comments are closed on this review, click here for worldwidereview home
From: anon.
Category: Exhibitions
Date: 26 April 2001
Like many exhibitions there was some good art and there was some bad. But how do you judge the photographs, videos and installations all made by londoners with learning disabilities? On one hand this was a ‘community exhibition’, on the other it was a group show by people who see themselves as artists in their own right, expecting to sell their work (and they have). How should non-disabled people see the work? Is it bad because its made by learning disabled people or is it bad because it is like so much other poor art on show in the capital: boring, cliched and badly painted/filmed/etc...? And conversely, is it infact genuinely good or are we being overly sentimental in our response to work we know is made by people ‘less capable’ but which looks very good all the same? If this exhibition is to be judged alongside contemporary, mainstream exhibitions which was partly the intention (and success of the location - many people thought the OXO was the TATE) then it compares pretty favourably: It was interesting, provocative, dynamic and some of the work was really excellent. However, it would be dishonest not to understand the work as being made by people with learning disabilities but does this then detract from the value of the work? (although it can also enhance it...!). After all we don’t understand the Chapman brothers as less capable than Pollock and therefore judge their work relatively. Or is this what’s happened to modern art: no one expects greatness any more, so concessions are made for mediocrity?
comments are closed on this review, click here for worldwidereview home