Jane Harris/ Gary Simmonds, Transmission

Transmission

11 November 2009

Jane HARRIS/ Gary Simmonds

Gary Simmonds says a few words introducing Jane as his friend, an old friend. They share a kind of intimacy based on true friendship. She speaks with a clear tone in her voice, poised, starting by paying tribute to the artists who influenced her in the past and those who still play a great role in her recent work. Mondrian is the one who apparently has a big mention on her life amid Rothko, Barnett Newman, Greenberg, her training with William Coldstream and the suprematism of Malevitch. He then explained further how strenuous were her 30 years artistic activities, how she feels more and more confident in her work, the way she got developed all these influences and how they still work in some context. She explained doubt is still there, while she is in her studio, painting, drawing etc…

Modernist artists Rothko and Bart Newman were a great discovery for her, also a moment of intense questioning about how to go forward or above what has been achieved. I was not quite convinced about how her ovoid elliptical forms emerged from “Carre blanc sur fond noir” of Malevich for instance or Newman strips, how all the work of Modernist such as Mondrian respond to the Constructivism of Marlene Dumas on her severe, quite ornamented paintings etc…

Looking at her work during her speech, I cant stopping wondering why Rococo Minimalism is the Title of the session. Could a mix of suprematism, constructivism, modernism and late abstract shapes be called rococo minimalism? Her oval forms are floating, in constant movement, changing as if they were toothed mouths of antediluvian animals ready to swallow everything which dares to approach.  Why didn’t she let her respectful, full of light yet charming paintings go their way, speak their own abstract, simple and unknown language, without being named by all means, catalogued or stamped by an overwhelming “ism”. Rococo minimalism?

Amidst words and huge circle of ovoid colours, time of formation in Goldsmiths, making process (Fabriano paper, metallic dust, drawings with pencil, watercolour) came up a song, a disrupting song. I would prefer silence. This kind of music was in total opposition with her work of great quality. Maybe it was deliberate, as she loves opposing terms, notions, objects, sound and silence. She creates potently artwork of pure silence, highly spiritual paintings, in the middle of such a noisy and banal music. How? Mystery…! I feel like giving up, on the verge of shouting : Silence please!

Then came the moment I prefered above all: her trips in Japan and France, very inspirational, coming from the depths of her heart. In a kind of binary opposite, of dualism, she talked about distance, light and shadow, notions of far and near, symmetry and balance, enclosure and exposure, wet and dry, outside and inside, inclusive spaces and exclusive spaces. All these notions are illustrated in her recent discovery: Gardens.

Images of beautiful gardens on the screen.

In a dualistic manner Janis opposed dry garden to wet garden. Wet is shadow, absence of light, obstructions, when Dry is enclosure, static. In a certain measure, her work is the reflection of these notions. Then came a second disrupt: a song. Oh my! From a Zen garden in Japan, full of silence and peace, to a well ordered classical garden in Vaux le Vicomte near Paris, a song, a beautiful modern song…  It certainly appears to be disorienting. Well…

Transmision Lecture: Jane Harris

Introduced by friend and fellow artist Garry Simmonds, Jane Harris gave a no-nonsense presentation on a successfull art practice that spans over 20 years. There exuded a real sense of the experience of the artist and her own confidence in her own work. Strong testimonials from curators and other gallerists backed up the general air of cool proffesionalism, sent out from the lecture platform to the audience like radio waves, passing through them all the time.

On one of the video’s shown, the viewers in the gallery ‘dance’ in and out of the picture plane, looking close to the surface – step back to view the effect. Pigments. Wine & black, copper & cream. Viewers seduced. No ducal seat here. That’s a really difficult thing for a painter to be able to achieve, and you just dont get it very often. Greenbergs’ enquiries into the relation of surface and depth suggest, in part, a ‘situation in modern painting where depth had lost its dignity to surface’ here the two become partners towards an overall sensation. There is a gaze ‘within’ the image. To allow your gaze to fall upon one of the scalloped edges promotes a sense of the limen, or threshold into a contemplative, timeless, non-place. The work makes palpable a liminal, mesmerised state. The viewer no longer quite sure of their surroundings.

Augmented to these aspects are other particular fascinations and sensibilities; not just the selection of palette or the tonal variations. There are the considerations of scale, the method, material and the impressive applications of paint. The painters keys.

Harris goes on to show more slides of the images, mostly fantastic cup-cake things, abstract forms which assist in the way the work almost ‘describes itself’, almost.  The canvas’s are painted with great finesse, with or without the assistance of a guide or template, I wouldn’t really like to say… What’s more at this level, I dont think it really matters all that much.

Earlier in the evening Harris had expressed concerns about the reproduction of the work on slides. She had hoped for more detail, emphasis upon being able to pick up on the brushmarks. Theres no doubt – these paintings would benefit from a first hand encounter, the scale, the brushwork is important to the perception of the works power. But the slides, and the videos, were adequate enough to make you want to experience more. A class act. Painting is not dead!

Adam

Transmission 11th Nov Gary Simmonds presents Jane Harris

(a) This is your new governess, Frauline Maria! There is a huge groan as the film is turned off. I join in silently. GS, I don’t know you, although I’ve seen your excellent shoes. Jane Harris is Rococco Minimalism. I like the sound of that, KP would too. I’ve been thinking about real abstraction.  She looks nice, lacking in charisma though. Stood at the podium gives this an air of importance. Its better this way. Special. The work must be seen clearly, she wants us to be able to see the brushstrokes, apologises for poor quality, gives canvas sizes, introduces the talk as if it were an essay, outlining the main points. STOP FUSSING and get on with it! P can’t turn her phone off, this is starting to become more interesting. I don’t want to be bored. CONCENTRATE!

This would probably read quite well, stop explaining! The wide angle lens will cause distortion. Faffy. You could have shown 6 images of your work by now. She appears to be engaged in an act of hero worship..of herself! Mythologising, the video shows the exhibition set up, the first painting is revealed accompanied by the sound of awe-inspiring music. The voice over is over-explaining the work and the volume is too loud. Telling us what we are looking at, it puts me off, makes me unhappy, I want to run screaming when this happens. Restlessness and mild disorientation is what the images are, and do to be fair, invoke. A conversation btw artist and curator, not unlike tim and penny’s, only blander and it reminds me of SLR going on about dialogues. This feels like an art appreciation lecture, the slade circa 1952. This is how to look at this work, , all the hallmarks of a Harris. I can’t take it in in this Open University style. And the sound effect over the typing? WHY?

She is sure of herself, I guess this is comforting. She has developed her style, her motif. Reading her reviews! Reading out what the critics have said, without a trace of irony. What do you think of your work Jane? Why are you reading us your reviews? 193×290 cms, she tells us. Tennents taken from Greenburg. I want her to read out some of the bad reviews, there probably aren’t any.

Drawing geometric shapes and colouring them in, I want to do that too!.  She should give this talk to the WI, they’d love it. I wonder if she wrote this script especially for the talk today? Painting in and out of fashion. The ‘crisis’ has been going on for longer than you think. Not just in the 70’s. Maybe she is really referring to her own crisis. Parochial dichotomies. Mondrian, conctructivism etc, 1910’s ! Where is conceptualism in your world? Oh, you mention some. Pier and ocean..Judd and co. Reading out is naff isn’t it? ‘hitherto’ name dropping, stumbling over the words, not running smoothly, slipping off the toungue, straight from the heart. So it feels like an oscar speech, a lifetime achievement award. Be positive, theres some insight into that art school world view of the 70’s-90’s. Present one’s own work. I ought not to be grumpy, this is just someone elses style.

Aesthetics, life. Form influences behaviour-J.Albers. Doing is essential, form of thought. Abstraction, representation. Somewhere in-between. I wonder what PS’s paintings are like? She falters as she reads, gaps in the wrong places, mispronunciations. Discipline.

These are beautiful and clever paintings, my words. If I’d seen them 10 years ago they’d have rocked my world. I’d have tried to paint like that. They redefine abstracton, it does work. Coded limits, signs and associations. Paint on the surface.

Quoting more critics. She must be delighted that has spent time thinking about her work, putting it into words-defining, describing, analysing it. We could all do with that, someone to do the thinking for us. I mean that. Comparisons with Tomma Abts. ’these are his words not mine’, discipline of process. Ellipse, geometrical with real world associations. (Don’t tell Plato!) It is the starting point for all her work. Japanese garden making. Slade scholarship, details please! How do we get to go? Everyone loves the Japanese gardens. Scale, perception, reality. This must be where D is thinking about my drawings, the lines, concentric.

Is it possible to oververbalise your work? Over-describe and explain it? I’d love her to say, “I dunno really, the colours look good, all I want to do is paint, make something beautiful. It’s a compulsion.” Is she worried we might not get it or that we might not like it?What personal, artistic conflicts? ‘impurity of my thoughts’ wow, a bit Presbyterian!

Two books on a shelf, a rug on a tiled floor, grass on the edge of a lake. Nice! Edge border, counterpoint, figure, ground, static, dynamic. The particular and the general. Paradoxical activity-reffering to a variety of conflicting elements. (They still look very similar).

Another quote. I might make up a few quotes about myself and my work, and slip them into conversations.

I don’t want to hear this music! Don’t spoil the paintings with a song to illustrate it. Country music. Does she play this in the gallery? I think not!

4 black ovals, on a black ground. Quite Victorian, morbid and romantic. Abyssmal. While the music plays JH stands primly, holding her pages like a newsreader. I catch her eye for a second, or rather she catches me staring. She looks down and shuffles the papers. Then she reads the lyrics, Tongue in cheek, while being from the heart. Ok, it makes sense now. Your paintings are beautiful but ultimately very dull. (David Read, celluloid/paint. The Western). It is just on the verge of being interesting.

ANOTHER QUOTE! And she keeps reffering to herself in the 3^rd person. ‘Mawkish’. No just end it please. Smug. A lecture explaining how the 5 elements of the picture are in play.

ONE MORE QUOTE! CM is staring off into space…sigh!