some thoughts on jennifer mcdonald's exhibition containment

Firstly thanks to Jennifer McDonald for giving me permission to use the images in this post. I understand she will be writing about her [first solo] exhibition and using the images herself.

Watch her blog for that - also for information on the performance on the final day of the exhibition next Thursday, 17 February.

Jen sent the images to a number of friends. This post is based on the immediate response I sent back, and on discussions with friends. This means my response is based on the five images sent, and others previously posted to Jen's blog rather than the exhibition itself which I obviously haven't seen.

For me there are five strands discernible in the images that interest me: pairings, sex, gender identity, colour, and the contrast of 'natural' and 'manufactured'.

It might be argued that the contrast of 'natural' and 'manufactured' is a pairing, since it will become apparent that the pairings I have in mind are contrasts. I'm choosing to separate it out because I think it's important in itself.

So let's start with the pairings.

Obviously in all the photos featured here (and in all the images sent) there are paired objects. In the top and bottom images below and in the flyer previously posted here the phallic gourd (or whatever it happens to be) is paired with other objects. A mug, a comb, and in the flyer something I can't identify which has a hole but could also be read as phallic itself.

In the top and bottom images below the objects are linked by what appears to be a ribbon in the first photo and hair in the bottom photo. A similar link was present in a piece Jen writes about here created before she left for India.

As she says it draws from a childhood toy with a loop of ribbon to hold it by. Or as another friend said, reminiscent of the mittens on a string sometimes worn by small children.

It perhaps goes without saying that such connections can be read positively or negatively. It prevents two objects from being separated or even lost. But of course if the objects are actually people and the connection between them is unhealthy then it may be best to sever that tie.

In the image on the flyer and in the central image below the objects have no physical connection. A potential and obviously metaphorically sexual relationship is implied by the image in the flyer.

Curiously although the central image shows identical objects (except for their colour) they seem less related than the other pairings. They seem simply to be two identical objects placed next to each other.

Another aspect of the pairings as already mentioned are the contrasts. In the top image there are contrasts of texture, the mug being smoother and more reflective than what I'm calling the gourd. And of course although the gourd is a cast and therefore manufactured it appears to be from a natural form while the mug is entirely manufactured.

This last contrast is also apparent in the bottom image. And assuming what links the forms is hair then there is the contrast between manufactured forms and actual untransformed natural material.

In the flyer the most striking contrast is of texture. And unlike the other images featuring the gourd the objects are in different colours.

The objects in the central image (soaps? tissue or other boxes?) are also in different colours, as well as each containing two colours.

I don't think I could begin to tell you what any of this means. I like it. Let's move on.

There's not a lot to say about the strand of sex in the images. There are pretty obvious (even over-simplistic) phallic connotations to the form of the gourd, to the object paired with it in the flyer, even to the comb.

By extension you can argue there are equally obvious vaginal connotations to the mug in the top image and the hole in the object on the flyer. While it might be a step too far you might also consider the process by which casts are made, the finished image of the original emerging from a space that's given it shape.

As I say, obvious and perhaps over-simplistic, but also not really possible to ignore.

Perhaps more interesting and complicated is the strand of gender identity.

Possibly the most obvious but nonetheless interesting in this regard is the bottom image of the gourd and comb linked by hair. The hair and the comb can clearly be taken to allude to conventional ideas of feminine beauty, and what is traditionally thought to be important in a woman.

Related to this is something Jen mentioned that I'm sure she'll cover more articulately in her blog. She bought some hair for her work. She told me that a lot of the hair comes from women who are nuns and have their hair cut off. This idea of a woman (or a man) devoting herself to spiritual matters and separating herself from the corporeal world as far as possible, and marking that separation by removing an obvious marker of feminine beauty is common in a lot of religious traditions.

Another aspect of this is the commercial aspect that the hair is then sold for wigs and hair extensions. You might go further and talk about the commodification of people, but I don't think that's especially relevant here.

The colours I think are part of this sense of gender identity but I'll deal with that when I look specifically at colour.

The ribbons and hairs linking objects, their allusions to childhood toys and mittens are part of this. We talk of 'mother's apron strings', we could even see the links as umbilical. In this interpretation the links become maternal, nurturing. And with the mug and comb, domestic. They speak to narrow conceptions of the female.

I really like the colours Jen has used in these pieces.

A friend said to me that they may be quite culturally determined and mean something different to an Indian that a British audience. At the time I wasn't quite sure what she meant, I liked the colours but hadn't thought about any significance to them.

I think what she meant (and Helen, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong) is that their softness would be seen as traditionally feminine in British culture. Not to mention that at present pink is seen as a 'girls' colour - although if you go back not much more than a century you'll find soft blues such as in the bottom image being regarded the same way, while pinks and reds were seen more as 'boys' colours.

The colours while not primary colours are plainly not wholly natural.

Which brings me to that final strand, the contrast of the 'natural' and the 'manufactured'.

I've already covered the important aspects of this. The contrast of gourd with mug or comb. The fact that while the gourd (or the karella and sweet potato in the post previously linked) are apparently cast from natural objects they are nonetheless manufactured. The contrast between the manufactured comb and cast, and the hair linking them.

What's the significance of this? Is it an exploration of art's drive to transform the world into new forms? Is it a comment on the artistic ability to impose an abstract value on objects that also seems to manifest in commerce and money? Staying with commerce is it a comment on how raw materials are transformed through manufacturing into products?

Alginate which is used by Jen in the creation of casts also has industrial uses. It ultimately comes from seaweed, and is an important part of the Scottish economy. The natural becomes the manufactured which in turn can reproduce both the natural and the manufactured. The products of that manufacture may be commercial, industrial or artistic.

And that's more or less it. I think it's a very strong and coherent collection of work that appears to be exploring a number of themes - that I may actually not have correctly identified at all. There are just a few more disconnected thoughts to tie things up.

The textures of the objects in the top and bottom images here, and of the gourd in the flyer, are relatively featureless and minimal. The other object in the flyer and the objects in the central image are much more detailed. But overall the work strikes me a minimal and simple - although not by any means simplistic.

A couple of aspects of the themes of sex and gender identity I didn't mention were how the pieces while examining conventional images of male and female, and conventional notions of female identity, also allude to what's regarded as 'normal' heterosexual sexuality. And secondly that while the gendered and sexual readings are possible (even encouraged) there's no sense of the male principle being dominant or important.

I would even argue that the aspects of the work that might be read as 'female' seem to be stronger, more compelling even. There are more associations locked up in them, and these associations are not made explicit. The viewer has to do some work for themselves.

I'm actually quite gutted I'll never get to see the actual exhibition. From what I've seen it strikes me as fascinating and powerful. I know that just these images are going to stick with me.

I hope they've been well served here and that comparisons with other artists, and definitive statements about what any of the pieces mean have been avoided. Do watch out for Jennifer's own comments on the exhibition.