So for a little context, a while ago I produced a project that was an exploration of identity, character and uniform and I recently found this essay I wrote about Conor Harrington and his exploration of those things. Or rather, what I thought he was trying to achieve in some of his art. If you know nothing about him, check him out. It's edgy and grungy and generally pretty rad all round.
Anyway, here's my essay, let's go.
Anyway, here's my essay, let's go.
Identity; A definition of who we are. Who do we see when we look inside ourselves? Who do we see when we look at each other? Who am I? Who am I, and who do I want to be? | |
Identity: The amalgamation of those questions, an existential abstraction that enables our entire perception of the world, and here I am trying to express it in words and pictures.I suppose I chose it as the core of my project because for 18 years I've been leaning what my role in society is, learning how to play it. To fit into and inform our cultural identity, our world identity. But my identity, how I see myself, is inevitably different to how you see me. How you see yourself is different to how I see you.
So that's what my project was all about. What identity means to me. In other words, it's the conflict between self and other. It's Uniform versus Character, how Uniform informs Character, how it suppresses Character.
How, when everyone becomes their Uniform, Uniform becomes their Character. It becomes their identity.
It's that conflict that my project is about. It's about who we are and who we present ourselves as.
Self versus Other. Personal Identity versus Social Identity. Uniform versus Character.
Identity versus Identity. The conflict of who we are. The conflict of knowing who we are.
So that's what my project was all about. What identity means to me. In other words, it's the conflict between self and other. It's Uniform versus Character, how Uniform informs Character, how it suppresses Character.
How, when everyone becomes their Uniform, Uniform becomes their Character. It becomes their identity.
It's that conflict that my project is about. It's about who we are and who we present ourselves as.
Self versus Other. Personal Identity versus Social Identity. Uniform versus Character.
Identity versus Identity. The conflict of who we are. The conflict of knowing who we are.
I happened across Conor Harrington a few years ago, when I was digging around to find an artist for GCSE art.
When I started looking at Uniform and Character as the title for my project, one of the components for my idea was to have people wearing uniforms as the subject of my work.
When I started looking at Uniform and Character as the title for my project, one of the components for my idea was to have people wearing uniforms as the subject of my work.
I conjured up some costumes and as the next step I started thinking that perhaps I should consider war artists or artists whose work examines uniform, because analysing their work might inspire something brilliant.
That's what brought me back to Conor Harrington.
That's what brought me back to Conor Harrington.
His work fluently blends energetic graffiti into realist, classical portraiture, creating dynamic pieces in which historical imagery and figures compete with contemporary criticism for attention and space in the image. His compositions are carefully constructed to show modern attitudes to historical ideals clashing with those ideals, exploring how they fuse together (or rather, how they don't) both visually and culturally. Harrington's use of streaks of colour cutting apart his military figures (most obvious in A Saint With The Powers Of Superman) is the most visually striking example of this technique. Not only does it visualise the bright, attention seeking colours of our commercial age tearing apart classical art and repurposing the space for something much more basic, it also adds a violent urgency to the image. With the soldier looking over his shoulder and reaching out to the place he's come from, but nonetheless rushing forward into the chaotic scrawl of graffiti in front of him, the slices of colour that originate in the place he's headed sever him from his past and whitewash his humanity. |
He becomes nothing more than a nameless man in armour as who he was is corrupted by the hyper-modern. The lines are almost like bullets ripping through him as he charges into the unknown of the future, where older ideals can't survive in a mess of commercial disregard, and the order of a regiment of soldiers descends into one faceless historical figure rushing unawares into the chaos of graffiti and murky colours that lies ahead. There is no more obvious imagery than graffiti to portray our society's blatant disregard of what has come before.
Harrington's work at once laments the loss of the grandeur of historical figures and clothing, and uses it to symbolise the changes in our society. For instance, when making the previous image, he used a military re-enactment enthusiast as reference, portraying him in stark contrast to he alternately grungy and dynamic background of the piece. In doing so, he explores the man's place in society, and "modern man's continuing fascination with personal combat in an are when war is beginning to be waged by remote control," which he visualises by focusing on the man's armour, and completely covering up the rest of him. That is, except for his mouth, perhaps symbolising how he (and in turn, older ideals) still have a voice; they're simply drowned out in the loudness of colour and confusion of our modern age.
Harrington's work at once laments the loss of the grandeur of historical figures and clothing, and uses it to symbolise the changes in our society. For instance, when making the previous image, he used a military re-enactment enthusiast as reference, portraying him in stark contrast to he alternately grungy and dynamic background of the piece. In doing so, he explores the man's place in society, and "modern man's continuing fascination with personal combat in an are when war is beginning to be waged by remote control," which he visualises by focusing on the man's armour, and completely covering up the rest of him. That is, except for his mouth, perhaps symbolising how he (and in turn, older ideals) still have a voice; they're simply drowned out in the loudness of colour and confusion of our modern age.
In Harrington's exploration of history struggling against the relentless rush of a modern society, the Irish artist uses his choice of canvas as a tool to emphasise what he's trying to say; some of his art is actually on canvases, and the rest is on walls (he chooses his material to enhance what he's trying to say about the conflict of modern and old. Some are on traditional surfaces, and some reflect the impermanence of the graffiti he uses in his work). Conor Harrington's recent work has been all about change. He has worked increasingly on canvas as he explores the transitions from the past to the present and the shifting of power from the West to the East (in a series of 6ftx8ft paintings entitled A Whole Lot Of Trouble For A Little Bit Of Win), looking at the processes of and attitudes toward change. With that series of paintings, Harrington explores our western culture and the effect it's had (and is still having) on countries like China in our global age, using the imagery of late 16th and early 17th century Regency. |
The series, painted on canvas with gold leaf, oils and spray paint, takes place on a tiled floor, a grand chess board on which the game will unfold, and a table in the middle. Draped with the flags of the United Nations and the People's Republic Of China, and at times laden with candelabras and cornucopias of fruit, it sits behind the figures in the paintings, ever present.
The table and everything on it represents the lifestyle of luxury and excess that epitomises the ambition of Western culture. When the figures in the foreground fight, they move past the table; it becomes a part of the background, and in so doing, the riches that were sat upon it disappear, forgotten. The figures fighting become the focus of their own fight, and in turn the focus of the painting. They're no longer fighting for what they started fighting for, and perhaps it's a critique indicative of the way that those who live that lifestyle begin to dismiss it as a privilege and see it more and more as a commodity.
The table and everything on it represents the lifestyle of luxury and excess that epitomises the ambition of Western culture. When the figures in the foreground fight, they move past the table; it becomes a part of the background, and in so doing, the riches that were sat upon it disappear, forgotten. The figures fighting become the focus of their own fight, and in turn the focus of the painting. They're no longer fighting for what they started fighting for, and perhaps it's a critique indicative of the way that those who live that lifestyle begin to dismiss it as a privilege and see it more and more as a commodity.
Harrington uses certain visual techniques to portray this change. For instance, the fact that the characters are dressed in Regency costumes helps to convey a sense that these are historical events, distancing the viewer from the goings on by making it a little less personal, a little less like it's happening in our time or our presence. It feels more like a series of unchangeable events, historical records that the viewer can only watch from afar. The events become inevitable, and so the paintings feel more like a criticism of how Western culture has come to such a point where that can be the case. Harrington uses body language to tell that story. |
The west falls back defensively, leaning away from the East, reaching his arm out and defending himself. The east towers over him, lunging forward, his sword pointed at the West's head as he takes the power. And all that time we see it from the side, always the same angle, always observing.
Bong Joon Ho, a Korean director, uses the same technique in his films Mother (2009) and Snowpiercer (2013), but credit where credit's due: Tony Zhou - who uploads his film analysis to the YouTube channel Every Frame A Painting - brought it to my attention in his video on Snowpiercer.
To summarise, facing the viewer, looking directly at the camera, is honesty and truth. It might put us in the shoes of a character, and depending on who's looking at us, it becomes intimate, or oppressive, but always personal.
Viewing a scene from the side makes it inherently distant. If there is a character we care for, they feel more alone. If we want to help them, we can't. Not facing us directly hides secrets, it hides the truth, or it tells us that we're merely a witness.
We're not involved.
So, as the east gains the upper hand on the west, we, the viewer, all of us are... powerless. Again, Harrington wants these events to feel inevitable. There is no changing them, and it helps to make the piece more critical of the path that our society has been on, and where it's going. He even does this by employing historical uses of imagery.
Bong Joon Ho, a Korean director, uses the same technique in his films Mother (2009) and Snowpiercer (2013), but credit where credit's due: Tony Zhou - who uploads his film analysis to the YouTube channel Every Frame A Painting - brought it to my attention in his video on Snowpiercer.
To summarise, facing the viewer, looking directly at the camera, is honesty and truth. It might put us in the shoes of a character, and depending on who's looking at us, it becomes intimate, or oppressive, but always personal.
Viewing a scene from the side makes it inherently distant. If there is a character we care for, they feel more alone. If we want to help them, we can't. Not facing us directly hides secrets, it hides the truth, or it tells us that we're merely a witness.
We're not involved.
So, as the east gains the upper hand on the west, we, the viewer, all of us are... powerless. Again, Harrington wants these events to feel inevitable. There is no changing them, and it helps to make the piece more critical of the path that our society has been on, and where it's going. He even does this by employing historical uses of imagery.
So, as the east gains the upper hand on the west, we, the viewer, all of us are... powerless. Again, Harrington wants these events to feel inevitable. There is no changing them, and it helps to make the piece more critical of the path that our society has been on, and where it's going. He even does this by employing historical uses of imagery. Nude women lay upon the table in some of the pieces, not as people, but as desirable objects. Just like the candelabra and the bowl of fruit, they represent a rich, lavish, historical lifestyle. And just like classical paintings of the Regency era and before, women are imagery for success and desire. |
She is the archaic prize that the men, the powers, compete for, and while it's uncomfortable and alienating to view her as an it, as an object, Harrington wants to make these paintings feel like they don't quite fit in our time, like they come from a different era.
Is he doing this to say that the lifestyle that is represented in the paintings with historical imagery is in fact an outdated lifestyle?
He compares the ambitions of Western society today to the aristocracy of the Regency era.
Because of the lavish lifestyle and privileges that the monarchy and clergy enjoyed in the 16th and early 17th century, the people became disillusioned and resentful.
The French Revolution happened.
A Whole Lot Of Trouble For A Little Bit Of Win is Harrington's critical and historical comparison.
A warning, if you will.
Is he doing this to say that the lifestyle that is represented in the paintings with historical imagery is in fact an outdated lifestyle?
He compares the ambitions of Western society today to the aristocracy of the Regency era.
Because of the lavish lifestyle and privileges that the monarchy and clergy enjoyed in the 16th and early 17th century, the people became disillusioned and resentful.
The French Revolution happened.
A Whole Lot Of Trouble For A Little Bit Of Win is Harrington's critical and historical comparison.
A warning, if you will.