´óÏó´«Ã½

« Previous | Main | Next »

Histrionics by Roderick Buchanan

Post categories: ,Ìý,Ìý,Ìý

William Crawley | 17:32 UK time, Tuesday, 25 November 2008

chimage.jpgHistrionics is the first major exhibition in Ireland of works by the Scottish artist . I saw the original version of this collection last year at Glasgow's Gallery of Modern Art, when it was featured as part of the gallery's social justice programme "Blind Faith: Contemporary art and human rights".

Buchanan's work is now on display at , and I'll be speaking tonight at a special event marking the opening of the exhibition. I've included here, below the fold, a draft of what I plan to say tonight.


A History of Roleplaying

In preparation for this talk, I met Roddy Buchanan last Friday and he gave me a walking tour of the exhibition. As we talked our way from room to room, I couldn't help thinking of a passage somewhere in Sartre in which he describes a waiter arriving for work in a restaurant. The waiter goes out the back and dresses in his waiter's outfit, then, as he returns wearing his uniform, the man behaves differently. He appears to have put on a new role, a mask, a different identity, and becomes almost a self-parody as he launches himself into that role.

Sartre writes: "His movements are animated and accentuated, a little too precise, a little too quick: he approaches the customers a little too speedily, he inclines a little too eagerly, his voice, his eyes express an interest a little too full of solicitude for the wish of the customer. He is playing . . . He is playing at being a waiter."

To the extent that he is playing a role, Sartre's waiter is a victim of self-deception, of bad-faith. In fact, Sartre says we are all in danger of the same self-deception: concealing the truth about ourselves from ourselves, playing a role, following someone else's script, pretending to be rather than being as we are.

This philosophical examination of role-playing emerges between the lines of Roderick Buchanan's exhibition too. 'Histrionics' -- from the Latin, histrio, meaning a stage player, and denoting the theatrical, acting, performance, a style that is overly theatrical or melodramatic, or that which is dramatically exaggerated to the point of pretense.

When Tony Blair, one of our most accomplished stage players, told a Belfast press pack that he "felt the hand of history" on his shoulder, some detected the hand of "histrionics" instead. But the hand (and feet and head) of history are everywhere to be seen in this exhibition by Roddy Buchanan--an exhibition that reminds us that we are all players in one way or another.

The feet: because Roddy's personal history links a passion for football and a curiosity about what it means to kick with the other foot. He continues that exploration of sometimes competing or colliding identities here. The signing-day pictures of players from Glasgow Celtic and Glasgow Rangers are framed for exhibition in an art gallery: two teams, two sides, and we, the viewers, find ourselves negotiating the space between them.

The head: because Roddy Buchanan is essentially a portraitist, though one who complicates and deconstructs that form to reveal sometimes unsettling insights. Within ancient Hebrew and classical Christian liturgy, antiphonal worship is the singing or musical playing of psalms by alternating groups of performers interacting with each other. And so, not far from the football players are the flute players. A Loyalist flute band and a Republican flute band are re-cast in an accidental antiphony. They are dressed for the part, as one band performs, marches, and plays music to accompany the other band's rest period. The performance is as much cultural and personal as it is musical and territorial - and, unwittingly kitsch too (look out for the US marine corps headdress worn by one of the bands for no better reason than it looks the part). Yet somehow the music of one invites us to pay more attention to the action of the other, and to understand one group in terms of their relationship with the other.

The hand is here too: Roddy literally writes his way into his homeland's sometimes hidden, sometimes forgotten histories. He unites the cursive with the discursive in the carefully-executed joined-up writing of a schoolroom in order to rediscover the story of the 18th century Scottish radical thinker, and political player, Thomas Muir. As he writes the story of the Protestant Republican Muir for today, Roddy uncovers more of his own story.

The ghost of Thomas Muir haunts Roddy Buchanan's personal history. Roddy went to a school in Glasgow named after Thomas Muir; Muir's former home now acts as the changing rooms where Roddy, as a boy, put on his football kit. Muir was an extraordinary figure, moored in a developing Scottish identity, yet unencumbered by a restrictive sense of nationalism; a friend of Thomas Paine, he was the first foreigner to be given citizenship of France. The cultural mixed-marriage that Muir embodies draws us into Roddy Buchanan's own story, which itself points to the complicatedness that governs all our stories.

For this is not merely a Glaswegian chronicle. Ireland, and Belfast, play their part too. Thomas Muir had Irish parents. On a visit to Belfast, he was named an honorary member of the Society of United Irishmen. Belfast is implicated in every aspect of the exhibition.

In his poem "The Tollund Man" Seamus Heaney dreams of travelling to Jutland, where, "In the old man-killing parishes / I will feel lost, / Unhappy and at home." There is something of that here too. Buchanan's Jekyll-and-Hydeish Scots dualism presses us, in a Belfast gallery, to encounter our own divided self: the mutuality, the implicatedness of a political space dominated still by the interplay of Scots and Irish.

In a new work produced for this exhibition, Roddy Buchanan places an ArmaLite high on a wall, out of reach and thus beyond use. But what is not beyond, and should not be beyond use, is history itself.

One person's history placed in conversation with another's history; history unmasking exaggeration and pretence; history re-casting the political as the personal; history as a mirror reflecting the truth about ourselves and each other; history inviting us to decide which role we will play.

Comments

  • Comment number 1.

    Interesting, but the fundamental issue has been ignored.
    How does a man who looks like that get a wife that looks like THAT?!

  • Comment number 2.

    maybe she's attracted to intelligence, which rules you out gveale.

  • Comment number 3.

    I don't think I'm any more stupid than the average person.

    Which, on reflection would be kind of scary. Surely half the world couldn't be dumber than I am?

  • Comment number 4.

    Jovial
    No more flashes of subtle and insightful wit! Awww!
    Couldn't you even Google "put-downs" before insulting people? Not that I care (I'm at least bright enough to know I'm dim) but "you're not intelligent" isn't going to be up there with Wilde is it?

    It's not even going to make Joe Pasquale's list.

    GV

  • Comment number 5.

    Post 1 was my way of implying that I don't really "get" what Mr Buchanan is adding to the discussion. Without coming right out and saying something which directly contradicts Will's speech. I'm a little underwhelmed by what I have seen, and what has been described.
    Which may point to a fault in my character - but I suspect that a lot of people do feel a little left behind by contemporary art. It seems like some people are in on a joke that we just don't get.
    Now maybe there's a TV series for Will in this, or an article, or somesuch. He obviously feels that something important is being said here - and a lot of other people seem to think so too. I'm no Clement Greenberg, but I have found art interesting. I can even see why people like Mark Rothko.So what is it about the medium that I'm missing? Why is it I don't ask the deeper questions, but do think that the lady on the left is rather attractive?
    Or am I just "tone-deaf"?

    GV

  • Comment number 6.

    JovialPTL steady on!

    Graham

    "How does a man who looks like that get a wife that looks like THAT?!"

    It reminds me of Mrs Mertons(remember her?)question to Debbie McGee...
    "So what attracted you to the millionaire Paul Daniels"

    I agree with you on m5-perhaps we are both "tone-deaf". So much of modern art leaves me unmoved, by that I mean most stuff after 1950. I love art and in my younger years worked as a tour guide in Rome and waxed lyrically about renaissance art. To me it was breath-taking and you could immediately recognise genius(a word that is bandied about too much these days), to me art had become too egalitarian and pretentious-the emperor with no clothes. In short ~I would say...I don't know much about art but...I know what I like!

    DD

  • Comment number 7.


    GV raises interesting questions. I can't comment on Histrionics; I haven't seen it. But my issues with much are similar to my issues with much postmodern thought or much 'emergent' theology: the contrived sense of profundity they want you to experience simply doesn't match the reality of the nothingness presented! Frankly the only value of much modern art is aesthetic, and even then much of it struggles to cut it. The idea that with such little skill and such vacuity an artist is expressing much of worth is senseless.


  • Comment number 8.

    The bands antiphony sounds excellent.

  • Comment number 9.

    This artist has work in the London Tate gallery. He is focusing on really important themes, including the Scots-Irish connection. I applaud him for his efforts.

Ìý

´óÏó´«Ã½ iD

´óÏó´«Ã½ navigation

´óÏó´«Ã½ © 2014 The ´óÏó´«Ã½ is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.