- Venue
- ICA: Institute of Contemporary Arts
- Location
- London
‘Dispersion’ presented the work of seven international contemporary artists. The work on display consisted of photography, video, film and performance, all incorporating different aspects of contemporary society such as the role of money, desire, power and sexuality/pornography, as well as the art market, media and art historical icons. The content of the exhibition comes as a shocking and unexpected surprise in contrast to the clinically mundane space it inhabits, white walls and airy space only intensifies the contemporary feel of this institution.
The title of the exhibition was taken from an essay written by participating artist Seth Price, which implies an expansion of information in terms of breaking boundaries. This instilled preconceptions of what was in store prior to even stepping in to the gallery for the first time. Feminism, gender politics, sexuality and sub-culture are all prominent issues in the works on show, particularly visible in Hito Steyerl’s film, ‘Lovely Andrea’, which treats the sexual fetish, bondage, with a light-hearted and normalising approach, as well as in Henrik Olsen’s ‘Some Gay-Lesbian Artists and/or Artists relevant to Homo-social Culture I-VII’.
When the spectator enters the gallery, the first noticeable piece is a projector situated at an elevated level near the entrance. This arouses intrigue, as the projector was idle. We meandered through the lower gallery viewing the work of Henrik Olsen and Seth Price, whose video could be heard throughout the lower gallery. It was only after viewing these artists that we returned to investigate the illusive projector.
Maria Eichorn was the artist responsible for this curiosity. We discovered that to view the projections, which was a series of films entitled ‘Film Lexicon of Sexual Practices’ we had to speak to the projectionist, possibly a gallery assistant, who waited behind us. This necessity to request the films created a strange kind of interaction, unusual for a gallery. The nature of the films, sounding from their titles to be quite explicit, caused an awkward and uncomfortable atmosphere. The projectionist, we noticed, marked a tally chart according to which film was asked for, which rather altered the experience to create a sense of being part of the artist’s research. It was as if the whole work was a comment on voyeurism, taboo and the role of the spectator, breaking boundaries of what is traditionally socially acceptable.
Henrik Olsen explores the notion of archiving, again challenging conventions of sexuality and orientation. His work, paintings throughout history which he had printed out on pieces of A4 paper and stuck to the huge black panels appeared somehow scruffy, like an investigation of ideas still in progress. It challenges traditional gallery layouts not only in the way it is tatty but also in the way it is categorised and organised –perhaps a comment on traditional practises of archiving.
Similarly to this Eichhorn contributes to the theme of archiving/collecting in the way she organises sexual practices, she expressed herself that these short films are meant to be informative rather than sexual or titillating. Seth Price and Hito Steyerl also contribute to this theme and the concept of memory in exploring how we store memories. Seth Price uses recycled home videos for his piece ‘Editions’, which is a culmination of home videos. This suggests that Price has had to re-order, and re-evaluate his memories into a logical order in order for his film to be pleasing, aesthetically or otherwise.
Hito Steyerl’s film ‘Lovely Andrea’, as we have previously mentioned, contains fetishism and bondage throughout the film, which is itself a self discovery for her to find her own bondage images from years before. As a viewer we are able to see Steyerl’s lack of self perception, demonstrated when she is unable to recognise an image of herself amongst other images of bondage models. With the film being cut with clips from the Spiderman cartoon, similarities can be drawn in the way that she created a fictional character, someone that she can no longer associate with. Bondage and the sex industry has become a commodity in a similar way to that of Spiderman, or that sex is as blasé as a cartoon, which further enhances the theme of breaking boundaries of what is now socially acceptable to the public.
Both Hilary Lloyd and Anne Collier also contributed to the exhibition. Both incorporated the idea of recycled images in to their work, allowing them to relate to the other pieces on display. However, their impact on the viewer was minimal compared to the more explicit and controversial art works on display. One of the reasons for this may have been the layout of the gallery itself. Anne Collier was the only artist whose work wasn’t exhibited in a space that was formally labelled a gallery, but instead was installed in the concourse and therefore drew little attention compared to the works which focused on more explicit themes. The work of Hilary Lloyd was disappointing compared to the other works on show. Her work ‘Studio’ constituted projected images of paint splatters from within her studio. While it followed the themes of the exhibition, recycled images, obsession and fetishism, her contribution didn’t seem to have a very strong impact upon the viewer. It was dull and diluted, by far the least impressive room. Her work was exhibited in the upper gallery, a large space and she didn’t have the power to fill it.
The exhibition posed the question of what is public or private, or what could or should be public or private. The line which divides the two is tested throughout this exhibition, using taboo subjects that push the limits of suitable exhibiting material within a public space. Mark Leckey, recent turner prize winner, also participated in ‘Dispersion’. He presented a live lecture entitled ‘Mark Leckey in the Long Tail’ which supposedly followed the themes of the exhibition. However, we wouldn’t know this as he made his lecture a one chance show, creating a very physical divide between the public and the private, even making people pay to see his live lecture whereas ‘Dispersion’ was a free exhibition making it available to all. This was unfortunate.
The exhibition was interesting and very relevant to contemporary society, which enabled the viewer to relate to the art. Overall, ‘Dispersion’ pushed the boundaries for the average viewer, however the location of the exhibition desensitized it to a point because the spectator would expect forms of the unconventional and the provocative at the ICA, whereas more traditional gallery spaces such as the National Gallery would be far less likely to curate such a show. The ICA is a stepping stone closer to breaking all the boundaries as mentioned above, but to demolish these boundaries is still a great leap ahead. Until then, we believe works such as these will only be shown in these more contemporary institutions.
