NGV Triennial

As Melbourne and Victoria continue to emerge from lock-down, it was great to see that the NGV International has re-opened for the summer with the latest edition of its Triennial show. And while we should all be grateful to have the opportunity to visit this exhibition in person (rather than on-line), it’s not without some shortcomings.

Refik Anadol: Quantum Memories (image sourced from NGV website)

First, the good news: no doubt it was a logistical headache to co-ordinate this exhibition while Melbourne was in strict lock-down for much of the past 10 months. Making admission free is also a wonderful public gesture given that the local population was starved of art exhibitions for most of last year – in particular, we missed out on the NGV’s winter blockbuster season.

The curators are also to be commended on assembling a diversity of artists, work and media; and for placing a great number of these new pieces among the NGV’s permanent collections, which forces visitors to assess these contemporary exhibits within the context of historic work.

But that’s probably where the positive ends.

A major drawback of this exhibition is the lack of anything truly ground-breaking, innovative or even challenging. It all felt very safe – but maybe that’s just what we needed after our extended social isolation: work that is comforting, familiar, cozy, cuddly, soothing, and certainly bright (lots of lively colours).

As a result, however, there seemed to be an emphasis of form over substance, technique over content, and scale over context. Much of the three-dimensional work felt flat and one-dimensional. Even the opening centrepiece, Refik Anadol’s “Quantum Memories” that dominates the entrance lobby, is a classic example of the “medium is the message”. Comprising a giant digital screen (incorporating a clever trompe-l’œil 3-D effect) to stream animated, computer-programmed images, ultimately gave the impression that this was all about the technology and the scale of the work. It was difficult to identify any meaning beyond mere decoration.

And unfortunately, “decorative” was a recurring theme, alongside some rather kitsch and lazy imagery – especially the digital and animated wallpaper that featured in several of the permanent galleries. These “displays” reminded me of cheesy son et lumière or pedestrian CGI effects – it may be technically adept, and even stylish to some degree, but that’s as far as it goes. Perhaps “deep” and “complex” are out of favour at the moment, as we make way for “shallow” and “simple”.

While some work might attempt to convey a more profound response, when shorn of its original context, the message is lost and the result is a void. I wasn’t necessarily looking for “deep and meaningful”, but I was hoping to be provoked or inspired. Or at least have my curiosity piqued.

Triennial? Could try harder.

Next week: Expats vs Ingrates?

Haring vs Basquiat

Following last week’s “compare & contrast” entry, another similar exercise this week, between artists Keith Haring and Jean-Michel Basquiat, the subject of the NGV’s summer blockbuster exhibition.

Keith Haring, Jean-Michel Basquiat, Other artists: “Untitled (Symphony No. 1)” c. 1980-83 [image sourced from NGV website]

Given their friendship, collaborations and mutual connections to the New York scene of the 1980s, it was only natural that the NGV went for this double-header retrospective. Since they both gained early recognition for their street art and graffiti-based work, and their images crossed over into the worlds of music, fashion and clubbing, they had a lot in common. They were as likely to be featured in style magazines such as The Face as they were to be found in the arts section (or society pages) of the New York Times.

Both died relatively young, and it’s as if they somehow knew they each had limited time, such is the intense pace at which they worked, as evidenced by their prolific output. If there is one element that really links them is their inner drive – they had to produce art, there was no choice for them, and they threw everything into it.

They each developed their own distinctive visual styles, much imitated and appropriated throughout popular culture, graphic design, video and advertising. Haring is known for his dog motif and cartoon-like figures, Basquiat for his iconic crown and text-based work. They also placed great emphasis on issues of identity, gender, sexuality and broader sociopolitical themes.

Where they perhaps differ is that Haring relied on more simplistic imagery (albeit loaded with meaning and context), using mainly primary colours, flat perspective (no shading or depth), and strong repetition. On the other hand, Basquiat’s paintings reveal confident mark-making, bold colour choices (not always successful), and an implied love of semiotics (even more so than Haring’s almost ubiquitous iconography).

Of course, we’ll never know how their respective work would have developed over the past 30 years – maybe what we now see is all there was ever going to be? As a consequence, there is perhaps a sense that they plowed a relatively narrow field, that they did not develop artistically once they became gallery artists. I’m not suggesting their work is shallow or one-dimensional (even though it can simply be viewed and appreciated “on the surface”), but it would have been interesting to see where their work took them.

Finally, we are still very close to the era in which they were active, and in that regard their true legacy will be in the influence they cast on late 20th century art and beyond.

Next week: Hicks vs Papapetrou

 

The State of PropTech

Among the many strands of X-Tech that we have come to hear about, PropTech is currently emerging as something of a hot topic, judging by a recent Meetup in Melbourne organised by MessageMedia. With the ambitious goal of exploring the “Past, Present and Future of PropTech in Australia”, it was clear that the field can mean very different things to different audiences.

Facilitated by Bec Martin, the panel comprised Shelli Trung, APAC lead for the Reach PropTech Incubator; Mark Armstrong, CEO of RateMyAgent; Alan Tsen, seed round investor with a focus on disruptive FinTech startups; and Nigel Dalton – ex-REA Group, who also gave a key note address.

Given the format and nature of the discussion, I won’t attribute specific comments to particular individuals. Instead, here are some of the panel’s observations (in no particular order), including some pitfalls for the industry, and key points that all market participants will need to consider.

  • In light of recent events, it was perhaps unsurprising to hear the view expressed that WeWork is “not very prop, not very tech”, as its business model and funding challenges became apparent. Generally, the view was that the co-working space fad has had its day (although Melbourne still manages to support numerous co-working spaces and models, not all like WeWork, since the local demand is there?).
  • We face significant local economic challenges (low inflation leading to minimal GDP growth and negative interest rates; declining wages/purchasing power in real terms; falling retail spending; over-extended household debt; and underemployment in the wider job market).
  • On the other hand, Australia still hasn’t had a recession since 1991, and house prices have just seen the biggest monthly increase since 2003, yet banks are imposing more stringent lending criteria.
  • Depending on which economic theories you favour, this either means easier access for first time buyers thanks to lower interest rates; or more rent arrears, increased mortgage stress and greater homelessness because of a lack of affordability and/or deteriorating lower cost housing options.
  • PropTech is not just two-sided online residential market places (although data analytics and digital marketing capabilities are integral to that particular segment).
  • PropTech should also embrace sustainability in terms of environmental efficiency and affordability. Social impact will likely mean adjusting home owner expectations in terms of dwelling size and carbon footprint. Equally, smart cities and more mixed use development is also being increasingly factored into urban planning and infrastructure design.
  • The increase in higher rise and higher density housing has also led to cost cutting in the choice of materials (flammable cladding), and deregulation and other factors have exacerbated structural defects where there is inadequate insurance protection for home owners.
  • What is happening where PropTech and FinTech intersect, such as the notion of fractional ownership? While this is something that is increasingly more likely (especially with Blockchain technology and tokenisation) if first time buyers have no other way to access the property market, what should be the appropriate licensing regime for these new financial products? What should be the credit risk criteria, lending models, prospectus design, funding structure and tax & accounting treatment? What if such developments include social and inter-generational housing? Or achieve the highest environmental standards/lowest greenhouse emissions?
  • For Australian PropTech startups wanting to go global, there were some warnings about the lack of cross-border tech transfer, and an absence of cultural awareness and curiosity by founders.
  • Meanwhile, on some measure, Facebook is probably the largest residential rental marketplace in the USA. What does that signify for future markets and property transactions?
  • Despite the success of real estate market places in Australia, the model does not easily transfer or scale in other countries. Equally, models from overseas might not work here. There was some scepticism about the so-called “iBuyer” model, and also the agency aggregation approach by firms like Compass (“you can’t buy relationships”). Plus, even local brands can go sour (e.g., Run Property and its subsequent merger with Little Residential to form LITTLE Real Estate).
  • IoT-enabled solutions are a growing theme, especially in aged care, and where AI learning patterns are being applied to energy efficiency, for example, or to improve facilities management (another PropTech segment ripe for disruption). This also links to the use of and intersection between On-line/Off-line data, such as CAD and 3D modelling, and “digital twins” (real-time databases of building design files) for mapping and monitoring physical structures. While in the UK, the concept of, and need for, Digital Twins has led to a raft of industry-wide initiatives and collaboration.
  • Despite Australia’s impressive work in creating standard data structures for residential property, there is still a lack of transparency when it comes to the results of private auctions (but isn’t that the idea – they are “private”?). According to the panel, similar data overseas is considered to be quite “dirty” (unstructured and non-standard).
  • The panel anticipated new PropTech opportunities for those companies offering “high touch/high end” services, and those providing “low touch / high tech” solutions.
  • One common data and infrastructure management challenge is dealing with legacy information systems, and sluggish internet speeds (despite, or because of, the NBN), meaning there will inevitably be some bifurcation in service and quality, depending on building design, purpose, age, location, value etc.
  • Finally, there were concerns that as security data and facial recognition technology becomes increasingly algo-based, it raises questions of privacy and misuse of personal and confidential data.

Next week: Pitch X – Launch Into A New Decade

 

 

Craft vs Creativity

In a recent blog on Auckland, I mentioned seeing some Maori artifacts or Taonga during a gallery tour. The curator had mentioned that these objects raise questions of whether they are art, or craft. Does the distinction matter? Not necessarily, but I think it’s important to understand the difference between craft (largely skills-based) and art (largely aesthetically-driven). Often these concepts overlap, and are sometimes misconstrued, which in turn influences how we attach value, appreciation, importance and significance to particular objects.

Anton Gerner, A Cabinet With No Front Or Back 2019, Fiddleback Blackwood, Celery Top Pine. (Image sourced from Craft Victoria)

What often gets viewed as “pure” art is more a result of design, technique and skill – attributes which are more usually associated with craft (or “applied” art). Indeed, it is noticeable how viewers seem to appreciate “effort” over “creativity”. A great number of exhibitions I see in contemporary art galleries are more about illustration, decoration and process – and it’s as if the time taken to create the work or the complexity of the object is more important than the actual aesthetic outcome.

On the other hand, a lot of work that is assigned to the category of “craft” is capable of sitting alongside sculptures and 3-D work in an art gallery. Equally, a lot of work (especially in the fields of ceramics, textiles and jewellery) has neither the aesthetic form to be considered as art, nor the functional form to be regarded as craft.

For me, craft involves considered decisions about the choice of material, the design and production process, plus the intended function (even if the latter is only for decorative purposes). Whereas art is usually undertaken for the purpose of arriving at an intended creative outcome, with the choice of materials etc., often being secondary to the final aesthetic result.

Both art and craft can be seen in cultural, social and even political terms. They are also informed by context and narrative. But successful art should convey more creativity than applied craft or technique. And craft is often diminished if it fails to conveys some practical element of function – what’s the point of a beautiful jug if it cannot pour water?

Two recent exhibitions underline how the distinction between “art” and “craft” is often blurred: the Victorian Craft Awards, and MasterMakers at RMIT Gallery. In the Craft Victoria display, most of the pieces had no real practical purpose (other than decoration); yet, in terms of achieving an aesthetic goal, it felt like this was subservient to the materials and the process. While in the RMIT exhibition, there was an emphasis on the materials, plus an acknowledgement that even very technical processes can also result in objects that offer aesthetic pleasure – where form and function truly combine, and are inherently equal in the work. (The Anton Gerner furniture at Craft Victoria also manages to achieve that combination.)

We still don’t really know why the first cave paintings were made – were they an early form of graffiti? do they tell a story or capture events for posterity? were they the result of experimenting with pigments or dyeing techniques? or were they the result of some existential desire to give rise to a form of human expression? or simply to have something nice to look at? But we know we can appreciate them for their aesthetic level as well as their technique – in addition to their historical significance.

Next week: Notes from Phuket