After weeks of excitement and anticipation I finally got to see the Grayson Perry exhibition at The British Museum yesterday.
Entitled: The Tomb of the Unknown Craftsman it was a collection curated by Perry, which included objects from the museum archives as well as items he had made himself.
The exhibition worked (for me) on many levels. It was an exploration of what crafts mean to us; as makers, as users of objects, and as observers. It looked at where art and craft meet, and what happens to objects that either sit on the dividing line between the two areas, or move across from one to the other. It looked at how we pour meaning into objects and how we extract meaning from objects. It explores what happens to them over time in terms of their importance to us as objects and artefacts, and how our understanding of them changes with the passing of time.
I am fascinated by these ideas. I read Brian Sewell’s review of the Perry show, and it was harsh. Sewell dismissed Perry as a craftsman, as if somehow this was demeaning and unworthy. I utterly disagree with him. I remember seeing Perry speak at De Montfort University a few years ago, and being captivated by his ideas about craft. It is this that draws me to his work.
I don’t know if I’ve got this right but I will attempt to explain my understanding of it. A craftsman is someone who makes the same thing over and over again, like a bowl or a cup or a chair. These objects, after thousands of makings, are made with a fluidity, and ease and grace which give them an inherent artistry and worth that underpins and adds to their pragmatic value. Perry’s work seems to cross the divide between artist and craftsman in that he makes these crafted objects but because of his status, the way he decorates the objects and how and where they are displayed, they become art in the more accepted sense of the word.
The items in the British museum are, in the main, crafted. They were not made to be seen in a gallery. They were made by artisan craftspeople to be used in homes and buildings, temples and shops. They have become art because of their age, and because of where they are now displayed. We have ascribed them artistic value despite the fact they were not made by named artists.
I love these ideas. I am a huge fan of craft as an art form. I believe that the objects you have in your home, the things that surround you and which make up your every day life should have an inherent beauty that is at once a part of and yet which also transcends their practical use.
I hate Sewell’s idea of art as being something exalted and unreachable. It is so elitist. I love some of the art that Sewell reveres, but I cannot afford it. It is not within my reach. I would never be able to own it and enjoy it every day. In order to see it I would have to make a pilgrimage, much like the one that is artificially created in Perry’s exhibition.
Sometimes I want to do that, and that kind of art has its place. A place where, for example, one of Perry’s pots sits. I would never be able to afford one. I have to go to a gallery to see one. But Perry’s art and the way he makes it, talks about it, and sometimes displays it is a reminder that art and beauty can be in all things.
And this is what makes me joyful about his work, and it is a word I do not use lightly. His things make me feel joy. Stupid perhaps, but there you are.
Even though they are out of my league financially, they remind me of the beauty that surrounds me. I have, for example, chosen to eat from my Bridgewater pots, which I can go and see being made and decorated by hand. For me they are craftsmanship which also give me great aesthetic pleasure. I drive past Victorian factories which are such beautiful examples of craftsmanship I want to touch them. I have a hand carved pestle and mortar made of a deep grained, copper coloured wood that looks like art to me.
In the exhibition space, we are able to look at objects with an aesthetic eye rather than with a pragmatic eye. We are able to see the beauty in the every day. We are able to make art out of every day things and every day things into art. Perry’s work explores these ideas. His iconography is full of famous brand marks, mobile phones, sound bytes and items from contemporary life that he has purloined to become spiritual and symbolic reliquaries.
The themes of faith and belief were also a huge part of the show. The exhibition was set out as a kind of pilgrimage; with Alan Measles, Perry’s teddy bear as a benevolent deity both presiding over and taking part in the pilgrimage. The objects were laid out to create a kind of narrative journey which led to the final piece, the Tomb of the Unknown Craftsman, which was a ship, cast in iron, slung with reliquaries and totems, and housing an ancient flint axe head.
Perry’s notes, which accompany the objects are fascinating insights into the way he planned the exhibition. The objects not only lead us on a journey which is symbolic of a journey into understanding and possibly faith, but the whole thing is a symbol of what the British Museum as a whole stands for, as a kind of Mecca and place of worship for pilgrims wishing to understand more about the world though the people and artefacts that inhabit it.
I also saw it a Perry’s own journey of discovery as an artist. His pilgrimage to Germany on AM1, the bike I have posted pictures of, shows a growth in his understanding of both his psyche and his art. The embracing of other crafts as well as ceramics, with tapestries and the amazing iron ship. The continuation and exploration of recurrent themes like his sexuality, his transvestism, and his obsession with maps as a way of expressing and understanding faith and spirituality, self and other. I particularly loved the tapestry, which was a map of the ideas of pilgrimage and the afterlife. I found it interesting that the medium of weaving is used as a way of mapping things, and chose, perhaps erroneously to think this was a kind of meta comment on what maps do, taking strands of understanding and weaving them together to create new ways of understanding and looking at things.
It pleased me, anyway.
The other thing that also impressed me was the sense of humour that the work is put together with. It can be disturbing and dark, and provocative but it is also really, really funny and engaging. One lady I stood in front of summed it up for me when she turned to her companion and just said: ‘Alan Measles! He he he he he.’
I wanted to blog about it when I got home last night, but the exhibition, although quite small, gave me so much to think about, I found myself a bit overwhelmed by it. I decided to sleep on it and see if it helped clarify my thoughts any.
What I loved about it most was that each object was picked with such care and placed in such a way that a story unfolded as you travelled around the exhibition. I am sure that this is what many curators do when they set out to put together a show, but this is the first time I have really experienced it as a visitor.
I found myself appreciating objects that I know, had I seen them in a regular museum case, I would not have given a second glance to, but because of the way they were placed and the items they were juxtaposed with I was able to enjoy them in a completely new way.
I am not an artist, although I love the visual arts. I like to see beautiful things. I do not always understand them. My appreciation of them is rather like my appreciation of a flower. I like things which make my inner beauty receptors quiver.
I am a writer. It is words that do for me what art does for an artist. What I loved so much about this exhibition was that because the narrative within it was so strong I was able to translate the objects I was seeing into the story I was reading and feeling, and make sense of things in a way I found deeply satisfying as well as aesthetically pleasing.
It was an absolute delight, and I am hoping I will be able to go and visit it again before it closes in February.