| <<               GO BACK (Feature on Gemini Sculpture Park, New Statesman,               2001) A scene in the film Fight Club is               likely to set the blood of any artist or critic racing, in fervent               approval or revulsion. In it, the pugilist rebels dynamite the moorings               of an ugly, spherical piece of corporate sculpture, sending it rolling               down a long cascade to crash through the window of some fast-food               chain. That oscillation of feeling may depend on what viewers think               is being attacked, for the corporate sculpture appears to be a slippery               object, part art work, part business propaganda. Sculptors often               make several casts of a particular piece so a single Henry Moore,               for instance, may have one existence in a civic space, another in               a gallery, yet another presiding over the entrance to a bank. As               with an image that can take on two distinct meanings (like a line               drawing of a cube that sometimes appears to project out of the page,               sometimes to sink into it) it is hard to hold the two elements together               in the mind. An intriguing exhibition               currently on display at the Leeds City Art Gallery, and (with no               little irony) funded by the Henry Moore Institute, brings these               issues into sharp focus. Chris Evans has set up a body he calls               the UK Corporate Sculpture Consultancy in which he acts as a facilitator               and broker between companies and artists. He has been to the Gemini               office park on the outskirts of Leeds to talk to the firms there               about their requirements for a sculpture that would stand outside               their offices, and has commissioned various studies from artists               (Padraig Timoney, Toby Paterson and Graham Fagen) in an attempt               to visualise the results. For an artist to take on such a role is               nothing new but Evans' contact with the beleaguered companies of               this area is highly revealing.  Evans has recorded his               discussions with the businesses and displays them beside the resultant               images. Company managers, it turns out, have well-developed views               about appropriate and inappropriate forms. Banks and building societies               like solid-looking sculpture, we are informed by one management               consultant. Telecommunications, on the other hand, want 'something               very sharp, clean and shiny.We're not a teddy bear factory so a               warm fluffy image isn't appropriate. Matt black and shiny chrome               spring to mind.' A computer manufacturer likewise wants a fluid-looking               shiny chrome sculpture that will reflect the idea that their business               is constantly adapting to changing markets and technologies. In               a conversation which is the closest he comes to overt satire, Evans               persuades a debt-collection company to symbolise its activities               with a tiny sculpture of a Venus fly-trap. All the companies have               pressing practical concerns: that the sculpture should not obstruct               their buildings and brand names, that is should not impinge on parking               space, and that it should be resilient enough to withstand the iconoclastic               attentions of the local residents. The computer firm, which is regularly               robbed and ram-raided, wants their sculpture to double up as a barrier               to protect the building. With the general run               of corporate sculpture, the kudos attached to ownership of the piece               is generated by the separation between the art work and its function               as propaganda. In the creation of a large, apparently useless object,               an artistic temperament is allowed full rein, and the result has               only a loose symbolic connection to the company's activities. The               piece says simply: we have money to spend, and we do so in an enlightened               way; or perhaps a little more specifically: this art is creative,               innovative and 'cutting-edge', qualities that reflect the ethos               of our company. Evans' twist to this               situation is first to offers his skills to companies that would               not normally be in a position to commission such art (one, indeed,               ceased trading before the show opened), and second to place himself               fully at their disposal by taking their artistic requirements seriously.               The result is, among other things, a sharp parody of Labour arts               policy which is fixed on a vision of business and the arts fusing               in symbiosis, business becoming cultural and creative, the arts               profit-driven and productive. Evans' work also lets corporate sculpture               step out from behind the veil with which it modestly covers itself,               being revealed as a concrete, condensed sign of wealth and power               in which artistic qualities are after all implicated. Evans has               made some screenprints, simplified depictions of the sculptures               which (as Will Bradley points out in his catalogue essay) seem familiar               because they look like both a lot of contemporary art and many company               logos. There is nothing strange about this: high art and corporate               culture are necessarily locked in an embrace in which the giant               tends to smother the midget. Only when the embrace is tightened               so that the spine of the frailer body begins to crack is the relation               revealed in its full absurdity.   << GO BACK
 |