrible must have occurred to this woman; or they may interpret that this image is a visualisation of the final chapter of a narrative about someone running away from something for such a long period of time. A thought-provoking aspect of Something More # 9 (1989) is Tracey Moffat’s inclusion of the sign labelled ‘Brisbane 300 miles’, and the elusive black suitcase in the corner next to the woman’s hand. The sign is pointing towards the artificial road; as if to suggest that the woman has been trying to follow a road that doesn’t even exist. The complete Something More Series (1989) displays clearly tableau images which share a common narrative, but in which multiple stories are being expressed (Newton 2002). Tracey Moffatt has deliberately presented her narratives to encourage the viewer to have multiple readings of this series, which are beyond the specific politics of Australian identity (Newton 2002). Gael Newton, the Senior Curator of Australian and International Photography at the National Gallery of Australia in Canberra, highlighted that the images in the Something More Series (1989) series were, “turned to an agenda in which dress and undress, language and labels are paramount issues in an identity dependent on inserting the unfamiliar dark face in a white scene” (Newton 2002).

Fiona MacDonald’s Universally Respected and Mob (1993) series consisted of fifteen woven sepia photographs. There were several images on display at the Return to Sender exhibition from this collection; however Universally Respected No. 4 (1993) will be the only piece that will be analysed throughout this review. A photograph of George Fairbairn, a pastoralist involved in the Shearers' Strike, emerges from the interwoven images of an Indigenous couple. Both photographs were taken in Clermont circa 1880. The frame was constructed from hand carved local coastal quondong, finished with black Japan. Universally Respected No. 4 (1993) may be an enquiry into the impact of neo-colonialist acts on our shared identity (Heathwood 2010). Fiona MacDonald may have decided to investigate this enquiry due to insight gained from her great-grandmother’s experience as a domestic servant in Mackay where she observed the arrival of South Sea Island people who were indentured to work at the surrounding sugar plantations (Heathwood 2010). It could be argued that Universally Respected and Mob (1993) is an appropriate title for this series as it is an amalgamation of photographic portraits of respected members of the Rockhampton Club, with portraits of non-members (Heathwood 2010). The image of the Indigenous couple in Universally Respected No. 4 (1993) is an example of people who were regarded as non-members of the Rockhampton Club. Tracey Heathwood, Artist and Art Worker, summarised that the Universally Respected and Mob (1993) series provided an opportunity for, “The poor, dispossessed and displaced (to) take their place alongside ‘notables’… injustices and conflicts emerge from the latticework of historic portraits and objects” (Heathwood 2010).

Flame (1989) and Ice (1989) were selected from Robyn Stacey’s Redline 7000 (1989) series to be exhibited at Return to Sender.  Both images are cibachrome photographs on plexiglass. Ice (1989) will be the only piece from this series that will be analysed throughout this review, as it is arguably the most ambiguous out of the two images. Ice (1989) is comprised of a woman’s face positioned in front of a city landscape. The woman’s face is disproportionately larger than the landscape. Another image appears to be layered across background. This layering creates an effect of someone viewing the city from a distance; the sense of longing on the woman’s face suggests that there may be something preventing her from being able to go to the city. Possibly, the symbolic imagery displayed in Ice (1989) was in response to the unjust treatment of people, particularly young adults and university students, who protested during the height of the repressive Joh-Bjelke Petersen government (Kanowski 2012). As Robyn Stacey was one of many young adults who ended up in the Brisbane watch house as a result of protesting, it could be contended that Ice (1989) is a depiction of a person behind prison bars in both a literal and figurative sense (Kanowski 2012). The literal reading of this piece may be directly linked to Robyn Stacey’s life experiences, and the figurative interpretation may be associated with the oppressive attitude towards creative or questioning minds during the Joh-Bjelke Petersen era (Kanowski 2012). Conclusively, The University of Queensland Art Museum curator Michele Helmrich argued that both Flame (1989) and Ice (1989) represent, “a sense of darkness, and anticipation of some dire consequence, of things running out of control, of even maybe a sense of surveillance perhaps” (Kanowski 2012).

References

Heathwood, T 2010, Local Studies: Fiona MacDonald, viewed 18 August 2012, <http://www.artlink.com.au/articles/3421/local-studies-fiona-macdonald/>.

Kanowski, S 2012, viewed 18 August 2012, <http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/weekendarts/michele-helmich/4128478>.

Newton, G 2002, Something More series 1989, viewed 18 August 2012, <http://cs.nga.gov.au/Detail.cfm?IRN=148563>.

Return to Sender 2012, viewed 18 August 2012,                  <http://www.artmuseum.uq.edu.au/return-to-sender >.

National New Media Art Award 2012

The shortlisted artists selected for the National New Media Art Award 2012 were exhibited at the Gallery of Modern Art. George Poonkhin Khut, the winner of this year’s National New Media Award was acquired for the Queensland Art Gallery Collection. The $75,000 New Media Art Award was a component of the biennial award program, in conjunction with the $25,000 Queensland New Media Scholarship for an emerging Queensland-based artist. This review explores how the artists competing for the National New Media Art Award have applied new materials to express new viewpoints. The artists that will be covered throughout this review include Petra Gemeinboeck and Rob Saunders, Karen Casey and George Poonkhin Khut. Links have been made between materials and viewpoints to confirm the importance of new materials in contemporary art.

Collaboratively, Petra Gemeinboeck and Rob Saunders created the robotic installation titled Zwischenräume (2010). This installation consisted of electronics, custom artificial intelligence software, aluminium, steel, wood and plasterboard. In order for the viewer to genuinely appreciate the application of such advanced technology in this piece, they would need look at it from different angles. At first glance, Zwischenräume (2010) may only seem to be a wall with holes punched into it – not particularly innovative. If the viewer sat down on the floor and stared into these holes in the wall they would notice that there was another being returning their gaze. The onset of fear from a sudden awareness of being watched by several of these robotic creatures was what really seemed to make this installation special. This intelligent machinery embedded within the gallery’s wall had the capacity to learn and respond to its environment. Each robot was able to enhance their knowledge about their onlookers through watching and following them, as well as communicating and signalling other robots to organise their behaviour and work together. Zwischenräume (2010) may leave the viewer wondering what it is exactly that the robots are working together on.

Karen Casey teamed up with technical collaborator and software interface designer Harry Sokol to create a three channel projection exhibited from a computer titled Dreamzone (2012).  This projection comprised of audio-visual data rendered in real-time. Dreamzone (2012) was a pleasant contrast to the blatant array of visceral gore, neon lights and robots. Out of all of the artworks in this exhibition, this may have been the most appealing piece for viewers more accustomed to traditional media based art. This is for the reason that the software behind Dreamzone (2012) executed an affect similar to that of sitting inside a giant kaleidoscope or looking at several snowflakes under a microscope. In contrast to the other pieces with audio components in this exhibition, Dreamzone (2012) presented the viewer with a relatively calming soundtrack to complement the hypnotic quality of the projections. This celebration of balance, colour and form materialised through Karen Casey’s investigation into the affiliation that our experience of the world may have with the human consciousness. Although the lines and intersecting points on this projection reflect the geometry found in nature, they were created through specialist software developed by Harry Sokol – which resulted in an exploration of both scientific and psychological themes.

George Poonkhin Khut’s Distillery: Waveforming (2012) consisted of several of iPads arranged on a table with chairs so that viewers could sit down and interact with the heart rate controlled composition software on each iPad. Directly in front of the viewer, there were still video portraits of other people interacting with this software. Distillery: Waveforming (2012) comprised of the iPad, earphones and a clip. It seemed to be that in order for this piece to be fully functional, the viewer was required to put the earphones on, attach the clip to their ear and place their hand on the iPad. It may be assumed that the clip and the hand on the iPad allowed for the physical body to be connected to the heart rate controlled composition software. However the earphones did not appear to serve a purpose as there did not seem to be any audio component to this piece. Superficially, one could argue that the objective of Distillery: Waveforming (2012) was to provide an opportunity for the viewer to play with a familiar, and heavily commercialised, piece of modern technology. Unless the viewer read George Poonkhin Khut’s artist statement, they may not even realise that there was more to this artwork than simply being able to demonstrate the ability to change from the colour red to blue. Originally the heart rate controlled composition software on the iPad was developed as a relaxation training system that presented children who were undergoing medical treatment with a way to manage their pain and anxiety. Within the context of a public art gallery exhibition Distillery: Waveforming (2012) provided viewers with the ability to explore the interactions between the mind and body.

The Churchie National Emerging Art Prize and Exhibition

The Churchie National Emerging Art Prize and Exhibition in the Griffith University Art Gallery provided emerging Australian artists with an opportunity to compete for highly sought after recognition. A sense of non-cohesiveness was evident through the diverse range of mediums applied for each artwork entered into this competition ; consisting of painting, works on paper, photography, new media and sculpture. The artists that will be discussed in this review include; Brown Council, Heath Franco and Svenja Kratz.

Since 2007, Kelly Doley, Frances Barrett, Kate Blackmore and Diana Smith have been collectively known as the Brown Council. Brown Council submitted a high definition black and white video titled Remembering Barbara Cleveland Act 1 (2011). The video was displayed on a flat-screened television attached to a small wall space within the gallery. One artist from the Brown Council was filmed at a time; all wearing identical hairstyles, and re-performing one of Barbara Cleveland’s spoken word pieces from 1980.

Similarly, Heath Franco submitted a high definition colour video titled Your Door (2011). Your Door (2011) was filmed at the front door of Heath Franco’s home. Through the use of a green screen, as well as by improvising and dressing up as different characters, Heath Franco was able to create an altered sense of reality within the confines of his suburban home. The artist also implemented collage techniques and repetitive sounds.

Quite the reverse to the abovementioned artists, Svenja Kratz presents the viewer with a tangible mixed media sculpture titled A Shrine for Algernon: Instance # 2 (2010). A Shrine for Algernon: Instance # 2 (2010) comprised of a foetal calf placed on a reflective table-top. There was a layer of grass, miniature trees and black cows scattered across the surface of the table-top. This layer flowed onto the bottom section of the table. A dark red liquid, possibly representative of blood, trickled from the foetal calf’s body onto the bottom section of the table. A face emerged from the pool of liquid at the bottom section of table.

Blair French’s curatorial essay ‘Nothing like Performance’ argued that the Brown Council’s Remembering Barbara Cleveland: Act 1 (2011) put forth an inquiry on who is written in and out of history, and how narratives are fabricated and re-presented, through the use of the performance medium (French 2011). French maintained that the use of the performance medium in art is ‘real’ and ‘true’ and ‘serious’ but necessarily a ‘lie’; it is a direct confrontation with its audience (French 2011). As the Brown Council’s ‘Remembering Barbara Cleveland: Act 1’ was a re-performance that amalgamated visual and audio remnants of the original performance by Barbara Cleveland, it directly conflicted with the notion that performance art is what is happening now and will not happen again (French 2011).

It could be argued that Heath Franco’s Your Door (2011) shared similarities with Brown Council’s Remembering Barbara Cleveland: Act 1 (2011) through the use of the performance medium. This link between these two pieces may be evident through the way that Your Door (2011) presented a ‘lie’, that could be assumed as an act or a fiction, within a ‘real’ and ‘true’ setting (French 2011). Heath Franco’s Your Door (2011) was announced the winner of the 2012 Churchie National Emerging Art Prize on the 27^th July 2012. It could be contended that Your Door (2011) may have been selected as this year’s winner as it was so hard to ignore. Your Door (2011) was one of the first artworks that the viewer would notice upon entering the Griffith University Gallery space. It diverted attention away from neighbouring artworks as it was the only audio-visual performance piece at the entrance of the gallery. Your Door (2011) may be considered to be highly distracting; even if one was to walk to the far end of the gallery Heath Franco frantically saying ‘hi’ would still be audible. On the other hand, Your Door (2011) may have been selected as this year’s winner because of the video’s excellent production value and the relevance of the performance’s concept within the context of an exhibition in the Brisbane city.  

Svenja Kratz’ A Shrine for Algernon: Instance # 2 (2010) may be categorised as bioart as it was engaged with the use of technologies employed in biotechnology and medical research (Kratz n.d.). It could be contended that the use of the sculpture medium has a fundamental link to the viewer’s capacity to feel a sense of compassion for the foetal calf Algernon. The calf was so intricately crafted that every perceivable detail was accounted for and realistically represented; from the wrinkled texture of the flesh, to the delicate eyelashes and rosy pink tongue. It could be argued that the veracity of A Shrine for Algernon: Instance # 2 (2010) may not have been as easy to appreciate if the performance medium was implemented instead. The tangibility of the sculptured materials allowed the viewer to feel a sense of emotional pain and empathy for what, in all seriousness, was a representation of a dead baby lying in front of them. Svenja Kratz’ decision to name this foetal calf, as well as include a story about the calf in her artist’s statement, further reinforced the viewer’s capacity to feel empathy for this sculpture. It may be likely that most people visiting this exhibition would not have even been aware of the practice of draining blood from the body of a foetal calf for processing into foetal bovine serum prior to reading Svenja Kratz’ artist statement; however most viewers would have the capacity to feel compassion for a victim regardless of whether it is an animal or human.

References

French, B 2011, Nothing like Performance, viewed 4 August 2012, <http://browncouncil.com/works/performance-histories-remembering-barbara-cleveland>

Kratz, S n.d., BIOART (Biological Art): An introduction, viewed 4 August 2012, <http://kelvingrovesc.eq.edu.au/visart/newstuffles/design%20resources/SESSION1.pdf>

Barbara's Review on the 2012 National New Media Award

Barbara Vivash

S2765600

A Review on the National New Media Award, 2012.

The National New Media Art Award was a biennial, invitational competition established in 2008. The award is comprised of $75,000, is acquisitive and recognises the achievement of an Australian artist whose work encompasses new media. A tandem scholarship of $25,000 is awarded to an emerging Queensland-based artist, working in the field of new media for the development of their practice through further study or travel.

However, as reported in The Australian on August 2, 2012, the Gallery of Modern Art confirmed that the biennial $75,000 National New Media Art Award and the $25,000 Queensland New Media Scholarship, will not continue beyond this year, Suhanya Raffel, (Queensland Art Gallery acting director), claimed the gallery was aware that only three awards would be funded by the government, with this year’s being the final award after 2008 and 2010.
Funded by the Bligh government in 2007, the award was created as the Premier of Queensland’s National New Media Art Award. The name of the award was changed after the recent change of government, removing the reference to the Premier. A spokeswoman for the Arts Minister advised that there had been no decision to stop funding the award – it had simply run its course.

The selection committee for 2012 consisted of: Suhanya Raffel, the Gallery’s Deputy Director, Curatorial and Collection Development, Queensland Art Gallery / Gallery of Modern Art; Amy Barrett-Lennard, Director of the Perth Institute of Contemporary Arts; and new media artist Daniel Crooks.

This year, eight artists were short listed and their work is exhibited at the Gallery of Modern Art until November 4, 2012. The entries selected are: Kirsty Boyle, Tree Ceremony, 2010; Karen Casey, Dream Zone, 2012; Robin Fox, CRT: homage to Leon Theremin, 2012; Petra Gemeinboeck and Rob Saunders, Zwischenraume 2010-12; Ian Haig, Some Thing, 2011; Leah Heiss, Polarity, 2012; Ross Manning, Spectra III, 2012; and the winner, George Poonkhin Khut, Distillery: Waveforming, 2012.

These artists have been supported through Inter-Arts, Music, Visual Arts and Market Development funding programs available through the Austalia Council for the Arts. All of the artists have participated in numerous prestigious exhibitions and collaborative projects. Naomi Gall wrote in her report, National New Media Art Awards Announced, 3 August, 2012, “George Khut’s experimental research and creative development has been supported through Inter-Arts Projects and an ArtLab collaborative research project, Thinking through the Body.  The Australia Council has also supported Kirsty Boyle’s innovative work with robotic puppeteering and performance; Karen Casey’s exploration of consciousness via brainwaves, performance and media arts which recently was shown at the ISEA, (International Symposium of Electronic Art), 2011 in Istanbul; Robin Fox’s experimental sound, audio visual performance and scientific collaborations; Petra Geminboeck and Rob Saunders’ robotic art installations; Ian Haig’s visceral animatronic sculpture; and  Leah Heiss’ exploration of design, nanotechnology, science and the relationship between people and artifacts. Ross Manning’s playful exploration of kinetic sculpture, sound, light and technology has been presented at Primavera 09 (Barcelona); MONA FOMA, (Museum of Old and New Art / Festival of Music and Art 2010), and he won the Churchie National Emerging Art Prize in 2011.”

But what is New Media? New media art, as defined by the Australia Council for the Arts, is a process where new technologies are used by artists to create works that explore new methods of artistic expression. These new technologies include computers, information and communications technology, virtual or immersive environments, or sound engineering. They are the brushes and pens of a new generation of artists. The field of New Media is often derived from the telecommunications, mass media and digital modes of delivery the artworks involve, with practices ranging from conceptual to virtual art, performance to installation.

George Poonkhin Khut’s Distillery: Waveforming, medically speaking, was developed to help increase an individual’s ability to distance their sense of pain and anxiety particularly during painful rehabilitation after surgery. Khut explains “The goal of the interaction is for children to maintain a lowered heart rate: children are rewarded with sounds and visuals that respond to decreases in the heart rate over different periods of time i.e. changes that they can influence with their breathing, and longer-term changes that require relaxation”.

Through his exploration of the link between the physical and the mental, Khut reveals the fragility of life compared to the strength and flexibility of the human body. The work makes the participant aware of their own mortality, in an absorbing, creative way.

Leah Heiss’ Polarity, 2012 explores the artistic possibilities of nanotechnology. Heiss has utilised glass spheres encapsulating a layer of ferrofluid submerged in a protective layer of water and ethanol. Ferrofluid is actually a superfine iron powder coated with a soap-like material called surfactant, suspended in a mineral oil base. When no magnetic field is present, the ferrofluid behaves like a normal liquid. However, when subjected to a varying magnetic field, the nano particles align with the magnetic field lines, creating pulsating spikes.

The work is visually futuristic and aesthetically pleasing. The glass spheres scattered and enclosed in a glass case, are illuminated with spotlights. When the magnets beneath the case are activated, the organically simulated spheres appear to pulse with life.

Leah Heiss uses her background in design to integrate nano-engineered materials with personalised items such as jewellery and clothing. For instance, she has designed a metallic bud that when held in the hand, body heat stimulates an unfurling of its metallic petals. Heiss’ fascination with advanced technologies is not the technology, but the communication and emotional engagement resulting from its artistic application.

Some of the works were mind blowing in the complexity of the technology utilized. For example, through the use of custom artificial intelligence soft wear in their Robotic installation, Zwischenraume, 2010- 2011, Petra Gemeinboeck and Rob Saunders create environments that highlights societies relationship with increasingly intelligent machines.

Robots with the capacity to learn and respond to their environment have been embedded in the gallery walls. When left to their own devices, the robots create small holes in the plaster board so that they can see with their camera eyes. When a visitor passes, the robot follows them with their camera ‘eyes’, to enhance their knowledge and alleviate their ‘boredom’. The wall is peppered with jagged holes and deformed plaster board. It has the appearance of a life form erupting from the cavities and gives the impression of something burrowing below the surface. The lights from below the holes ascertain where the ‘creatures’ are at any one time. At times, they communicate and collectively organise their behaviour to act together. An interesting impasse occurs as ‘they’ look out and we look in. These robots reflect some of our actions, demonstrating an ability to direct their ‘thoughts’ and coordinate their actions as they adapt to their surroundings.

Although the exhibition is an undoubted success with these artists composing and contriving through cutting edge technology or just basic electronic elements, the creation of exciting, thought provoking works. As the award is worth $75,000, it is surprising that participants must be invited to enter. It also doesn’t seem equitable that the majority of the artists invited have been supported by programs instigated by the Australia Council for the Arts. What of the hundreds of other New Media artists, not involved with the ‘Council’? Shouldn’t they also have a chance to enter for the award? However it is a moot point now, as the award and the scholarship are no longer to be funded by the Queensland Government.

References

Ferrofluid Magnetic Liquid, 2012 Apex Magnets retrieved 16 August, 2012 from http://apexmagnets.com/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=7&products_id=...

Forrest,N, 2012,Interactive Visual Heartbeat Wins Australian National New Media Art Award, Blouin Artinfo 7 August, 2012, retrieved 9 August, 2012 from http://artinfo.com/news/story/818148/interactive-visual-heartbeat-wins-australian-natio...

Gall, N, 2012, National New Media Awards Announced, Artery 3 August, 2012 retrieved 14 August, 2012 from Http://artery.australiacouncil.gov.au/2012/08/national-new-media-awards-announc...

Lovink, G, 2005, New Media, Art and Science: Retrieved August 18, 2012, from

http://laudanum.net/geert/files/1129753681/

National New Media Art Award 2012, Queensland Art Gallery/ Gallery of Modern Art, retrieved 14 August, 2012 from http://qagoma.qld.gov.au/exhibitions/current/national_new_media_art_award_2012/n

Barbara's Review on 'The Churchie'

Barbara Vivash

S2765600

Review on The Churchie.

The finalists in the 2012 Churchie National Emerging Art Exhibition are exhibited at the Griffith University Art Gallery, Southbank. The art prize celebrates its twenty-fifth year and with it’s first prize of $15,000.00, has become recognized as one of Australia’s richest emerging art awards.

The competition attracted 719 entries from 322 artists, from which a short list of 41 finalists were chosen. This year the prize was won by Heath Franco with his high definition DVD, Your Door, 2012. Three additional entries were awarded ‘Highly Commended’ went to : Sam Cranstoun’s Coronation (Parts I &II) 2012, Gennieve Kemarr Loy’s Untitled (Bush Turkey), 2010 and Agatha Gothe-Snape’s Headliners, 2011.

Dr. Maura Reilly, internationally acclaimed curator of contemporary art, author and academic was the judge for the prize. Dr Reilly acknowledged that ‘the Churchie’ was one of Australia’s premier forums for emerging artists.

It took almost a week for the pre-selection panel, comprising Simon Wright (Director of GUAG), Naomi Evans (curator) and Chris Bennie (artist and former finalist in ‘the Churchie’), to short list the finalists.

This year, most of the finalists were new faces with the exception of Alex Cuffe, Courtney Coombs, Alice Lang, Dord Burrough and Sam Cranstoun who were also finalists in the 2011 competition. This year there were also three collaborative partnerships featured – Brown Council, Greatest Hits and Catherine or Kate.

Simon Wright advised,

that the pre-selection committee also identified several artists who, although

not short listed, will be offered future exhibition opportunities. One group

identified was a group of women artists whose work investigated themes of intimacy, eroticism and privacy. Another exciting possibility, a group of artists involved in the production of large scale sculpture and installations which could

be incorporated in a project on spatial directions.

This reflects the additional benefits of a competition – creating opportunities for other entrants as well as only the finalists. ‘The Churchie’ continues to fulfil a number of goals including recognition, exposure and promotion of emerging artists in both the public and commercial arenas. The competition aims to provide a forum where emerging art can be viewed, studied and criticized.

Themes of feminism, revolution and rebellion are certainly evident as the viewer traverses the foyer of the GUAG, Southbank. Joseph Breikers’ Phases of the Moon, irreverent representations of our satellite, festooned with impressions of his buttocks is eclipsed by Paul Sloan’s Mediocrity Clampdown.The12 disparate images, invite individual interpretation of his allusions to revolution and rebellion. Passing under Courtney Coombs’ vivid banner, Speak Up, 2012, emblazoned with the question “What do you want from me?” suggests that this could be a collective question from all the finalists as they strive for recognition, acceptance and success.

Normally, for a group show, one might consider the relationship between the works in the exhibition. However, the selection criteria for the Churchie National Emerging Art Exhibition, has no restriction on the theme. The entry ‘terms and conditions’ only defines ‘What is an emerging artist?’, and stipulates the size parameters and that the entrant must over 18 years of age.

Through the sliding glass, Heath Franco’s winning entry Your Door, 2012 assaults the senses. Simon Wright described Franco’s entry as a “fantastical, freaky, hallucinogenic video work”. He went on,

It was selected as a finalist because it arrested our attention from the first press

 of the doorbell, and it just got better and better. At first glance the work looks to have super high production values but the artist has used standard daytime TV

post-production tricks and techniques, with a basic soundtrack including his own musical score, and features himself playing each of the grotesque characters.

The work dominates the gallery with bursts of bell ringing and repetitive mantras, “won’t you come in?” It is interesting and arresting and before you know it, you are absorbed by the multi-faceted Franco as a devil, road worker and crazed saxophone player.

Turning to the left one is confronted by a much larger than life aardvark , sitting on a table, starkly contrasting with the blue and white rose wallpapered dining room. Allison Hill’s beautifully executed, mixed media, Aardvark in the Room, 2011 is appealing and shocking - why? In the artist statement, Hill writes “when my grandmother died she left me a very well stuffed aardvark in a large glass case. It is an object with special needs.” She clarifies by explaining, that in her mind, the aardvark has become her grandmother and consequently, she has set her free from the case.

The artist has created an evocative, emotive work that explores the concept that meanings and emotions inhabit the things we collect and live with. However, the artist statement is crucial to understanding the dialogue.

Moving through the exhibition, the thought occurred, that of the 41 finalists, high definition video, paintings and sculpture had an equal share in selection. Did the selectors plan it this way or was it simply coincidence? As ‘the Churchie’ aims to provide a forum for emerging art, it is reasonable to assume that a comprehensive cross section of all art disciplines will be present to enable the viewer to ascertain the predominant directions of emerging art.

A competition must be a curatorial nightmare, especially when there is no specified theme. The art works were arranged on the walls alternating paintings, drawings, photographs and video screens. Sculpture / installations were situated so that the viewer was able to walk around the work and examine it from all angles. The videos were thoughtfully placed so that disruption to the flow of viewers, was minimized. The majority of the video works were situated together, so that if one wished to watch for 5 or 10 minutes, one could do so without being jostled and moved on prematurely. The notable exception was the winning entry, Your Door, 2012.

As previously mentioned, it was placed facing the entry doors. As crowds of viewers clustered around, absorbed by the 8 minute spectacle, other visitors were unable to enter the gallery and the experience became cramped and difficult. An excellent idea to emphasise the importance of the work, and to isolate the pervading sound track, but unfortunate if several viewing groups were scheduled for the same time. However, the exhibition was a curatorial triumph, given the diversity and the numbers of entries.

References

The Churchie Emerging Art Committee, Sydney artist wins ‘the churchie’ 2012 emerging art prize. Retrieved 6 August from, http://www.churchieemergingart.com/news/?fuseaction=info&id=55&ct_id=0&i=1

The Churchie Emerging Art Committee, Majority of finalists in ‘the churchie’ are new faces. Retrieved 6 August from, http://www.churchieemergingart.com/news/?fuseaction=info&id=53&ct_id=0&i=1

The 25^th Churchie National Emerging Art Awards 2012,Art Guide Australia. Retrieved 6 August 2012 from Http://www.artguide.com.au/features/recommended/the-25th-churchie-national-emergi...

Ferrofluids

Hey Guys, at the National New Media Awards at GOMA we saw a beautiful installation using Ferrofluids by Leah Heiss. having done a little research since then i have discoved there are some really incredible artworks using Ferrofluids.... including this wicked work by Fabian Oefner. check it out.

http://thecreatorsproject.com/blog/ferrofluids-go-next-level-technicolor-in-fabian-oefners-amazing-images

National New Media Awards at GOMA by Sam Rohweder

With a significant first prize of $75,000 and acquisition by the Queensland Art Gallery as well as an opportunity to exhibit your work at the Gallery of Modern Art in Brisbane, The National New Media Award has been a prestigious and coveted accolade for Queensland Artists.  The National New Media Award began its three phase Biennial program in 2008, culminating in this year’s final exhibition. Over the past 4 years has highlighted  24 talented artists working with a diverse range of new technologies including animation, robotics, interactive media, sound and light.

From a short list of eight, this year George Poonkhin Khut took out the award with his interactive iPad app “Distillery”. The work uses the viewers own heart beat to make a unique and interesting experience. This work teeters on a fine line between its role as an aspect of entertainment and a medical tool to assist children maintain a relaxed heartbeat while in hospital. While interesting, the fact that the general populace is overloaded with new apps daily may diminish some of its impact.

Ian Haig presents an horrific sculpture titled  “Some thing” that appears to draw breath, squelch fluids internally and move ever so slightly, like a raw organ struggling to hold onto life. The artist claims he is exploring the boundaries of attraction and repulsion, and getting viewers to come to terms with disease associated with aging and death. The sculpture itself is beautifully crafted with great attention to the details. However “Some thing” may look far more at home on the set of a science fiction horror movie than in a gallery.

With its use of Artificial Intelligence hidden behind the wall Petra Gemeinboeck and Rob Saunders’ “The Space in between” caught everyone’s attention.  Viewers standing before the wall can hear the robots moving about as they explore their space within and can occasionally get a glimpse as one robotic lens peeks out from the holes they have made in the plaster to explore the world beyond. Emulating a degree of consciousness and thought, and occasionally acknowledging a viewer, these robots give  a similar experience to monkeys being observed at the zoo.  While highly entertaining the work also raises questions about the degree to which science fiction is becoming a reality and about what might come next.

Ross Manning’s “Spectra II” is next up with a twofold experience. Projecting light onto a white wall on one side and using three holes like a camera obscura onto a black wall on the other side in contrast.  An exploration of how additive colour work, when red green and blue are in equal amounts it will produce clean white light, but as the balance is shifted the light will produce a rainbow of colour that moves differently on each wall. This work is a very interesting display to watch and interact with. As a consequence a wonderful educational visual on how the light spectrum works.

Karen Casey “Dream zones” is a hypnotic cinematic creation involving using her brain waves to create a Kaleidoscopic tessellated image of her artworks through the use of a software program. Exploring the inter-connectiveness of art science and society.

Robin Fox’s installation “Homage to Leon Theremin” integrates old technologies from the 1950’s with Theremin’s theories from the 1930’s to create an installation for the new millennia. Inviting the viewer to create a cacophony of light and sound by moving around an installation of CRT monitors hooked up to movement detectors. It has that “instant gratification” requirement that is becoming more and more prevalent in today’s society.

Kristy Boyle’s installation entitled “Tree Ceremony” amalgamates old world Japanese puppetry traditions with modern mechanics to reenact another Japanese tradition the tree ceremony. “Suki”, the Japanese puppet created by Kristy under the guidance of her Japanese tutor, is dressed in a traditional kimono for her robotic performance juxtaposing the manufactured with the naturalness of the real bonsai tree she dances for.

The winner for me was Leah Heiss’s installation “Polarised”.  A cluster of delicate glass balls stand in silent vigil on a plinth. The lighting was used to highlight the small amount of magnetic liquid called ferrofluid contained within each ball and covered over with clear water. Each is brought to life as a magnet passes beneath each sphere and makes the fluid dance within. The whole installation has an ethereal sense of wonder, a beautiful merge of old technology and new medium to produce a fascinating artwork.

Churchie Review by Sam Rohweder

The Churchie National Emerging Art Prize and Exhibition presents a peek at Australia’s rising stars in the contemporary arts. Established in 1987 by Brisbane’s Anglican Grammar School, The Churchie has given burgeoning artists that much desired introduction into the mainstream art scene, not to mention a financial reinforcement for the overall winner.

The Churchie is open to all Australian Citizens over the age of 18 who have specialized training in their field and are beginning to establish themselves as a professional artist. This year 41 artists out of the 322 entrants made it to the final exhibition, with a fairly mixed bag of works from the questionable to the insightful.  These include artists like Genevieve Kemarr Loy, with her hypnotic untitled traditional aboriginal painting of an unpronounceable flower that her local bush turkeys love to eat. Genevieve has appeared in numerous exhibitions since 2007, grabbing finalist positions in some of Australia’s most prestigious prize exhibitions. On the other end of the scale is artist Domonic Reidy with his child like sculpture questioning Western Masculinity. Domonic graduated in 2011, has appeared in 2 other prize exhibitions and is a busy co-founder of an artist run space “Addition Gallery” in Brisbane.

However it is the “New Media” works that appeared to dominate this year’s exhibition. Actually the only “New Media” works are in the form of video installations. While video offers a more direct interaction between the viewer and the artwork or the artist’s imagination and the viewer, when you have several in a small space they tend to compete with each other in a way more traditional pieces do not. To my mind nine video works in one small space became a cacophony of noise and movement making it difficult to give yourself up to the work in front of you.

On entering the main area Haley Ive’s “waterfall” is extremely subtle. You need at least 5 minutes listening to the water and the wind chimes while staring at the falling water before you really become aware of the dancing colours.

All the while you can hear this year’s winner of the Churchie Heath Franco’s video installation “Your Door” like a siren pulling in the viewers. Heaths work is displayed on a large TV facing the entry doors. It offers up a quirky and fun montage of welcoming performances in an array of costumes and personalities. His singsong voice resonates around the whole space so that even when you are studying the other works, you cannot forget his presence.

On the far wall there are four more video works presented on flat screen TVs side by side offering headphones  to catch the sound associated with each work. Claire Robins “Emotional Landscape” with empty lonely scenes and Naomi Oliver’s psychedelic “Levitation” relied on the didactic to help this viewer interpret what they were seeing.

Meanwhile Liam O’Brien’s “I am too drunk to tell you” takes the viewer on a roller coaster of empathy and revulsion with a voyeuristic feeling that keeps you mesmerized. Next to that Ray Harris’s “Let me Go” video is an insightful visual evolution that many relationships take. From the heady all consuming new love, to the more comfortable and then sometimes claustrophobic sense of longer relationships. Both presented sharp, articulate video works that easily stood alone without any didactic support.

 In the center of the room a large portrait flat screen has the Brown Council’s feministic collaboration titled “Remembering Barbara” where a large face holds your attention staring you in the eye at eye level and asking you a series of questions while the face changes from one to another. It’s quite confronting really much like Orwell’s Big Brother.

On the opposite wall are two iPads attached to the wall at eye level. One showing Louise Bennet’s “traces” work that was produced on her iPhone and has movies of her finger tracing some very well composed landscapes. It was a little difficult to concentrate on this work after having seen so many others and with Heath Franco’s voice continuously demanding your attention like a petulant child. Bindi Thorogood’s didactic tells of her “Plane drawings” work,  footage she took of planes flying over. Unfortunately I was unable to see her interpretations as someone had decided to rehome the iPad it was being shown on.

Dotted among these nine installations is an array of very strong works, definitely something to appeal to all palettes and mind sets and a few others that will just make you think. It very much looks like The Churchie was spoilt for choice in choosing the finalist. They have outdone themselves bringing together an exhibition with broad range of styles and topics that for the most part work as a whole.