Since the very beginning of human-beings, art has allowed
large events to be transformed into a single image or sculpture. I think that
as highly visual beings, we need this connection with our pasts to allow us to
present to others what we feel is important. From depictions of battles to
those of religious stories, artworks often allow us to empathise with the
artists’ views on certain political or social events. This is what Tate Britain’s
‘Fighting History’ aimed to explore.
The exhibition did not simply display paintings- many art
forms were explored. From The Death of Major Peirson (1784) to a denim
jacket from the Battle of Orgreave (1985), the exhibition blurred the
lines between created pieces and contemporaneous objects that have become
artworks. What is the purpose of these political/social artefacts? Are they
there to shock or simply record fact?
There has been much criticism of the exhibition,
particularly of its parameters of what constitutes a ‘history painting’. This I
can agree with. A lot of the artworks shown were quite surprising, such as
Alma-Tadema’s The Silent Greeting (1989). This oversight was unfortunate,
as it took time and attention away from some of the best pieces.
Walking in to the first room, eyes are drawn to Dexter
Dalwood’s large The Poll Tax Riots (2005). Depicted is Trafalgar Square,
the site of the riots of 1990, where around 110 people were injured, and 339
people were arrested. In the background are sections of the Berlin wall. Perhaps slightly obvious in its message, the
piece was still an effective way to begin an exhibition on political art.
However, a piece that was not obvious was Steve McQueen’s Lynching
Tree (2013). The light box is slightly confusing at first. In fact, I stood
opposite it for a few minutes waiting for ‘something to happen’. It is only
after I read the description that a slow feeling of both understanding and remorse
ensued. The tree in question –near New Orleans- once served as a gallows for
slaves. This was one of the most interesting pieces in the exhibition, because
of its subtle message. Understanding the context of the photograph is crucial,
but it is not explained anywhere in the art- which was a thin line some of the
other artworks failed to appreciate.
Photography is an interesting medium to be seen in an exhibition
such as this. There is such a juxtaposition between these photos and the
paintings of artists such as Gavin Hamilton and John Singleton Copley. These
artists took such care and time to depict their subjects, but, in present
times, photographs which are taken so quickly are often much better, more
emotive representations. For instance, Richard Hamilton’s Kent State (1970)
is simply a photo he took of his television screen which was zoomed in on the
dead student. Hamilton said of this that it was “too terrible to submit to arty
treatment”. I think this is a really interesting sentiment. It seems to be a
very critical view of art, especially for an artist to take. But, considering
that these last two photos are the pieces I most appreciated in the entire exhibition,
perhaps it is true, that some events should not be turned into an artwork, but
should just be displayed for what it is.
