Works on paper

Press, 15 August 1984, Page 46

Works on paper

“Someone’s Backyard,” works on paper by Judith Rugg at the Robert McDougall Art Gallery, until September 23. Reviewed by John Hurrell. Sixteen silkscreened prints and nine acrylic paintings on paper are presented by the English printmaker, Judith Rugg, at the Robert McDougall Art Gallery. Indignantly political in tone, these works draw attention to United States military and economic intervention in Central America, especially within those countries that are part of the Caribbean Basin. Using symbols for the various economies such as bananas, sugar, bauxite and oil, that are totally dependent on aid from the United States, in combination with flags, stamps, maps, and images associated with tourism, these works attempt passionately to declare Latin American independence. Unfortunately, the way most of them are made visually causes them to become insipid compromises between decorations for the sitting room and street posters. In a way, these works are a reversal of “it’s not what you paint — it’s

how you paint it which counts” attitude so prevalent among many contemporary artists. This outlook results in an overabundance of ornamental mark-making and obsessive reworkings of hackneyed subject matters, such as landscape, still-life and figures. Instead, in this exhibition, it is clear that Judith Rugg knows what she wants to say. However, how she has presented her ideas has led to problems. These works lack the immediacy and clarity of com- ? position that posters from he different insurgent groups would have had. Many compositions are either too cluttered with painterly techniques, or too sparse, and often her choice of colours is inappropriate for the content, with no sense of irony being suggested. Sometimes these images do not work because the brush marks or splashes and dribbles of colour do not sit happily with the drawn symbols or screened photographs. They are often clumsily overloaded to convey gestural overtones of frenzied violence, or else they dribble downward to suggest the movement of

spilt blood. This exhibition lacks sufficient formal qualities to communicate its content clearly, yet to do so effectively requires delicate balancing. Some artists, like Hotere, can be so adroit at manipulation of formal aualities, so inventive, that le viewer can be seduced into ignoring the political considerations altogether. It is a question of communication, and of priorities. It is a shame that this exhibition is not successful because much of what it contains is of public interest, and is rarely discussed within art galleries. Some exhibits do work, and with wit, such as the crosssection of a tall and desolate Latin America, with “the Monroe Doctrine” written beneath. There is no reason why art and politics should not mix, if artists wish to use the gallery to generate political discussions. Unfortunately, this show does not provide evidence that the two can exist in symbiosis. At a time when we need a greater diversity of art types to be seen in Christchurch, this exhibition is a let-down.