Shape Shifters: Hayward Gallery: December 2018: 2 hours: 5/10

The works in this show are in the traditions of Minimalism, made by machine, industrial in scale and interventionalist within the architectural space.  There are also clear influences from the work of Dan Graham.  What they lack is the verve and boldness of Minimalism.  The classic Minimalists made didn't care what the audience thought of their work - whereas these artists want their work to be fun.  However everything is on such a superficial level that I'm inclined to call it trivial.  It's the sort of work that is loved by corporations and oligarchs - safe and non-controversial.  I'm not saying that you cannot enjoy the show but that it doesn't rise above "gee-whiz look at that!"

Of course artists, like a painter or sculptor, individuals making things with their hands could never aspire to make this work so you have to ask yourself how to categorise it: is it art or is it illusion?



5/10 as it was only really enjoyable because I made my own fun rather than getting it from the art. 

First I have to conclude that the Hayward needs all the money it can extract from you: three pounds for an Americano in the café, a three pound fee to book online and one pound for every item left in the cloakroom. 

Ok my first question is when did the fairground “Hall of Mirrors” became profound art: Kapoor calls them “perception-altering sculptures”!

How mirrors fan our narcissism.

Now I’m having to count to a hundred as, having refused to pay £2 to leave my day-sack in the cloakroom, I have now been asked to wear it in front of my body!  I went back at the end to apologise to the invigilator who asked me to wear it in front. In fact, with various contortions, you can snap the waist and chest bands in place with the bag on back to front whereupon it becomes much easier to deal with.

I suppose my greatest gripe about the art is that it soon  becomes figurative in a undesirable way as every image in a mirror has someone in view. Alternatively you could say that the show becomes about the surroundings of the objects: the gallery and its visitors, a huge yawn I’m afraid. 

I wrote the above when I was still pissed about having to carry my bag clamped to my chest.

Yeh, Christmas!

Here is the start of Sosnowska’s intervention “Handrail” which intrigued me. 

Here is the so-so unnecessary extension:

And here is the tedious finale:

Despite the wall text on this piece I wasn’t “disoriented” nor does it “make reality stop being obvious”. A chap I fell into conversation with muttered about the “Emperor’s new clothes”.  We discussed how Irwin’s Untitled (Acrylic Column) stays upright. In fact the floor fitting is quite clearly visible. Nevertheless this was a piece that I liked as, from the right direction, you just see shimmering colours in the air (well almost, if you screw your eyes up).  

I felt these three deserved a little attention given that they were working hard.

Then a fourth person joined in. She told me thar she had asked permission and felt that this was something that invited participation. My chat with her also cleared up the mystery of the lines on the floor, they are to orientate the guy wearing the mirrors which are very heavy. He can’t really see where he is going.

Felix Gonzales-Torres curtain is actually very nice when swaying vigorously - really you don’t get the same effect in a butcher’s shop!

You can’t get outside to view Kapoor’s sky mirror close up. An invigilator told me it’s at the request of the artist. He then volunteered the fact that he didn’t like Kapoor’s work finding it « so what” and “corporate”. 

The invigilator also said that in a previous installation of WeltenLinie (see below) that twins had been employed to add an extra something to the work. The sceptic I spoke to earlier told me that you could see rocks changing colour - and you can!

I think I was witnessing a fashion shoot here.