Lítil Útópía í Kling og Bang – viðtal við Helenu Aðalsteinsdóttur

Lítil Útópía í Kling og Bang – viðtal við Helenu Aðalsteinsdóttur

Lítil Útópía í Kling og Bang – viðtal við Helenu Aðalsteinsdóttur

Sýningin „Fallandi trjám liggur margt á hjarta“ í Kling og Bang er fyrsta verkefni Helenu Aðalsteinsdóttur sem sýningarstjóri eftir MA nám í London. Listamenn sýningarinnar eru: Josephine van Schendel, Þórey Björk Halldórsdóttir, Bára Bjarnadóttir, Dýrfinna Benita Basalan, Tabita Rezaire, Brokat Films, Elín Margot og Tarek Lakhrissi. Björk Hrafnsdóttir hitti Helenu í Kling og Bang ræddi við hana um sýninguna.

Björk: Þú ert með BA gráðu í myndlist frá LHÍ, hvernig kviknaði áhuginn á sýningarstjórnun?

Helena: Áhugi minn kviknaði þegar ég bjó í Amsterdam þar sem ég fór í meistaranám í myndlist. Þar stofnaði ég ásamt 7 listamönnum sýningarými þar sem við settum upp samsýningar ólíkra listamanna. Það var hálfgert match-making, og ég naut þess mjög að kynna listamenn hvert fyrir öðru og búa til ný samtöl í uppsetningu út frá verkunum þeirra. Stuttu síðar flutti ég til London einmitt til að fara í nám í sýningastjórnun. Ég held að ég hafi áttað mig á að mér fyndist mest spennandi að taka þátt í að setja fram sögur annarra, þar sem mér fannst brýnni þörf á að koma þeim á framfæri þó að röddin mín hyrfi ekkert. Þessi hugsun var samt ekki ný, en ég hafði dvalið sem unglingur í Vestur- og Austur Afríku og Suðvestur-Asíu og kynnst sögum sem ég heyrði aldrei í vestrænu samfélagi. Mig langaði alltaf til að koma ólíkum sjónarhornum á framfæri en fann að það var ekki mitt hlutverk í listinni minni. Það er svo stórt og erfitt viðfangsefni og ég yfirgaf það á meðan ég var í LHÍ því ég vissi ekki hvernig ég gæti beytt rödd minni. En þetta eru viðfangsefni sem ég velti fyrir mér sem sýningarstjóri.

Helena Aðalsteinsdóttir

Sýning þín fjallar meðal annars um kynjamisrétti og rasisma, í verki Tabita Rezaire er hún í samtali við vestræna heiminn sem gerir tilraun til að biðjast fyrirgefningar á nýlenduveldi kapítalismans og hvítrar forréttindahyggju. Hvar staðsetur þú þig í þessu samtali?

Ég er að finna minn stað í þessu öllu. Eitt af hlutverkum mínum sem manneskja sem nýtur margra forréttinda er að nýta þá stöðu til þess að búa til stað fyrir samræður. Ég er ekki endilega eingöngu að reyna að búa til svið fyrir aðrar raddir heldur líka að búa til samtalið. Það er svo dýrmætt. Við getum ekki tekið okkur úr þessari samstæðu, en það er mikilvægt að staldra við og hleypa fleiri röddum inn í samtalið. Að taka inn aðrar upplifanir og fá að endurspegla hvernig við eigum að haga okkur áfram. Kannski gerist það bara náttúrlega í gegnum samtalið, eins og hvað annað, þá lærir maður og fer að lifa lífinu aðeins öðruvísi og byrjar að taka tillit til reynslu annarra. Það er kannski byrjunin.
Þetta er gott en erfitt samtal til að eiga og eflaust margir að spyrja sig eftir BLM mótmælin síðasta sumar. Það er virkilega þörf á að halda þessari umræðu áfram og við eigum langt í land með að koma á jafnrétti og koma í veg fyrir mismunun.

Tabita Rezaire, Sorry for Real_Sorrow For…, 2015.

Sýningin er byggð á útskriftarverkefninu þínu frá Central Saint Martins. Hvernig valdir þú verkin/listamennina inn á sýninguna

Ég hafði samband við listamenn sem nýta sagnagerð í verkunum sínum, og var að leitast eftir sögum um femínískar útópíur. Sýningin endurspeglar ólíkar framtíðarsýnir og þess vegna var mikilvægt að þar kæmu fram fjölbreytt sjónarhorn. Listamennirnir og hönnuðirnir sem eiga verk á sýningunni koma því frá mörgum áttum; þetta er frekar alþjóðlegur hópur en flestir eiga heima á Íslandi. Tvö af átta verkum sýningarinnar höfðu verið sýnd áður og sem ég vissi af og tók inn í sýninguna, en hin verkin voru öll sérstaklega gerð með þessa sýningu í huga. Sem sýningarstjóri var stór partur af mínu hlutverki að fara í stúdíóheimsóknir og eiga samtöl við listamennina um þróun hugmyndanna. Þar kom reynsla mín sem listamaður líka að gagni og við gátum talað um hvernig hægt væri að myndgera hugmyndirnar.

Sýningin er mikið byggð á feminískum vísindaskáldskap. Hvaðan kemur það?

Það varð eins konar vitundarvakning hjá mér þegar ég ákvað að ég vildi ekki fara út í verkefni nema að það væri skemmtilegt. Mér finnst vísindaskáldskapur rosalega skemmtilegur og fór að athuga hvernig ég gæti nýtt hann. Ég skoðaði m.a. kenningu sem heitir Space Travel (Lost in Space eftir Marleen S Barr) sem fjallar um hvernig við getum farið inn í annan heim þegar við lesum skáldsögur. Það er ótrúlegt hvernig textinn getur haft svo mikil áhrif á mann að maður hverfi inn í aðra veröld. Ég vildi athuga hvernig við gætum gert þetta í raunveruleikanum, hvernig hægt væri að skapa þessa tilfinningu svo að listamaðurinn gæti búið til einhvers konar heim eða snúið upp á einhverjar reglur…

Í London sá ég svo Tarek Lakhrissi vídeóverkið, Out of the blue, það var fyrsta sýningin sem ég sá eftir að ég flutti til London, þannig að það hefur örugglega haft áhrif og setið í mér.

Josephine van Schendel, Dendrianthropic Bodies, 2021

Hvaða vísindaskáldskaparhöfundar höfðu mest áhrif á þig?

Skáldsagan eftir Ursula Le Guin, Left Hand of Darkness, var stór partur af fræðinni sem ég notaði, mér finnst svo skemmtilegt að geta notað vísindaskáldskap og skáldskap yfirhöfuð sem fræði. Þar verð ég fyrir miklum innblæstri frá Donna Haraway, sem er prófessor emerita við deild Sögu mannsandans og deild feminískra fræða (History of Consciousness Department og Feminist Studies Department) í Háskóla Kaliforníu í Santa Cruz. Hún á það til að nýta skáldskap í akademískum rannsóknum sínum þar sem hún veltir vöngum yfir framtíðinni. Og svo auðvitað Octavia Butler, hún og Ursula hófu eiginlega þessa bylgju af feminískum vísindaskáldskap á áttunda áratugnum.

Hvernig finnst þér að vísindaskáldskapur geti haft áhrif á raunveruleikann?  

Þetta er tækifæri til að búa til útópíu. En það er erfitt að ímynda sér heim án þess að byggja hann á heiminum sem við búum í. Það er alltaf einhver kontrast, eða akkúrat öfugt við það sem við þekkjum. En í þessum útópísku heimum er frelsi til að sýna hvernig hlutirnir gætu verið öðruvísi. Eins og í Star Trek, þar sem t.d. fyrsti „interracial“ kossinn átti sér stað í sjónvarpi árið 1964. Nichelle Nichols sem lék í Star Trek starfaði síðar hjá NASA við að ráða konur og fólk úr minnihlutahópum til stofnunarinnar. Hún réði t.d. fyrstu konuna, fyrstu svörtu konuna og annan svarta karlmanninn til að verða geimfarar. Núna hljómar þetta kannski sjálfsagt, en það var það ekki á sínum tíma! Og mér finnst gaman að hugsa til þess að vísindaskáldskapur hafi haft áhrif.

Þetta er fyrsta sýningin þín eftir útskrift. Var mikil pressa á sýningunni til að endurspegla þig sem sýningarstjóra?

Það var svo frábært tækifæri að geta verið með fyrsta verkefnið mitt eftir útskrift í Kling og Bang. Mig langaði að gera allt! En svo áttaði ég mig á að sýningin verður ekki betri eftir því sem meira er á henni, að það er betra að skammta hlutina niður og leyfa skilaboðunum sem ég að vil koma á framfæri að koma skýrt fram. Að því sögðu þá er alveg ótrúlega margt í gangi og margir listamenn sem koma að sýningunni!

Kom eitthvað á óvart í ferlinu?

Það var örugglega ferlið að verkinu hennar Þóreyjar sem kom skemmtilegast á óvart. Barinn hennar, Pitstop for a dream. Ég hafði nálgast Þóreyju með að fá bjór fyrir opnunina. Við fórum svo að tala um að hún myndi gera sérstakan bjór fyrir sýninguna og svo koll af kolli og hugmyndirnar stækkuðu og stækkuðu þar til að bjórinn var orðinn að listaverki á sýningunni.

Hafði heimsfaraldurinn áhrif á sýninguna?

Hann hafði mjög mikil áhrif, sýningin átti fyrst að vera í október og var seinkað um marga mánuði. Við það fengu sýningin og verkin að stækka, það vannst meiri tími til að vinna verkin og tala um verkin. Svo kom nýtt samkomubann nokkrum dögum fyrir opnun en þá var svo skemmtilegt hvernig verk Þóreyjar hafði þróast því það er alltaf bjór í boði á sýningunni eins og það sé eilíf opnun.

Elín Margot, the end of me, the beginning of you, 2021

Þetta verk er smá icebreaker, líka, því þú þarft að fá aðstoð frá einhverjum öðrum við að dæla bjórnum og þá ertu kannski búin að opna samtal sem getur átt sér stað í gegnum sýninguna. Svo er líka skemmtilegt að fólk geti upplifað sýninguna á hægara hraða, með færra fólk í kringum sig, verkin eru mjög stór og innihalda oft langar narratívur og þá er gott að hafa tíma til að skoða þau.

Mun verkefnið þróast áfram?

Já! Í útgáfu. Planið var að gefa út bók í síðustu viku sýningarinnar, það frestaðist aðeins en hún er nánast tilbúin. Bókin er unnin á svipaðan hátt og sýningin; í henni taka þátt listamennirnir sem eiga verk á sýningunni, og fleiri listamenn og rithöfundar sem eru að vinna á svipuðu bili, milli raunveruleika og fantasíu. Bókin er meira framhald af sýningunni þannig að samtalið heldur áfram. Hún er hönnuð af Grétu Þorkelsdóttir og ég og Ástríður Jónsdóttir erum ritstjórar. Hún mun koma út í í byrjun hausts.

Hvað er frammundan?

Um þessar mundir er ég að bjóða mig fram sem formann Nýlistasafnsins. Ég er ótrúlega spennt fyrir því hlutverki og langar m.a. að halda áfram að ýta undir fjölbreytileika í sýningahaldi. Það er svo margt áhugavert að gerast og mikil gróska í myndlist á Íslandi og ég hlakka til að taka þátt í að koma fleiri sögum og sjónarhornum á framfæri.

Björk Hrafnsdóttir

Sýningin opnaði 30. mars og stendur til 9. maí 2021.


Ljósmyndari: Blair Alexander Massie

The interview is part of a collaboration between Artzine and a new MA in Curatorial Practice at the Iceland University of the Arts.

Viðtalið er hluti af samstarfsverkefni Artzine og nýrrar meistaranámsleiðar í sýningagerð við myndlistardeild Listaháskóla Íslands á vorönn 2021.

About science, emotions and the Roman Empire: a conversation with Geirþrúður Finnbogadóttir Hjörvar

About science, emotions and the Roman Empire: a conversation with Geirþrúður Finnbogadóttir Hjörvar

About science, emotions and the Roman Empire: a conversation with Geirþrúður Finnbogadóttir Hjörvar

A few weeks ago I had a chat with Geirþrúður Finnbogadóttir Hjörvar about her show Desargues’s Theorem Lecture and Three Other Sculptures at Kling og Bang. Some sculptures would welcome the visitors into the exhibition, playing on the concepts of two-dimensional and three-dimensional, real and unreal, questioning what existence means. The video work Desargues’s Theorem Lecture would then give an insight on the process the artist went through, a sort of key to read the sculptures. Geirþrúður’s mind seems to be an unresting machine which absorbs, processes and reformulates realities in an extremely mathematical and logical way. Through this conversation I tried to grasp her creative process and her understanding of art.

I would like to start this conversation by asking you to explain a little bit further the first sentence of the text in your show’s pamphlet “Desargues’s Theorem Lecture is a video that relies on the assumption that ideas have shapes.”, I find the concept of art dwelling in space between ideas and the physical world really interesting. Where does this idea come from?

At that time, and still maybe now, I was thinking about the relationship between science and alchemy, since alchemy has as forefather a scientific thought, even though this connection is really suppressed. They have a common impulse to do analytical things and to get into a state of mind which contemplates the possibility of figuring things out. I wanted to see what I could do with that, there is a kind of mysticism inherit in all sort of sciences and it is interesting to see how and if they can be brought together in a way that is useful. Everyone who goes into art or who appreciates art is aware that there is some kind of underlying relationship between forms and a more abstract sense, feelings and thoughts. It‘s a bit hard to trace where this idea came from, but at the basis of this work there is a very sincere impulse.

What do you mean by “useful”?

Well, useful as it is not about making fun of science or to try to disqualify it. Science and mysticism are intertwined and you can‘t really go further in either direction without accepting both. On one hand science is a very enclosed system, it would support itself, but on the other hand if you want to get all mystic you will probably end up joining your cult and then whatever you say becomes so enclosed that even talking to other people doesn‘t make any sense anymore. But between these two systems there is something really interesting.

I am also thinking about quantum physics which explores how something thought impossible could actually exist in other quantum realities.

Yes exactly, the further science goes the further it goes back to incredibly metaphysical understandings and statements about how nothing is real after all. And I think if you are serious and eager to discover, then you are following the same track someone in the 15th century would be following when they were making gold, which is also an allegory for knowledge. But it feels like, especially in a social sense, science is used to scare you away from wanting to know something, they say you have to know the scientific method and you probably need ten years of studies to be qualified for it. So this playfulness is not really allowed.

 Your work is also quite ironic, right?

It is actually weirdly not ironic. It seems ironic because it is really sincere. The impulse is to create some kind of a narrative, a sort of suspended belief, and to see science as a narrative. If it seems ironic it is because I wanted to do that, since I‘m very ironic.

In the text you talk about the work in terms of a coded love letter, how did you weave together science and emotion?

In a way that is what I am saying in terms of that it is completely sincere, I did go through all this process that I described in the video. At a certain point I was a bit addicted at looking at all these images of certain things so I just did it more and more, and there is a point in which you exhaust certain materials visually on google and then you start to have a real eye for what brings you into a new place. I think there was something going on in that theory that I just found interesting to explore and then I just kept thinking about that and I really started making this model. On one hand it was a little bit of a joke, the theorem is completely abstract and I was making a thing out of something completely immaterial, I was completely aware that it is kind of funny to try to do that, also because I used whatever was in the kitchen. It was really playful, and I think that was also part of it, this will to take something really scientific and doing something so playful with it, so irrelevant about it. But it was part of something a little bit more concrete, I wanted to make a sculpture out of the theorem, and why did I want to do something which doesn‘t make sense? Well, in part because it didn‘t make sense, if it did make sense then it would have been so pointless. I think the reason why anyone has a passion for something remains inexplicable, and I suppose the only way to grasp it is to make this analogy with things that are part of an emotional landscape. The scientific world says that we have to separate science and emotions, but I don‘t agree with that, I think things going on in the mind can be very passionate in a very abstract way and I think passions can be extremely rational.

 There is also a kind of instinctive side to discovering how things work.

Well, you know, the mind is the biggest sexual organ, they say. We use all kind of ways to seduce who or whatever we are interested in. In the background of my mind I was also thinking about the implicit masculine nature of scientific discourse, which is very much ego-based and willing to dominate, the scientist is this alpha male who seduces with his great brain. To me it was interesting to see what it feels like to take on that position.

And how did you feel in this alpha man/scientist role?

It was fun, I’m still trying to have a dialogue with that scientific part of myself, I think it is something that everyone should do. It is conditioning for a woman to think about science as a complicated thing. Wanting to shy away from technology is really common, as it is scary, but it is important to be able to take something scientific and make it yours, play with it, you don’t have to be afraid of not being qualified. And this is also part of this desire of creating this scientific discourse and being convincing, because it is just a theory.

Talking about being convincing, you state in the show’s pamphlet that the piece is very much inspired by the 20th century communication, I think the format you have decided to use for this video is really interesting. In which terms are you interested in the 20th century communication?

I think it is about being contemporary, the modern communication defines the era on every level. Concretely, it represents also an interest in science in terms of knowledge and how it is communicated. I never stop being amazed by how easy it is to have information nowadays compared to how it was before, I managed to master four different programs thanks to Youtube tutorials. I think the piece is a kind of celebration of that, I find interesting the relationship between the word and the images that we have become able to recognize, and this is completely new. It is part of mass culture: now everyone knows how to get a picture from google and put it in a powerpoint, and that produces this logic which is part of our consciousness now. On the other side, I’m interested in the narratives in these kind of media which are really competitive so within a certain amount of time you have to gain the viewer’s attention. But also, considering the social-political climate, these media are quite dangerous, the flat earth theory is the perfect example of how we just apparently got back to the middle age all thanks to precisely this kind of presentations of information. Sometimes I can just watch these videos and sincerely be a little bit scared, because I can feel critical about them, since I’m visually trained to be able to understand all these subtleties, but I wonder if all of the millions viewers who have seen the video are also trained or maybe they just believe it for what it appears. I think there is something about artistic education which is quite valuable in terms of decoding presentations of information, and it actually would be useful for people to navigate those media.

Talking about the importance of art history, I was browsing your website I noticed that there are recurring symbols of the Roman Empire, architectural elements like the Ara Pacis and the columns in Desargues’ Theorem Lecture.

I’m really fascinated by the Roman Empire because you could decode or you could foresee a lot of things about history’s unfolding by learning Roman history. You can actually understand today so much better by understanding Rome than by understanding any contemporary theory. I have also being concretely influenced by the financial crash in Iceland, I was in Europe at the time and it was a very strange sensation because at that point no one in the rest of Europe could perceive a social movement as being anything other than populist and I had really mixed feelings whilst I felt there was such a huge possibility to create something, but then again there are so many things that can go wrong if there is not an understanding of historical perspectives underlying mass movements. On one hand there is a lack of class-conscious reading of history in the general education, on the other hand those training to be part of the upper classes universally receive a classicist education which provides them with a playbook to maintain power, they just don’t have to come up with a new strategy if they know the history, it is all there, like a toolbox for countering the next move.

Your book Mindgames, published in 2012, brings together John Lennon, Henri Lefebvre, Halldor Laxness and Caligula, it looks like you are taking fragments from different areas of knowledge and mixing them together. What was your aim? And why did you choose these four subjects?

The idea was that they represent different spheres in society, it was a sort of mathematical formula which brings together the politician, the musician, the theorist and the writer, I was fascinated by this relationship they had with recognition and with their audience. It is a lot about time, repetitions and patterns. I was thinking in a cybernetic kind of way when there is a feedback and when there isn’t and how the author transmits information to the reader and that this would produce something new, a feedback which then will influence the author. These are all kind of subsystems, and I suppose I was trying to figure out my position and wondering what the contemporary artist could hope to achieve by creating new work, if artists can really influence anyone at any level, if that’s actually the aim, and how quality is created.

And did you find an answer to these questions?

Yeah, in my own kind of mathematical way, in terms of theory, I found the mathematical kind of calculations to figure out the probability, the correct proportion between the different elements you need to communicate something. I probably figured out for myself what I wanted and how I wanted to make art.

  

My last question does not really relate to your own work, but since you have been living abroad for about ten years, in Holland, Germany and Colombia and you had the chance to experience different art scenes, I would like to ask you what you think about the Icelandic contemporary art scene.

I think it is pretty good, you can actually see some pretty good works and shows. There are a lot of big cities where a lot of things are happening and you really have to try hard to find good exhibitions, while in Iceland the art scene is at a surprisingly good level considering its size. I think there are a lot of artists doing super interesting things. If I wanted to make a critique it would be that in the past there has been a quite strong impulse to try to suppress any kind of intellectual sensibility. But this is changing though, there is more space now, because it’s just a matter of having a wider spectrum, and I think it’s also quite valuable that there is a lot of room for people who are not into this super intellectual/critical/reading kind of discourse, while in a lot of places, for instance in Europe, you have to make sure you’ve read certain books and check out certain things to be allowed to this sphere, and that art under those conditions can be boring because that doesn’t come from an inner desire of the artists. So I think it is nice that here there is that side of the spectrum, but I think it’s also good that you can include in something more intellectual or conceptual and to try not to dismiss that, and I think that’s becoming more accepted than it was before.

Ana Victoria Bruno


Photo credits:

Stills from the video: courtesy of the artist.

Photos of the sculptures: Vigfús Birgisson.

Website of the artist: http://www.geirthrudur.com

Sara Riel: art as a state of meditative unconscious

Sara Riel: art as a state of meditative unconscious

Sara Riel: art as a state of meditative unconscious

Automatic, Sara Riel´s exhibition at Kling og Bang, presents intuitive drawings and perplexing forms that cleverly imbue elements of the uncanny and spontaneous creation. Riel´s practice is based in Surrealism; she trains herself into a state of drawing that is characterized by improvisation and a release of control so as to liberate the subconscious. In Riel’s drawings we follow the thread of her imagination as it flows through her pen and onto paper.

Sara Riel follows in the steps of artists like Andre Breton, Hans Arp, Joan Miró, Salvador Dalí, and Max Ernst, pioneers of surrealism and automatism. These artists attempted to access the psyche at the purest level through art. Andre Másson first translated techniques of automatic writing to painting, and much like Másson and Miró, Automatic progresses from drawing into the painting medium. The exhibition consists of drawing, painting, sculpture, video, and performance work, and is quite based in this historical influence.

Riel´s hand moves randomly as artworks are created through intuition and accidental mark making. Take Stundir á staðnum/Moments in situ; the shapes are delicate and vaguely representational. I can make out noses, the inside of an ear, faces, birds, flowers, snails, if I really look for it. But maybe my brain is just playing tricks on me, searching for and creating something recognizable in order to make sense of it for myself. In these terms the rational mind is seen as an oppressive system against creation. Creating without intent is very much fighting against human nature. Another way to describe it is self-censorship, as if your conscious and logical thinking blocks a discovery about the true self. This artistic method is then in a way a rebellion, against norms and status quo, against predetermined ways of thinking and creating.
However, can a drawing, and are Riel’s, ever fully free from the conscious and from purpose? Riel says she throws away any drawings where she starts to notice her conscious presence taking over. How does one know when they have reached a truly authentic state of meditative unconscious? Her works are somewhere between sense and nonsense, but exactly that, in between. Elements register as visually pleasing and grounded in forms we can at least attempt to make sense of. Unconscious and conscious creation necessarily feed off each other, but Riel seems to enter into some realm beyond. She taps into a trance like state as she draws and paints without any preconceived notions of the end product, and so too can the viewer tap into such a state as well in looking.

A paper scroll, Stundir með litum og grafít-hreyfing/Moments with colors and graphite-hreyfing, unrolls onto the ground, revealing a colorfully flowing form with motion and direction. The textures of brushstroke reference to the painterly method, but the work feels otherwise quite natural and earthly: a waterfall cascading to the earth below, the waves of the sea, a cloud formation ascending to the heavens. A small stairway hints at the artist’s continued presence with the object. Imagine Riel standing at this stairway, unfurling the scroll, paintbrush in hand. Like nature itself, the piece is never still or constant. Next to it, Stundir með fimm litum og grafít/Moments with five colors and graphite suggests something human, but also quite foreign. We can’t place it, and that’s disconcerting in a way, this inability to place. The drawings seem to take the form of something from a dream, somewhere between the realm of the tangibly real and pure fantasy.
On the floor, a glass sculpture, Stund með pensla pennum og lazer- hringur/Moment with brush pens og lazer – circle. Moving over it, we peer into what registers as an endless abyss of glass, like looking into a wishing well. Formations are carved into the top layer, extending deep and down into the reflecting layers past our vision. This descending effect has a quickness of motion to it, as if caught moving at light speed. The shapes form a reflective halo around our faces, murky and shaded, shimmering, confusing.

In Stundir með blá-grá-grænum litum, ögn af appelsínugulum og grafít/Moments with Blue-grey-green colors, dash of orange and graphite, blue toned drawings register as marine or cloud formations, wisps of foamy waves. A large glass etched panel, Stundir með pensla pennum og laser- fljótandi, fljúgandi/Moments with brush pen and lazer-floating/flying, reflects onto the wall behind it. In the etchings we can almost make out forms of the body, but not quite. Next to this work are two larger framed ink drawings, Stundir með pensla pennum og heitum og köldum litum/Moments with brush pens and warm and cold colors, presenting repeating iterations of earthly green forms. They reference to all sorts of things natural: Tree trunks? Oysters? Fungus? The piece is intricately detailed yet without purpose. Our brain grasps at straws as we try to orient the shapes in something we know.

As viewers, we are stuck in this mind set of rational thinking, of orienting these forms as representations. Otherwise, if we free them from any purpose or meaning as they were meant as, they feel almost unsettling. So, the viewer makes associations to things we know, places we’ve visited, things we’ve dreamt of. The works become personal and real to our individual experience. Automatic is then more so a commentary on our own inner selves than on Riel herself. That we make something out of these forms points to our conscious’ need to form and categorize. Why this constant need for meaning? Why can we not accept an object as something unknown, uncategorizable?
In a black box room is a video and projecting sculpture work: Stund með 0.3 teiknipenna og laser- þyrping/Moment with 0.3 fineliner and lazer-cluster and Stundir á staðnum/Moments in situ. Three etched glass panels are reflected with light from a projection box, which slowly brightens and dims. A second sea-green colored reflection occurs, muddled and murky. Our own reflections interrupt the piece, changing its form. The video presents footage taken from below a projection box as Sara draws. At moments the action in the video stops as she switches out pieces of paper. We see then only the adjusting zoom of the camera on the projection box as it tries to orient itself, zooming the lens in and out. This orienting action of the lens is precisely how the viewer interacts with this exhibition. Constantly adjusting and repositioning, we attempt to orient ourselves in something we can’t quite understand, but desperately want to.
Our personal viewpoints very much inform and create meaning in these works, it is not prescribed or predetermined to us. Automatic is a diary of sorts, revealing inner parts of Riel’s subconscious as well as of ourselves. Through a spontaneous, artistic creation Riel creates pieces that are beautifully open to experience. References to Sigmund Freud are abound, and the associations we make in these drawings almost feel like a Rorshach test as psychological allusions of our inner thoughts are revealed. But there is an accessibility and simpleness to Riel’s methods, a meditative mindset that any of us can access. If we seize the moment the tools are presented to us. To follow her on this journey, accessing a state of freedom from logical thinking, brings us to question our own modes of thinking. This is ultimately what successful art should do, cause us to think, question, and reevaluate. Automatic is then a notable exploration into an artist’s search for an ultimately pure and free creation.

Sara Riel is recognized for her impressive public commission wall paintings. Her latest work To the Ocean, located on the Fishing Industry Building close to Harpa, has become a well known outdoor installation in Reykjavik’s urban landscape. Riel studied art at Fjölbrautaskólinn in Breiðholt and then at the Iceland Academy of the Arts from 2000-2001. She attended the Kunsthochschule Weissensee in Berlin from 2001-2005, and the Mesiterschuler in Berlin from 2005-2006.

„Automatic“ is running until November the 25th at Kling & Bang

 

Daría Sól Andrews


Photo credits: Lilja Birgisdóttir, Daría Sól Andrews, Ana Victoria Bruno

UA-76827897-1

Pin It on Pinterest