Skip Bamako in Toronto

by Paddy Johnson on July 6, 2010 · 12 comments Reviews

Zanele Muhuli, from The Being Series, 2007, Lamda print, Image courtesy Michael Stevenson Gallery

Nothing puts me in a bad mood faster than do-goodie identity politics and if last Saturday’s gallery tour is any indication, Toronto is a nesting ground for the shit.  It only took four blocks on Queen Street West before I lost count of the artists utilizing the subject, the worst of which on display at the first exhibition space I visited. “The legacy of how Europe constructed the image of Africa is still an ongoing academic exercise” London-based curator Mark Sealy drones, two paragraphs into a curatorial statement for Bamako in Toronto, an exhibition of African photographs at The Gladstone, a gallery located inside a same named hotel.  It’s only at the end of his dissertation rejecting “the notion of African photography” in favor of a more inclusive curatorial practice that he mentions the artists at all.

I guess five paragraphs of legitimizing identity text is needed though when the work selected for a show is no more than an amalgam of sentimental commercial photography. Situated on the top two floors of a gallery, viewers are greeted by Zanele Muhuli’s Africian lesbians kissing by the stove or smiling into the unseen distance, Saidou Dicko’s dime a dozen street photos and the unremarkable urban life in Lagos photos of Uche Okpa-Iroha. No doubt about it, the work in this show sucks, but a reasonable framing job would have at least dress it up. Not in Bamako in Toronto; cheap frames, mattes and cluttered hanging plague the exhibition. This aids the appearance that none of the artists are particularly in-tune with contemporary art making, a debatable glimmer in an otherwise forgettable show.

To follow: Thoughts on “That’s So Gay!”, the identity-themed exhibition I didn’t hate.

{ 12 comments }

Chicopelon July 6, 2010 at 11:32 pm

I am embarrassed and not surprised to hear that about my city. Toronto still has a long way to go.

Out of curiosity, where else did you stop by on your mini-gallery tour. I`d be interested to hear if of them got something right.

Chicopelon July 6, 2010 at 7:32 pm

I am embarrassed and not surprised to hear that about my city. Toronto still has a long way to go.

Out of curiosity, where else did you stop by on your mini-gallery tour. I`d be interested to hear if of them got something right.

Madeleine July 7, 2010 at 3:45 pm

This work looks brave. Shame on you for your blase critique. And actually “The legacy of how Europe constructed the image of Africa” IS an incredibly relevant and still developing discourse. When the majority of photos depicting African subjects in America are of the sick and of the dead, let there be photos depicting African life.

Madeleine July 7, 2010 at 11:45 am

This work looks brave. Shame on you for your blase critique. And actually “The legacy of how Europe constructed the image of Africa” IS an incredibly relevant and still developing discourse. When the majority of photos depicting African subjects in America are of the sick and of the dead, let there be photos depicting African life.

Jesse P. Martin July 7, 2010 at 6:53 pm

Madeleine, I’m not sure what morbid/terrible school you went to, but I was definitely exposed to plenty of images of Africa/Africans that weren’t “sick” and/or “dead” (I’ve even met many REAL LIVE AFRICANS that were fully vital, too!). As good-intentioned as continuing to “develop” this “discourse” may be, it seems to bring up them same old pesky problems that happen whenever any place/people are “depicted” as “subjects” to an alien(ated) audience in a rarefied format/forum. And a mediocre snapshot of African lesbians kissing (with a ridiculously “artfully” cropped icebox dominating the foreground) doesn’t tell me much other than there are lesbians in Africa (duh) and that the photographer was angling for “dynamic” compositions and “provocative” subject matter. Meh to the meh.

Jesse P. Martin July 7, 2010 at 2:53 pm

Madeleine, I’m not sure what morbid/terrible school you went to, but I was definitely exposed to plenty of images of Africa/Africans that weren’t “sick” and/or “dead” (I’ve even met many REAL LIVE AFRICANS that were fully vital, too!). As good-intentioned as continuing to “develop” this “discourse” may be, it seems to bring up them same old pesky problems that happen whenever any place/people are “depicted” as “subjects” to an alien(ated) audience in a rarefied format/forum. And a mediocre snapshot of African lesbians kissing (with a ridiculously “artfully” cropped icebox dominating the foreground) doesn’t tell me much other than there are lesbians in Africa (duh) and that the photographer was angling for “dynamic” compositions and “provocative” subject matter. Meh to the meh.

Madeleine July 12, 2010 at 3:47 am

@Jesse I was referring to the predominant images of Africa in mainstream media.
A recent editorial in the Daily Nation takes on just this issue:

http://www.nation.co.ke/oped/Opinion/Images%20of%20the%20Dying%20African%20border%20on%20pornography/-/440808/952042/-/gcvyrqz/-/index.html

In the context of such events as the recent legal prosecution in Malawi against a gay couple for their relationship, I think images like this are brave.

Madeleine July 11, 2010 at 11:47 pm

@Jesse I was referring to the predominant images of Africa in mainstream media.
A recent editorial in the Daily Nation takes on just this issue:

http://www.nation.co.ke/oped/Opinion/Images%20of%20the%20Dying%20African%20border%20on%20pornography/-/440808/952042/-/gcvyrqz/-/index.html

In the context of such events as the recent legal prosecution in Malawi against a gay couple for their relationship, I think images like this are brave.

Jesse P. Martin July 12, 2010 at 3:00 pm

@Madeleline: How available are these images in Africa (Malawi, for example)? I agree that there is always a politic to images, especially when they’re used to represent an entire nation or people – and photographing “disaster porn” has become a default mode for a lot of photojournalists who seek powerful images in another country, especially if they’re on assignment to capture a particular tragedy. As mentioned in the Daily Nation article, these images can foster gross misconceptions about the people who live in these places. The complexities, problems, and ethics of photography (particularly photojournalism) have been – and continue to be – challenged, explored, discussed, and written about (oldies-but-goodies include Benjamin, Barthes, Sontag, etc.).

Still, I think that there are often problems when any kind of overtly political photojournalism is presented in a museum/gallery setting (Nina Berman’s & Stephanie Sinclair’s work at this year’s Whitney Biennial drew some criticism for this). As Paddy expressed in her article, too much preachy and “do-goodie” work can have the adverse affect of making-weary the audiences it’s intended to “educate,” “inform,” and/or “enrich.” Presenting political, identity-politic, and alternative-to-the-mainstream images is great, but too much of it (especially if it’s presented in a conventional, cliched way) in a museum/gallery setting transforms those places into didactic, if not patronizing, environments. I recognize how “brave” a photo like Muhuli’s might be in a specific context (and with greater understanding of specific regional injustices), but without those prompts the image falls flat.

Jesse P. Martin July 12, 2010 at 11:00 am

@Madeleline: How available are these images in Africa (Malawi, for example)? I agree that there is always a politic to images, especially when they’re used to represent an entire nation or people – and photographing “disaster porn” has become a default mode for a lot of photojournalists who seek powerful images in another country, especially if they’re on assignment to capture a particular tragedy. As mentioned in the Daily Nation article, these images can foster gross misconceptions about the people who live in these places. The complexities, problems, and ethics of photography (particularly photojournalism) have been – and continue to be – challenged, explored, discussed, and written about (oldies-but-goodies include Benjamin, Barthes, Sontag, etc.).

Still, I think that there are often problems when any kind of overtly political photojournalism is presented in a museum/gallery setting (Nina Berman’s & Stephanie Sinclair’s work at this year’s Whitney Biennial drew some criticism for this). As Paddy expressed in her article, too much preachy and “do-goodie” work can have the adverse affect of making-weary the audiences it’s intended to “educate,” “inform,” and/or “enrich.” Presenting political, identity-politic, and alternative-to-the-mainstream images is great, but too much of it (especially if it’s presented in a conventional, cliched way) in a museum/gallery setting transforms those places into didactic, if not patronizing, environments. I recognize how “brave” a photo like Muhuli’s might be in a specific context (and with greater understanding of specific regional injustices), but without those prompts the image falls flat.

martin July 12, 2010 at 9:39 pm

What would be a legitimate subject to examine within a gallery context?

martin July 12, 2010 at 5:39 pm

What would be a legitimate subject to examine within a gallery context?

Comments on this entry are closed.

Previous post:

Next post: