A friend of mine recently told me of an underground group of like-minded people whose sexual fetish is to dress up in fur costumes and indulge in a variety of sexual activities. I pondered for a while on the practical necessities of such an act and thought of the amount of heat that one would generate in such a costume. I then began to think of the anthropological origins of the animal suit and what they might signify. I thought of native Americans with their buffalo heads and eagle suits dancing their dances of ritual and magic. I paused briefly on the masks of ancient Greek theatre, and the masked balls of a licentious Venice. However, my mind settled rather uncomfortably on every child’s fantasy; Disneyland. This lead me to a startling idea. That costumes, masks, disguise can all signify not just the obvious liberation of identity but can also, through their material, work as a force of isolation blocking out opportunities to touch and our ability to physically communicate with the world.
It was with this in mind that I then considered Mark Wallinger’s 2007 Turner prize winning work, in which he dressed up in a bear costume and videoed himself shuffling around a Berlin art gallery. It has been stated that the meaning of the work is situated within the symbol of the bear; itself the ultimate symbol of Berlin. And that it questions ideas of national identity and in Wallinger’s words of seeing a culture through its own eyes. I wouldn’t dream of questioning the artist and the subsequent art world who set about canonising such works. However, I would like to offer a secondary reading based on nothing but fancy and imagination.
Written by Phil Lawrence-Hoyte
One of the overriding conditions of modern ‘western’ life is that consumerism and capitalism are the fuels that drive our society. And it seems that the more capitalist we become the more a virulent form of individualism is encouraged. No one that can remember the eighties cannot deny that Margaret Thatcher and the conservative government were at least partly responsible for this current situation. I seem to remember her saying ‘there is no such thing as society’, in other words there is only the individual. It was also about this time that the last, fading voices of the real working classes would say ‘There was a time when you could leave your door unlocked around here’. This might well have been true, however, what is also true is that they also had very little of value to protect. What I would like to suggest then is that along with consumer lead capitalism there was a loss of community and an exultation of the individual over all other demands.
I do not know about you? But I am beginning to see a theme here. Consumerism, capitalism and individualism. Now where in the world do these ideologies find themselves most comfortable? Sorry? Ah yes, the land of the free and the home of the brave; America. The land of that inimitable hero of individualism, the cowboy. It is also the home of Walt Disney. If we consider the cultural capital of the United States we can begin to piece together an alternative reading of Mark Wallinger’s art work. Animal and Disney character’s, costumes seem to me to be vaguely synonymous with the growth of capitalism. They are most often used as a form of promotion. And promotion is a direct corollary of the capitalist business model.
Therefore, Mark Wallinger’s work can be seen as expressing the loneliness of modern life. Through the loss of community via the rampant exercise of capitalist individualism. His bear suit represents, both physically and metaphorically, a layer that each of us has between us and the people around us. It seems to me that the space that he shuffles around in resembles not so much an art gallery as the foyer of a large multinational company. It is a huge and empty space much like the contemporary world we live in. Empty because individualism fosters no sense of a cohesive whole.
It is no surprise that Wallinger performed his work in the foyer of an art gallery. Where else in the world can you find work that is divorced from the lives of ordinary people but in an art gallery? Art galleries might be accessible, but as Pierre Bourdieu suggested these works are so complex and require so much unpacking that only the middle and upper classes have the tools to do this. And perhaps more relevantly are not artists the most rampantly individualist of all creative people? In this post modern world where there is no meaning artists are given total freedom to be as individual as they like. And without any relevance to society. Not to worry though, Charles Saatchi and the Russian oligarchs will pick up the tab.
I think I’ll finish now. As I can see a lynch mob of Goldsmiths art students forming outside the Ben Pimlott building. However, I think my alternative reading of Mark Wallinger’s 2007 Turner prize winning piece has legs. In an uncertain world, in which global capitalism has shown its inherent weaknesses, it is worth thinking on why it has destroyed the essence of community. What is it about retail therapy that numbs us as people and blinds us to the real beauty all around is. What is it about Starbucks and Gap that somehow close down real intimacy between you and me? I look at that shuffling bear and I know there is a real person in there, but my eyes only see fake fur. I look at individuals in the street and know that there is also a real person in there too. Perhaps it is time that we all stripped away the layers that hide us.
Written by Sarah Rowles
0 Comments