I am confronted with bold imagery, ambiguously floating in white

Kevin Paolozzi
|
Reviewed by Anton Jeludkov
11.16. 2012
I am confronted with bold imagery, ambiguously floating in white space, charged
with energy, surging through the type diagonally embedded in the background.
The overall composition of the poster is evidently exemplary of a classically
constructed center-aligned piece of graphic design. The letters spelling out “EXECUTION” are composed of black coil-like forms, resembling tangled slinkies,
that signify conductive facilitators through which an electric charge freely flows
igniting the poster. The visuals are analogous to a shock being sent through an
electric chair. Apart from the sporadic, yet strategically placed circular elements
the poster presents itself in a rather rigid manner, divergent from the expressively
energetic treatment of the large type. Each blue circle is connected by a zigzagging
wire to a grounded black node. This visible pattern recurs throughout the whole
poster, reinforcing my earlier remark about the poster’s rigidity, but simultaneously strengthening the work’s internal logic.
Kevin Paolozzi, 2012
Kevin Paolozzi (detail)
At initial glance, the layering of letterforms and accompanying shapes seems disorienting, but as I begin to focus on the work more closely, a clear message reveals
itself. The conspicuous “EXECUTION” shifts into the background, allowing the
rest of the statement saturated in prominent red to come forth. The statement in
red letters is presented in a very confident manner, floating atop everything else.
As I absorb the sentence I begin to notice the manner in which it speaks to appear
casual; as if it is haphazardly mentioned in passing. The small yet clearly apparent
evidence stopping me at that conclusion is the apostrophisation of the first two
words, “I am”, which in my mind effectively alters the overall tone of the artist’s
assertion. Also the fact that the following word “fine” is the stating factor of one’s
feelings towards a subject of such magnitude (lives of other human beings) reveals
to be the evidence pointing back to the artist’s casual demeanor. The word selection appears to be intentionally careless.
The fact that the word “Execution” is presented in an expressive manner leads
me to believe that the artist’s intention consists of evoking an immediate sense of
shock from the audience. If that is the case I am not sure if it is quite successful in
achieving that (based on a personal encounter with the work.) The large scale of
the piece does work to its advantage, supplying the typographic message with a
generous amount of power over the audience. The poster dramatically calls for attention and exploits all of its perceivable devices (scale, bright colors, lots of white
space, daring words) to avoid being dismissed. The message itself although somewhat visually expressive, is presented in an explicitly straightforward manner. My
initial reaction was positive, in an appreciative sense of seeing the artist not resort
to coupling the typography with literal imagery, but rather representing the message in a subtle way through the use of simple abstracted shapes. The portrayed
language, stripped of imagery, claims all the power, yet does nothing with it,
simply because the message is so simple and lacks a poetic quality, through which,
I as the viewer would be able to gain a personal attachment to the work.
This all leads me to the interpretation of the message, which suddenly stops me
short in my trail of thought. The statement does not leave much to the imagination. Everything is crystal clear: both the subject matter and the artist’s point of
view on it. The lucid quality of the piece is its anchor. Many would argue that a
work of art should raise questions rather than answer them, not to say that questions do not arise in my mind when faced with the subject of capital punishment,
especially in the context of United States, but Kevin’s piece entrenches itself too
inflexibly in its position. As David Bayles and Ted Orland wrote in their book Art
& Fear, “Answers are reassuring, but when you’re onto something really useful, it
will probably take the form of a question.”1
Corporate Fascist, 2001
Jonathan Barnbrook
Perry Defends Record of Executions in Texas
Youtube clip
Picketers (Google Images)
The nature of Kevin’s piece is not inquisitive, but rather confrontational. The fact
that the work is being presented shortly following the 2012 American presidential
election shines light on a topic that has not been at the forefront of debates unlike
energy, economic and environmental matters. In this regard, the scale and direct
manner of the piece forces the audience to consider the issue at hand, not letting it
go overlooked. Capital punishment has been a hot topic in recent political history
of United States. Past political debates have touched upon the subject in various
degrees, highlighted by this scenario described in the Wall Street Journal in 2011,
“When Rick Perry is asked about the two-hundred and thirty some people he’s
executed on death row during his governorship, the audience bursts into applause. Torture, war, and death, and this is the ‘pro-life’ party. I submit to you that
this moment is perhaps the most telling since George W. Bush left office; that the
modern Republican party is not only intellectually bankrupt, but morally bankrupt as well.”2 It is also reminiscent of a former Massachusetts Governor Michael
Dukakis’ famous answer to a death penalty question in 1988 that many believe has
cost him the presidential race; “Pitted against George H.W. Bush, the Democratic
candidate was asked whether he would favor an irrevocable death penalty for the
killer if his wife, Kitty, were raped and murdered. ‘No, I don’t, and I think you
know that I’ve opposed the death penalty during all of my life,’ Dukakis said. His
response was immediately assailed as cold and detached, although the questioner,
CNN’s Bernard Shaw, was also criticized for asking such a charged question.”3
Kevin’s piece challenges the audience to measure up its opinion against the presented point of view and it is here precisely, where the work falls apart. If it does
indeed draw the viewer into a dialogue, the work offers nothing in defense of its
assertion. It becomes a very one-sided conversation.
The question then becomes: would this be considered a political artwork? In
Caoimhghin Ó Croidheáin’s recent article for Global Research he classified
political art in three categories: Portrayal, Promotion and Projection. “In the first
category ‘Portrayal’ covers art that says ‘this is what happens if, is happening now
or happened in the past’…In the second category of ‘Promotion’ ways and means
towards the resolution of the problem are presented. That is, a particular aspect of
an event is highlighted over other aspects…In the third and last category ‘Projection’ refers to art that takes disparate elements and then recombines them to form
a new image.”4 By positioning political art in the framework of the aforementioned categories Kevin’s piece then fails to be defined as such, but rather stands
to be described more accurately as a graphic design piece with political inclinations. I would not venture to call this piece purely political art, as it does not strive
to make a difference in the currently dominant regime, but rather simply (almost
indifferently) states one’s opinion in regard to a problematic subject. To push this
further, one may see the work’s lethargic demeanor to be symbolic of the general
indifference many feel towards political situation in their country, and with that,
view the piece in a satirical light.
The digitally rendered aesthetic of the piece, with its political aim is comparable
to the work of Jonathan Barnbrook, whose past pieces would often target George
W. Bush’s regime. Barnbrook’s poster titled Corporate Fascist (2001) is particularly congruent to Kevin’s unambiguous approach, depicting a monochromatic
image of Bush with a barcode for a mustache, ironically portraying the president
as a Hitler for the modern age, accompanied by an explicit statement, “Corporate
Fascist,” hitting the audience over the head with its amplified candor.5 Similarly,
both works comfortably operate within the realm of graphic design, specifically
evident in Kevin’s digital typographic manipulations, sans-serif choice, and a
meticulous use of ligatures. In another way, the work’s linguistically charged
presence parallels Jenny Holzer’s Truisms. While both artworks rely solely on
the power of language it puts forth (Holzer’s in a less visually expressive style),
Kevin’s in comparison lacks depth and complexity that Holzer is able to achieve
through juxtaposition of numerous arguments within a single space. Art critic
Hal Foster notes “that the Truisms seem to offer information, but they are mostly
opinions, beliefs, and biases—conflicted and cogent by turns, they intend everything and nothing, and they result in ‘verbal anarchy in the streets.’…Truisms
place in contradiction ideological structures that are usually kept apart; they present truths in conflict and imply that under each truth lies a contradiction.”6 Holzer
is able to construct a complex narrative, addressing the audience to decipher it
based on their own experiences, which fails to happen in Kevin’s piece due to its
singular opinion, rendering the work easily digestible. Truisms, 1977-9
Jenny Holzer
The presented piece in all its unequivocal affectation parallels the attitude embraced by the theory of Purism. Ozenfant and Jeanneret state in their Purist
Manifesto that, “PURISM wants to conceive clearly, execute loyally, exactly without deceits; it abandons troubled conceptions, summary or bristling executions.
A serious art must banish all technique which is not faithful to the real value of
the conception. Art consists in the conception before anything else. Technique is
only a tool, humbly at the service of the conception.”7 Ozenfant goes on to assert
the importance of universality in art, “Purism strives for an art free of conventions
which will utilize plastic constants and address itself above all to the universal
properties of the sense and the mind.”8 Kevin’s linguistic style is seemingly in
sync with the spirit of the aforementioned theory. Although his work does posses
political inclinations, it does not entrench itself in a culture-specific visual
vocabulary but attempts to reach a wide audience through its universally
accessible message.
The piece instigates a dialogue, but stops short once the initial shock of the message is absorbed. The poster lacks complexity beyond its immediately available,
punchy language and typographic manipulations. As I agree to enter into dialogue
with the work, I demand more information, more evidence in support of the presented declaration. The piece lacks visually symbolic representations in support of
a reference point (class, social position, ethnic origin, political basis) from which
the stated opinion is derived, presenting itself in a vastly general manner. Although visually compelling from a graphic design perspective, the work is devoid
of poetic sensibilities and lacks linguistic complexity, especially when revolving
around a subject of such problematic nature. The carefully crafted letterforms
strip the message of its power. The piece is evidently heavily graphically treated
for the reason to be considered a “designed” poster, which leads me to believe that
the visual style of the work was not created to intentionally reinforce the language, but rather to fit into the design sphere as a visually accomplished adeptly
composed piece of graphic design.
—
1. David Bayles and Ted Orland, Art & Fear (The Image Continuum, 1993), p. 113
2. James Taranto, The Wall Street Journal, “Why They Cheered ,“ http://goo.gl/bGkT3 (Accessed November 13, 2012)
3. Z. Byron Wolf, ABC News, “The 12 Most Cringe-Worthy Debate Moments in History ,“ http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/
OTUS/12-cringe-worthy-debate-moments/story?id=17367100#7 (Accessed November 13, 2012)
4. Caoimhghin Ó Croidheáin, Global Research, “Political Art,“ http://www.globalresearch.ca/political-art/20092
(Accessed November 13, 2012)
5. Jonathan Barnbrook, Barnbrook Bible (New York, Rizzoli International Publications, Inc., 2007), p. 280
6. Terry Barrett, Criticizing Art: Understanding the Contemporary (New York, McGraw-Hill, 1999), p. 101
7. Wikipedia, “Purism“, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purism (Accessed November 14, 2012)
8. Charles Harrison and Paul Wood, Art in Theory 1900-1990 (Cambridge, Blackwell Publishers, 1992), p. 240