Memory, photography, and the politics of abuse : the ambiguous nature of photography

Critical commentary on Australian artist Bill Henson’s work including the series Untitled 1994-1995 which represented Australia at the Venice Biennale is frequently framed within the discourse of the ‘white cube’. Its contextualisation in predominantly art historical and formalist perspectives tends to operate as a mechanism that denies affective and embodied dimensions of meaning making. Much the same could be said of the work of Marian Drew who uses road kill in her photographic still life works. However, the ‘distancing’ in these works is also achieved through historical allusion, which at the same time reactivates the fl ow of emotional empathy and desire. In this paper, I ask the question: “What distinguishes the work of these two artists with media images of torture?”

My attempt to address this question will involve a narrative re-reading of selected works of Henson and Drew incorporating notions of affect, identification, memory and desire as processes which operate non-discursively, but which are inseparable from memory and lived experiences. This will permit a double exposure of the work of these artists. Within a psychoanalytical context, my re-reading will be used to extend an understanding of the now familiar press and Internet images of the torture of Iraqi prisoners.

As a metaphor for desire and ideology, photography operates within manifest and latent registers. I will argue that certain forms of photographic practice may be understood in terms of a politics of abuse — instantiating an uneven differentiation of power between actants, the winning (forcefully or otherwise) of consent or complicity, the silencing of refusal of resistance and/or the incriminating of the ‘victim’ — whilst at the same time upholding the claim of verisimilitude and aesthetic or ethical intent. Critical engagement with such practices is crucial to an understanding of the relationship between institutional discourses, trauma and abuse in contemporary society.

Serious play: the art of Kevin Mortensen

Kevin Mortensen came to prominence in Australia and internationally as an early and highly regarded practitioner of performance art. He represented Australia at an early Venice Biennale and was a major figure in the Mildura Sculpture Triennials, which helped establish contemporary sculpture in this country in the 1960s and 1970s after a long period in which the art form languished. The new sculpture of this time was strongly related to American performance art, Happenings and Earth Art, and in Australia took on environmental concerns and facets of Australia's landscape, flora and fauna. Mortensen's art is highly environmental. More recently Mortensen has practised as a sculptor and also made prints and drawings. He was Head of Sculpture at RMIT University in the 1980s and early 1990s but, today almost a recluse, continues to exhibit new work at Australian Galleries in Melbourne and Sydney. Author Rob Haysom provides a beautifully written and researched account of Mortensen's entire career and the book is lavishly illustrated.

From the inside to the outside. Architecture Venice Biennales 2014 and 2016

The comparison between the Position Statements of the latest two Venice Biennale of Architecture, Fundamentals, directed by Rem Koolhaas in 2014 and Reporting from the front that Alejandro Aravena prepares for 2016, is an evident sign of the internal stress that architectural practice has been suffering during the last decade. Koolhaas intensively focused on the immediate past whilst Aravena presents a Biennalle strongly decided to explore possible alternatives for the future of Architecture. The first one tried to define the core, theessence, the most elemental particles that utterly compose Architecture. The second looks at the boundaries, the periphery, the outskirts, the limits of the discipline. Fundamentals was theoretical, personal, abstract, compact and aesthetic. Reporting from the front will be practical, collective, concrete, permeable and ethical. This fertile antagonism or counterpoint between both approaches is too frequently understood as incompatible. However, as a matter of fact the coexistence of these two different perspectives within architectural practice is the mostdistinctive feature of the complex contemporary architectural landscape. The insertion of the analysis of both position statements within the historical evolution of the Venice Bienale since 1980, allows a reinterpretation of the antagonism between the two exhibitions and evidences some lines of thought and action in the architectural world. Following the war industry terminology that Report from the front has chosen, Aravena identifies with precision the theatre of operations; the space and time that is requesting an urgent response from architecture.Previously Koolhaas had defined the armament that Architecture has available to undertake this crucial mission: to define the role and relevance of Architecture in the immediate future. Until now, battles in the front have been a guerrilla warfare. More reactive than proactive. Battles for survival more than for experience. Necessary but, at the same time, insufficient. Valuable actions in radical contexts; heroic acts in extreme situations; occasional infiltrations that find their final reason for being in their own audacity. Time has come for these counterattackarchitectures to evolve from protests to proposals.