John Hurrell – 23 November, 2009
In other words, one might as well stick with the ‘one mind’ idea that Tao Wells is simply just a terrible artist, especially as there is no articulated evidence here by his Gambia colleagues (or Wellington dealer, Whyte) to counter that, let alone claim he is a ‘terrific artist’ as well or instead.
Auckland
Tao Wells
Space Jam 1996
A drawing and painting sale selected by Nick Austin.
14 November - 28 November 2009
November is an interesting part of the art year calendar, with many of the main tertiary art institutions around the country briefly presenting public displays of their students’ work. Most of what is shown is invariably inconsequential, work made cloning their teachers or pages of international art mags, or a hybrid. Those few with any substance will become apparent in 3 - 4 years after their paper chase, when they develop strategies of survival, shake the teachers out of their hair, and find their own voices.
In Gambia Castle Tao Well’s show suggests the opposite process, as if his best work is the very early stuff, even before he went to university. Such a premise might be accurate - might even be obviously so if his practice in general is conspicuously unremarkable to start with.
So how can we be persuaded either way? No meritable quality, in my view, is apparent from just looking at the exhibition and unfortunately Nick Austin, the selector of the exhibited work, has no essay advocating its merits. Although he is not listed as curator (only ‘selector’), he is known as an eloquent verbaliser of ideas, one who is exceptionally articulate. A wasted opportunity.
Instead we have Dick Whyte (of Wayfarer Gallery) writing a little introductory text to the show. It is nicely written and in three sections.
The first starts with: Tao Wells is a terrible artist. But he is a good person. This writer is impressively candid it seems, although perhaps too generous about the artist’s personality. Whyte then distinguishes between moral behaviour (externally imposed codes, as with legal or religious injunctions) and ethical (internal and from reflection).
In the second paragraph he puts forward a second definition of ethics in which “we must become adept at talking with ourselves. We are always two, rather than one.” He wants to lead the discussion to the possibility in the third section that Tao Wells is both a terrible artist and a terrific artist. However I can’t get that far. For a start I have problems with his use of the word must.
Amongst his many attacks on the notion of prescriptive moral rightness and attempts to systematically provide criteria for it, the British philosopher Bernard Williams claimed that ethical conviction about what one ought to do is not actually a kind of decision (not from a group or from the individual concerned): Ethical conviction, like any other form of being convinced, must have some aspect of passivity to it, must in a sense come to you. (Ethics and the Limits of Philosophy, p.169). However this conviction ends up being mixed in with reflection, discussion and theorising to form the individual’s ethical norms.
In other words, one might as well stick with the ‘one mind’ idea that Tao Wells is simply just a terrible artist, especially as there is no articulated evidence here by his Gambia colleagues (or Wellington dealer, Whyte) to counter that, let alone claim he is a ‘terrific artist’ as well or instead. If they are convinced there are arguments for the latter, it might be a good idea for them to elucidate them.
Recent Comments
Andrew Paul Wood
Actually, I think that John is getting at the annoying and naive "nouveau vague" tone a some artists and artist-run ...
John Hurrell
I haven't lived in NZ for a while...is JH still colouring in maps?
John Hurrell
Thank you Dick for your letter, your comments about my review on your site - and for pointing out the ...
Advertising in this column
Two Rooms presents a program of residencies and projects
This Discussion has 7 comments.
Comment
John Hurrell, 2:12 p.m. 3 December, 2009 #
I will remove blogs from those not providing family names. I've been stating that for a while now. With those examples on this thread, the reasons therefore have had nothing to do with the content of the posts.
Jerry, many thanks for your comment. If my writing is pompous it is because it reflects the support material which it addresses, and which is far more interesting to think about than the art work. The artist asked Dick Whyte to prepare the text and I have responded to that. That is reasonable.
No vindictiveness is intended. Writers choose from shows those aspects that intrigue them, and naturally ignore those that don't. If you want to see Tao's documentation of his own exhibition, click on the link to his blog I have placed over his name.
Jerry, 2:10 p.m. 3 December, 2009 #
Dear John (don't you just love that?)....intriguing indeed. I've since seen some images courtesy of Artsbash, and really (even though detail is hard to discerne) the works don't look so uninteresting (as you suggest) not to warrent some reflection on your part. I assume the exhibition is an installation that responds to the space in some way? Why would you bother to review support material and not the exhibition itself...which is a bit like reviewing the labels in an institutional show...or...the next time you're in a cafe and you don't like the art, you decide to review the menu? Hey there's an idea...cafe art reviews.
To me your writing still seems to be a personal stab at Wells (by not mentioning his work)as he seems to be a thorn in your side?
I'm also curious that "Cheryl Bernstein's" comment has been trashed...doesn't she have a blog that you provide a link to?
JW
Ron Hanson, 2:08 p.m. 3 December, 2009 #
Haven't seen the show and am interested, is Tao a terrible artist or not? How about actually writing about the work. Haven't you just constructed yourself a mirror for you to look in?
I was looking forward to some real criticism but came away disappointed to say the least. What do you consider a terrible artist? What do you consider a good one? And how do you define merit?
If you really don't like him (as a person or an artist) as much as you profess - isn't that an achievement in itself? - please elucidate. Then I could evaluate your merit on a point-by-point basis.
Better luck next time.
Here's my family name: Hanson. I hope that satisfies you.
Dick Whyte, 2:07 p.m. 3 December, 2009 #
John - Tao has nothing to do with the 'publicity'.
Also - you have known about the images on Art Bash for at least 9 days - and I quote:
John Hurrell: "I agree that Artbash, as you say, has much more interesting images." (24/11)
So, it is not just that you couldn't find them around. You knew that good images were there and you chose not to put them up with the review, which I feel was somewhat calculated.
John Hurrell, 2:21 p.m. 3 December, 2009 #
Thank you Dick for your letter, your comments about my review on your site - and for pointing out the indeed excellent images of Tao's work on your blog.
(Thank you Tao too for giving me unexpected publicity for my own art practice, on Dick's blog).
When I write a review often there are no images around to post, but if there are some, I will attempt to use them. My problem is that if I wait too long for the artist's or gallery documentation to appear, I lose momentum for the writing. I prefer to post the text, 'seize the time' - and if I find images later I can then post them.
At the time of writing there were some dreadful images of the show on Tao's own blog - they looked as if taken through a yellow filter - and nothing on Gambia Castle. There was nothing I could use at that moment, but I did provide links to your, Gambia's and Tao's sites.
So I will now post some images taken later from your site and from Gambia Castle's. Thanks for telling me they were around.
John Hurrell, 2:23 p.m. 3 December, 2009 #
I haven't lived in NZ for a while...is JH still colouring in maps?
Andrew Paul Wood, 2:24 p.m. 3 December, 2009 #
Actually, I think that John is getting at the annoying and naive "nouveau vague" tone a some artists and artist-run spaces adopt these days, rather than attacking the artist.
The anarchist posturing is a little tedious for those of us who remember Rik from The Young Ones, and frankly it probably wouldn't hurt for some people to be clearer in their communications for the sake of we plebs.
And as this isn't artbash bitchfest (which has its place), hiding behind a pseudonym is a bit childish in this context.
Andrew Paul Wood
Participate
Register to Participate.
Sign in
Sign in to an existing account.