Review: Whiplash (FILM)

Welcome to Whiplash. A film I only went to see because of its Oscar nominations, and because of its focus around jazz.

Both valid reasons, but if there is one reason that you must simply watch this film, it's because it is great.

It tells the story of a young aspiring jazz drummer and his unorthodox mentor at a fictional prestigious music school in New York.

Throughout its entirety you feel yourself completely enveloped by the film. I was sat in my seat for at least half of the film furiously shaking my foot to the beat (which I hope was neither dragging nor rushing, but simply on point.) What I think is most captivating about this film is its portrayal of honing a skill or talent. JK Simmons' character (the teacher named Fletcher) within the film states that the two worst words within the dictionary are 'good job'. It raises the question of whether they are really? Does it breed complacency or encourage growth? Fletcher believes in the former which partially explains his unusual teaching methods. Is he really inspiring greatness? Or simply breaking the souls of those that have the possibility to do so?

The protagonist, Andrew (amazingly portrayed by Miles Teller) goes throughout the film fighting to reach what seem to be the unattainable standards that Fletcher sets. His fingers bleed, his relationships suffer and so does his sanity.

The film brilliantly plays with its face-paced moments as well as its quieter ones, allowing each scene the space it needs to breathe, much like the set of a drummer. It ticks along nicely, turning in different directions that you don't see coming. This isn't your average run of the mill music film.

Expectantly, the score is fantastic and truly on point, with the musical performances from every actor true if not completely believable.

I'll leave with a simple note on the ending: it's probably the best moment we could hope for. And as with the end of a performance, it ends with a bang.

If you can, go and watch Whiplash. It stays with you long after you've finished watching.

From the RCA to Egon

Today a little trip was had. A trip of worth. A trip of note. A trip worth noting. 

This unusual outing was to see the Work-in-Progress Show at the Royal College of Art School of Fine Art. (Primarily this was seen for purely selfish reasons - inspiration for my own end of year Degree Show.) Now, I'm stating here and now that it really is worth seeing. However, (hence the haste for this post) it's only on this weekend. (10am - 5.30pm) So if you're in the London area get yo'self to Battersea and sniff around those open studios! 

Still being in the studios, and with many of the students still milling around, it's a very casual format of a traditional gallery experience. And I think that, that's nice, because with that comfort comes the ability to experiment and take risks, and that's what some of the pieces on display did. There was one piece in particular (whose name I have no idea of unfortunately) made the most magical thing I've seen from pieces of cardboard and torches. It really proves that you don't need bucket loads of dollar (or the Tate) to make something quite extraordinary.

Now onto the Egon. 

This is my newly discovered Schiele. One of his sister. And although it said she is wearing a hat, I like to think that she has very triangular hair. (But this is all besides the point.)

This is something that is ending very quickly. Tomorrow to be exact. It would help if I mentioned what this was about really wouldn't it? I'm talking about the exhibition currently being held at the Courtauld which ends tomorrow. (It costs £7.50 excluding the £1 donation for adults, or £3 for a student. Which for now is a category I fall in to.) 

Now, as I approached the gallery to join a queue which I was not inspecting, I was wondering whether or not this would be worth it. Particularly when the lady approached me to inform me that the next available slot to purchase tickets, were for 6.30pm. (It was roughly around 2pm as I stood in the queue.) And I wondered is it really worth the hype? It felt that as though because everyone was rushing to buy these tickets, and because they were selling out fast, that you had to go to see it. Simply because everyone else was, rather than the substance of the actual exhibition. Which is a feeling I hate. But it must have worked, because I bought a ticket, and busied myself until I could go to see some works about an artist I didn't particularly know much about.

And I'm very glad I did.

Mostly, when visiting exhibitions similar to this, that exhibit a very famous artist, I wonder why are they so popular? Why this artist? And it's very rare, that I'm in an exhibition, looking at a work, and feel as though I can see the genius that everyone talks about. But it happened this time. Throughout the exhibition, but especially with the image above. This small, pixelated copy does no justice to his mark making, his colour choices, or the shapes he conjures out of the simplest of lines. And maybe that's why I've never been terribly interested in Schiele before. Because in this format, you can't really see it. You're looking, but you can't see. 

And simply because of this revelation, (and the bonus of the cheap student ticket) I would go and see it if you can. It's not the largest exhibition, but it is one of the finest I have seen in a long time.

London Short Film Festival: Animation Selection

Letting you know about a little bit of film biz. LSFF as the title explains is short for the London Short Film Festival that this year is running from 9th - 18th January 2015. This is its 12th year and long may it continue! They have a large variety of different selections, myself choosing the animation one, as I do love seeing how artists interpret this medium differently.

Showings are at various locations I believe. (But for certain being shown at the ICA which is where I went - it lives just off Trafalgar Square.)

It was a rather enjoyable format, cramming almost 2 hours with films ranging from 2 minutes to 17. It made for dynamic viewing, with your attention being held for the duration of the allotted time. There was only one film in the selection that, for me, didn't reach the standard of the others chosen.

And now, it leave me to tell you of my two favourites.

The first is 'Fruit Fruit' by Peter Millard, and I don't need to say anything about it. Because I can show you: http://vimeo.com/82895384

The second is 'Half Wet' by Sophie Koko and unfortunately I can't find this online, so a trailer we have to do: http://vimeo.com/98162947 (I feel the trailer doesn't quite express how amazing this film was, all 7 minutes of it, but if you ever get a chance to see it you definitely should. And you'll know why when you do.)

If you get a chance to grab one of these tickets to see something, definitely do!

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.