Review: Theory of Everything (FILM)

This is a little quick thought burst on the film Theory of Everything. I won't bore you with film details on how long it is or who the director is - but instead I'll bore you with my opinion.

Strangely enough, as I sat there in the lovely cinema that is the Broadway Cinema in Nottingham, I couldn't help but feel like this was an origin story of Steven Hawking (you know, like Wolverine, but only a famous scientist instead.) Not to say that's a bad thing, that's exactly what this film is. It charts the early parts of Hawking's life following his relationship with Jane Wilde. 

In essence, it's not a love story, it's more of a life story. It depicts a man condemned to live only two more years from the discovery of his health condition that causes the muscles in his body to shut down (which he defies). It follows the brave woman who decided to stand by the man she loved, marry, have children, and look after them all as his health deteriorated. It follows the struggles they faced, and what feels like a real-life relationship, rather than one of those written in fairytales (the ones I love so much). 

It is a touching story, which is made more poignant by the fact that is actually happened. And although I did enjoy it immensely, it wasn't a film that I cried at (which is normally unusual for me with films like this.)

The film is rather beautiful and effortlessly flicks through decades very subtly. You could have just literally walked in on their lives during the 70s.

The acting was superb from minor characters to Felicity Jones' portrayal of Jane. In particular a standout performance was Mr Hawking himself: Eddie Redmayne. His transformation was incredible. There were moments within the film when he could only act with his eyes, no bodily movement, no speech, nothing. If anything the film is worth watching purely for his performance. 

And I have but one last thing to note. Although this story is portrayed about being about a scientist that we all know, someone who was overlooked turn out to be the true star of this film. To put it quite bluntly, it's his wife. She did everything for him. She put her dreams on hold to do a PhD in languages, she raised their three children almost single-handedly, all whilst running a home and being the sole carer for her husband. This just proves to show that we never truly know all the facts and how things play out behind the scenes. 

Review: Richard Serra at the Gagosian Gallery (EXHIBITION)

This gallery is a great little find, first and foremost. The Gagosian Gallery. It's situated in North London, just around the corner (okay, probably more like a 10 minute walk) from Kings Cross St Pancras Station. It's one of those 'corporate galleries' that makes a lot of money and knows it (you can tell from the amount of security guards circling the works in their uniform black suits.) From this, you'd expect slick exhibitions showing well-established artists and this is what we get in this exhibition: Richard Serra.

Personally, this is of interest for me due to that 'D' word (dissertation - shhhh, don't speak it too loudly). But also, of general interest. Knowing Serra's previous work (large outdoor sculptures, specifically his controversial piece Tilted Arc, 1981) I wanted to see how his work would exist within the dynamics of a gallery and how they could (or couldn't) successfully pull it off.

And on a whole, I think they did I good job. Being within a gallery space, did unfortunately make me question the level of interactivity that the pieces allowed, and did have to ask one of those security guards whether or not it was allowed. (It was.)

The exhibition consisted of 4 separate pieces, each in different rooms.

1. Backdoor Pipeline
2. Ramble
3. Dead Load
4. London Cross

(Above is London Cross followed by Ramble.)

Each was a large sculptural piece made from steel. Each matched the size of the rooms. I think that spaces given to each piece was clearly given much thought, meaning that no work felt suffocated.

Very brief blurb of each piece:

Backdoor Pipeline - a large 15.2m high steel tube-like sculpture that you can walk through. The way that you see the light shift as you travel through the tube brings about a child-like attitude.

Ramble - as the name would suggest consists of 24 plates of thick steel that you walk in and out of. Some are taller than others, so despite my short height I could see over some. Yet others were too tall. I don't know why I quite enjoyed weaselling in and out of these blocks.  With other people (unfortunately it was empty when I was there) it could escalate into a game of hide and seek.

Dead Load - probably the most disappointing of the set. It is just a block of steel. Just a lump. Which someone was sat drawing at the time of my visit. Which, I'm not going to lie, I couldn't quite understand. He was just sat straight on. Looking at this block of steel.

London Cross - perhaps the most interesting of the bunch. It cuts the room is half, from corner to corner. As you enter you are affronted with a tall wall of steel. Above that is another panel of steel crossing the room again. To see the other side you have to walk back out of the room and into the room via another entrance.

All in all, it's free and interesting to see how these types of sculptures exist inside within this type of space. So I would say - go and see!

East End Secrets

This is just a quick little post to let you know about two little East End secrets that I discovered whilst on the hunt for galleries. I feel like, with independent galleries you need to know what you are looking for - otherwise you'd easily walk by.


First up. The Approach.

It is a little gallery that basically consists of just a room. But the cool thing about this space is that it sits above a pub. So when you walk to the place you think you should be - and you do see a street-like sign that says 'The Approach' you know you are in the right place. You're just a little unsure of how to proceed.

Basically. Go inside the pub! Don't walk around it like I did.

Once inside, make sure you go to left of the bar and just around the corner is a door (on the same side of where the bar finishes) and up the stairs you go!

(Luckily a man on a stool told me where to go - but I have a feeling that that isn't his permanent spot or job.)

Current exhibition: 'Who Buries Who' an installation by Amanda Ross-Ho (as seen above.)

On until 23rd November 2014.

Second up. Maureen Paley.

This felt very much like a private members club. And I understand that the ambiguous facade is probably so that people don't know what the building is, so won't try to steal stuff. So you only get people who have specifically come to see the artwork buzz to be let in.

(And although I understand this, I don't like it. But I suppose this is due to its location. By the way, both are just a short 10 minute walk from Bethnal Green tube station (the Central Line).)

In terms of finding this one, when you have to turn right and go past student accommodation, and it looks like a dead end, all I can say is this: you are on the right path my friend. When you turn into the first left, it is almost the building straight opposite you. Just look for the small words 'Maureen Paley' and the buzzer. And be brave and buzz! Once inside, you know you're in the right place. Someone opens the door for you. It's all very nice.

Current exhibition: Gillian Wearing, showing her new video work: 'We Are Here' as well photographs. (As seen above.)

On until 16th November 2014.

So there you go! Delicious East End secrets! Happy hunting!

Review: Turner Prize 2014 (EXHIBITION)

Here it is. The big one. The prize that (most) people want. The Turner Prize 2014. Exhibition showing at Tate Britain until 4th January. Now, this is my first time actually going to the exhibition, and I'm very glad I had the opportunity to do so.

Now, a little brief history on the Turner Prize:

It's an annual prize that is named after the painter J. M. W. Turner, which can only be won by a British visual artist under the age of 50. (They also get a pretty little sum of money to go along with the prestige.) It's quite a big deal on the British art scene.

So who are this year's nominees?

James Richards,
Tris Vonna-Michell,
Ciara Phillips,
Duncan Campbell.

We'll make our way through the top of the list down (as this is the order you encounter their works in the exhibition.)

James Richards
Immediately as you enter the exhibition you are facing a flat screen TV displaying images that don't seem to quite fit together yet have a cohesive element about them. The film viewed contains found and original images that are intuitively edited. (Almost as if he has created a moving collage of clips. Something of note, is the different frames used for the various clips in the video, seems to be about what isn't on show. The black and white imagery creates a sense of unity, and the chosen framing and actions within the videos feels rather sensual in choice.

(And this is quite bad, but I was a little perplexed on the choice of seating for this video. I mean, it was almost like a sofa, without the back, but the type of cushions made it look like only one person could sit on one at a time, when you could have easily fit two bottoms on one cushion. Now this probably seems trivial, but. And hear me out. But. It really affects how you view the artwork and I probably didn't stay there for as long as I should have because you feel as if you are standing in the door way, there's nowhere to sit, so you just move on. Actually, I could write a whole post about the awful choice/ position of seating at this exhibition. Which is something that really should have been taken into consideration, especially considering how the majority of the work on show, was video.)

Anyway. Moving oh so swiftly on.

As you moved away from Richards' video piece and around the corner, you are surrounded by larger hanging carpets depicting different people. These focused on people who I believe were not necessary famous - my friend informed me they were people at events (who were out of shot) that were important and noted. So again, this theme of focussing on the other.

And lastly, there were some photographs displayed via old projector slides. These didn't really bring much interest to me, so I can't say I thought anything about them worth noting. Only way the use of this method of presentation?


Tris Vonna-Michell
Again, Vonna-Michell is another video artist. The primary video contained a lot of irratic repetative speech. The imagery focused on tables, and other imagery that I didn't think was necessary. It felt as if the speech was more important then what we were watching. Almost felt as if the images were a ploy to get people to sit down and listen as we live in a massive image culture and people's attention span might not last for very long to listen to a purely sonic piece.

And once more, the position of the long benches for this piece were awful. No matter where you sat you were in someone's way or someone was in your way (unless you were fortunate enough to sit at the front.)

There was a second piece that was projector slides, that automatically changed. Along with this went a narrative that was spoken through the speakers surrounding the chairs creating a very intimate atmosphere. Now this a feel worked much better than the first piece on display. This piece was very much like story-telling.


Ciara Phillips
Quite honestly, I was a huge fan of this. As you entered the space given to Phillips, it had quite an impression - but I feel like the main reason for this was simply because of of sudden shift of medium. The previous two artists both had video pieces, and both used old projector slides for their pieces and here, we came into brightly lit room (you actually notice how high the ceiling is) and from top to toe the walls are covered in her patterned prints. And very occasionally we get a series of photographs of the artist, all looking the same.

Once you get over the sudden shift in the lighting, and the change of there being no screen, I began to feel as if she was a token vote. To change up the choice of the type of artist that they are promoting. Yet this piece still managed to have a sonic element to it. It simply read out words listed. It felt very uninspired and I did just have to leave.


Duncan Campbell
Now you've guessed it. It's another video artist! (Really, all I can say is what is the Tate thinking? But we won't get into that now, I'll moan about that later.) The first piece you see is a film with different shapes forming (as if being drawn by an invisible hand) with German words and noises erupting from speakers placed near the old film projector. I vaguely remember this piece having to do with Sigmar Polke (which seems slightly suspicious, as the Tate have a big exhibition housing his works at the moment - coincidence or planned promotion?) But this piece was entirely pointless for me.

Now the second piece (and big show stopper) there was a film. That's it. Tah-dah! A film, one displayed as you would if you went to the cinema. With a running time of 54 minutes. Which really is quite brave, so I do have to give it to Campbell for expecting people to hand around for almost an hour to watch this film in a gallery. The medium really does make a difference, and with a film you aren't going to have an immediate impact. So you do have to sit there. Also, it's a medium that we are so familiar with so it does need to leave quite an impression.

We saw the film from 20 minutes in until the end (as that was the point we happened to walk in) and that is the longest I have every sat in a gallery and watched a film piece for. It followed 'art film' conventions. Academic vocabulary. (Sometimes I had no idea what was going on.) Almost came across as a little preachy. But towards the end it did make a point about the art market, art and worth. And it wasn't that bad.


Overall, what we can gage from this exhibition is the following:

• The Tate thinks that the only art of any worth currently happening is video.
• Ditto that with sound art.
• For some reason there is a return to using traditional projectors/ slides/ film and leaving digital behind.
• The Tate NEED to sort out their seating in exhibitions.
• I think Campbell is going to win. The rest were just there to build up to his film.

Now I could be very wrong - but that's part of the fun. Guessing who is going to win. It's just like picking a couple to win on Strictly. 

I would say it was worth a look - you do have to pay though - student price being £6. However, I wish the Tate had picked a broader range of artists this year. It feels as if the British art scene has become very samey, very safe and just not that interesting.

Tower of London: Poppies

This is just a little note about the current installation at the Tower of London. It's something I have been curious to see since it started in August, and almost being 11th November (the last day of this installation) I thought it was time I paid it a visit.

(Just a little F.Y.I incase you didn't know, this has been made to commemorate the First World War centennial, created by the ceramic artist Paul Cummins.)

It really is quite breath taking as you slowly approach the Tower. From afar there is just a sea of red, and as you slowly get closer each individual flower reveals itself.

It's quite a weird one actually. It creates a strange feeling for me. On a purely aesthetic level, sculpturally it is beautiful. They've done a brilliant job of integrating this historical site with these poppies that spill from the windows onto the grounds creating this rippling red sea.

But then you start to think about what each poppy represents, and why it is there. (It makes me feel slightly uncomfortable to be honest.) But nevertheless I think it is a very fitting memorial to remember a piece of history we should never forget.

Review: Pangaea: New Art From Africa and Latin America (EXHIBITION)

Boring information first up (so we can just get it out of the way, that way we can get to the juicier stuff quicker):

1. Current exhibition at the Saatchi Gallery in London. 
2. One of the last chances to see as it ends soon - 2nd November. 
3. It's FREE.
4. It's literally the ant's pants. (Which I think is a phrase that should replace the bee's knees.)

Let me slightly expand on that very subtle introduction of ants that I just mentioned. Rafael Gomezbarros is the creator of Casa Tomada. One of the most stunning sculptural installations I have seen. As you enter the Saatchi Gallery turn left. This is the room you must go in first. And this is the room where Casa Tomada lives. (Possibly not the best place for anyone who has any sort of slight fear of creepy-crawlies (especially those of the ant type) as they are invading the first room that is part of this exhibition.)

Please stare at the picture above in horror/intrigue and you'll understand what I mean.

If you can bear to get closer and inspect the ants individually, you'll notice that their bodies are made up of the casts of human skulls. Now there is so much that you could read into this (especially if you find out about the artist and his history), but I'm going to let you make your own minds up.

Whilst in my opinion the other works in this exhibition aren't as impressive, they are most definitely worth seeing. The rest of the display contains much more 2D work: large, vibrant, colourful paintings that clash with their subject matter, photographs exploring traditional African masks and more muted large scale paintings that are balanced on numerous objects such as keyboards.

It's nice to see an exhibition that's sole purpose is to promote non-European art. And it does feel a little different from what we are usually confronted with when we enter a gallery.

So if you're intrigued by the ants alone, and happen to be in London before this exhibition closes, definitely go and see this! (And did I say it's free!!)

BBC Audiences: Hannah Gadsby

Just a quick little post on this gem of a find. I did know that you could apply to be in audiences of recordings, but for some reason this actually never really clicked in my brain as being an actual possibility. 

Until my brilliant mother set me on the trails of Hannah Gadsby. She's a comedienne from Australia (who is rather amusing.) Yet how does she relate to the world of art Hannaa? Well, funny you should ask. At her time at university (the other) Hannah (as we shall refer to her) studied Art History. And she has developed two special shows where she combines her art historian knowledge with her funny bone. Hence the title of the two shows: Hannah Gadsby Speaks from her Art.

(A little F.Y.I for you: the show is going to be broadcast on 7th January 2015 on BBC Radio 4 - unfortunately they didn't give us the time, but if you keep an eye out you should be able to spot it.)

The Broadcasting House is in London (nearest tube Oxford Circus) and it's where they film the 6 o'clock news! As you're waiting to be taken to the room for the recording, you're in a room that over looks all the blurred desks that you see in the background which is pretty cool. (If you look at a certain angle through one of the windows at the back, you can even see the news reporter reporting live! And more importantly, there's a life-size Tardis in this room.)

Went on a little tangent there, but long story short, you can apply for tickets online (just google BBC Audiences or something similar), Hannah Gadsby is rather amusing, and you should check out the broadcast of her show as it talks about two famous pieces of art over the radio. (One being above.) Easy listening. And funny. Perfect.