- Venue
- Hayward Gallery
- Location
- London
Intangible. Unpredictable. The subliminal.
Metaphorically speaking, the gallery is a prism and we are the light diffracting throughout the vast, overwhelming exhibition; not only are there queues to enter the show, queues are dispersed inside the entire gallery space.
This is a positive aspect, building suspense and drawing attention to the audience’s encounters. The navigational element creates anticipation, alluding to the labyrinth. The stimulation of our senses forms a personal experience.
Light is considered sculptural in some cases. For others, it is used as a tool for interaction; the lack of a focal point throughout the show determines the viewer to become part of the work, simultaneously performing and spectating.
Entering the space, Leo Villareal’s ‘Cylinder II’ captures the audience initially; the light is in continual state of flux, as it oscillates through different speeds and intensities. 19,600 LED lights are arranged on suspended rods, forming a cylindrical shape. The shadows and reflections on the surrounding walls and floor begin to question the boundaries of material and immaterial.
The shadows direct the audience’s focus to David Batchelor’s ‘Magic Hour’, emphasizing the mechanics and technology. The cables and machinery are on display, concealing what may be considered the aesthetic quality of light. This allows the viewer to consider the beauty of “behind the scenes”. The constructions are equally important.
The theme is continued amid Ceal Floyer’s ‘Splat’, enabling the audience to understand the formation of the playful, projected light. The title incorporates wordplay, representing the sound and image of a projected liquid, (something tangible.) A theme of form and void is presented, due to the materiality of light implied.
The further along the labyrinth, the more intense the involvement. The heat from Cerith Wyn Evans’s ‘S=U=P=E=R=S=T=R=U=C=T=U=R=E’ can be felt whilst viewing Francois Morellet’s ‘Lamentable’. It transfers throughout the space, as the light intensity fluctuates from one column to the next. The work is personified; the pillars appear to be “breathing”, due to the movement. An association with the spiritual is inquired, by the architectural use of space and columns.
As the viewer continues to navigate, themes of form and void become more obvious. A tension occurs. Our desire to touch the intangible light is accentuated. This can only be achieved with our eyes, highlighted in Anthony McCall’s ‘You and I, Horizontal’. Themes of material and immaterial transpire, exploring the threshold of reality and illusion. The work consists of a room filled with smoke and a video projection of light. As the audience interacts with the light, a tunnel effect emerges. The smoke and light begin to manifest a deceptively tangible shape. The shape of the projected light gradually changes, maintaining the viewer’s interest. Ambivalence is portrayed.
Unfortunately, in the neighbouring enclosed area, Doug Wheeler’s ‘Untitled’ failed to create a spatially ambiguous experience (initially), due to the footprints of past visitors. However, the closer to the light-encased square on the far wall, the more a sense of dematerialization is achieved, as the footprints begin to fade from sight. A sense of escapism is deliberated.
There is a mystery element within James Turrell’s ‘Wedgework V’ as the viewer cannot determine how the illusion is formed. Frustration and confusion occur as the viewer engages with the portrayed puzzle within the immersive space. Others would stare at the projection to become immersed, alluding towards the state of the daydream. The projected lighting suggests an extended space, space that does not exist, referring to the void. The more time spent viewing ‘Wedgework V’, the more can be seen. The work remains the same, yet it is our eyes and brains that create the transformation of the work. An exciting theme of kinetic yet static is presented. The red wall reveals several planes with various glowing colours. Spiritual associations are suggested, due to the effect of escapism.
The viewer is unable to appreciate Fischli and Weiss’s ‘Son et Lumière’ next to Carlos Cruz-Diez’s ‘Chromosaturation’; the contrasting scale deters our attention. ‘Chromosaturation’ encountered the greatest interaction, as viewers continually strolled back and fourth between the three intensely coloured rooms, creating the Ganzfeld effect. Walking into another space causes the retina within the eye to see the complimentary colour. The adjacent space is already lit with the complimentary colour, causing the audience to become immersed, visualizing twice the intensity. Momentarily, the viewer becomes disorientated. After a few minutes, the audience’s eyes adjust to the lighting, causing the viewer to return into the coinciding space to have the same effect again, (with the opposite colour.) A theme of kinetic yet static is present, both physically and perceptually.
Throughout particular works, our senses become heightened due to the lack of lighting. Olafur Eliasson’s ‘Model for a timeless garden’ is undoubtedly the spectacle of the show. The use of disorientating strobe lighting alludes to the impossible; the water appears static; sculptural, defying gravity. We, the viewer, feel as if we are experiencing stop motion, the thematic “kinetic yet static”.
