categories
archives
rss

State Britain A Review

In the closing years of the 1960s, the Vietnam war and sexual liberation made protest popular; a time of sit-ins, love-ins and Woodstock. In this milieu the young architectural group Archigram created the concept of the Instant City; a mobile habitat that could arrive and be bolted together overnight, providing the architectural landscape for an instant community. Today, walking into the Duveen Galleries situated at the heart of Tate Britain, and stumbling upon ‘State Britain’ the latest installation by artist Mark Wallinger, I am reminded of the Archigram dream that architecture could bring change – but now it is not an instant community but instant protest that spreads out before you.

Mark Wallinger’s installation creates a facsimile of the ‘peace camp’ that, since the early days of the Iraqi conflict, has become a popular tourist attraction in London. Brian Haw, architect of the original site, has protested outside the Houses of Parliament – 24/7 – since June 2001. His camp is made up of the usual detritus of protest: banners, daubed white bed sheets, plastic sheeting and posters of the key protagonists; George Bush and Tony Blair. The site grew as visitors collaged their own rudimentary additions to the portable structure of the protestor’s stakeout; a coalition made up of religious groups, anti-war protesters and general well wishers. All have added to Brian’s ‘home’. From humble beginnings: a banner or two, sleeping bag, cooker and chair, the protest crept along the pavement until it reached 50 meters or more – like a favella it grew imperceptibly in the shadow of Big Ben. Until, under a newly constituted law (‘Serious Organised Crime and Police Act’ prohibiting unauthorised demonstrations within a one kilometre radius of Parliament Square), Brian Haw’s protest was raided by the police and reduced to a mere fraction of its original size. Wallinger’s ‘State Britain’ is both artwork and archive. Painstakingly recreated Wallinger has made the snaking tail of the original protest into another, equally venomous, statement on contemporary Britain.
If the original protest was a place you eyed from a bus window or quickly walked passed to a backdrop of traffic noise and police sirens – the experience is completely re-orientated in the context of an art gallery. It is a question of scale, for the slogans easily read at speed or distance; BEEP FOR BRIAN, CHRIST HAS RISEN INDEED!, become less interesting as you become aware of the minutiae of its bulk. Wallinger’s installation allows the viewer to study the sprawling encampment – like an archaeological dig you begin to unearth how this structure grew. One of the landmarks is a ‘bloodied’ t-shirt with the slogan BLIAR, it hangs from a make shift cross forming the epicentre and one of the highest points of the piece. The structure, along its length, is pockmarked with photoshoped images (mainly of Blair and Bush) – faces warped into nightmarish gargoyles. These fabricated images sit uncomfortably next to photographs of adults and children; dead, dying and dismembered, in war zones across the world. Also alongside the computer generated images are the more traditional fare of a 60s protest: sloganeering, transcribed Buddhist chants and peace flags. There is a large canvas by Banksy; depicting heavily armed soldiers in the process of painting a peace sign – the CND logo, blood red.
Wallinger’s installation, the Tate tells us, sits on the edge of the police exclusion zone – enforced by a change in the law which led to the original dismantling of the site: ‘Wallinger has marked a line on the floor of the galleries throughout the building, positioning State Britain half inside and half outside [of this zone]’. But this is an imagined political frisson the exhibition does not need. The work is a success, or not, because it captures one man’s uncynical, unmediated action: that protest can still change things. Wallinger has recreated this protest in the gallery and even here – with this silent, de-odorised facsimile of the original, the graphic language of protest still carries a faint clarion call to the conscience.
Colin Davies 2007

 

6 comments

I don’t agree that the the line of the exclusion zone is - whether an imagined political frisson or not - something that ‘the exhibition does not need’. I felt this is where the Wallinger stopped being a an archive, facsimile, of a past-historical political event and brought it straight into the contemporary moment. This line is not a facsimile but, imagined or not, a reality.

/Ray Marsh 28/02/2007

 

Brian Haw has been seen visiting the gallery. But, more interesting - and rather brilliantly - he has been heard advertising the Wallinger exhibition through his megaphone in Parliament square. I agree that the show is moving - a clarion call to the conscience - but there is a limited that one can’t help but be aware of when the gallery annexes political interests. Wallinger presumably wants to bring this very issue to our attention as much as anything else. And yet… Brian Haw himself in this very simple gesture has turned the gallery into an extension of his protest …re-asserting his voice into areas/institutions he could not reach. A form of re-orientation of the representation?

/Gaby 28/02/2007

 

In response to ray’s comment: I am ambivalent about the marking of the exclusion line. For me its inclusion is interesting because it highlights - and presumably comments on - the utopian space (as in no ideal/no place) of the gallery where it can be designated but not bound by.

/Jess 28/02/2007

 

Mark Wallinger’s piece does not really sit on the edge of the police exclusion zone, as the Tate tells us. The one kilometer radius which cuts through the Tate is the maximum area that sections 132-137 of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 can be applied to. The current actual size of the exclusion zone is much smaller and doesn’t cut through the gallery. A map of it can be found here. (http://www.met.police.uk/publicorder/images/Section_132_7_boundary.jpg) This may be a pedantic point - and one that has already been pointed out - but it is a pedantic point that bothers me. Wallinger has said in a video interview on the Tate website that if he stands on this side of the room he can say what he likes and if he stands on the other side then he is breaking the law. (http://www.tate.org.uk/tateshots/episode.jsp?item=9107) This is inaccurate and shouldn’t be ignored. Of course, none of this excuses the presence of the exclusion zone or from it one day cutting through the Tate, nor does it take away from the power and importance or ‘public service’, as Wallinger says, of the work. Just brings into questions the apparent site specificity of the piece. It will be interesting to see how the Tate (re)addresses this issue for the Turner Prize.

/adam 24/06/2007

 

What the Tate tells us is this: “On 23 May 2006, following the passing by Parliament of the ‘Serious Organised Crime and Police Act’ prohibiting unauthorised demonstrations within a one kilometre radius of Parliament Square, the majority of Haw’s protest was removed. Taken literally, the edge of this exclusion zone bisects Tate Britain. Wallinger has marked a line on the floor of the galleries throughout the building, positioning State Britain half inside and half outside the border.

In bringing a reconstruction of Haw’s protest before curtailment back into the public domain, Wallinger raises challenging questions about issues of freedom of expression and the erosion of civil liberties in Britain today.” (http://www.tate.org.uk/about/pressoffice/pressreleases/2007/8401.htm)
I think the key phrase as it relates to Adam’s comment above is “taken literally” which I take to mean that it doesn’t literally cut into the gallery. In which case it is the principle that is at stake, an ‘if this were literally so, this would be the case’ . Whether it is interesting as art or not is another matter…

Gregor

/Gregor 26/06/2007

 

In 2009 we released the book ‘Limited Language: Rewriting Design: Responding to a feedback culture’ which re-engaged with this original post.

For more on the book as a whole: http://bit.ly/bookcomments

Colin + Monika

/colin 15/11/2009

 

write a comment

we encourage people to recycle your comments in their own research as we may collage them into our own writing with the aim to publish the resulting articles (any post eventually used will be credited). We encourage comments to be 200 words or more.

line and paragraph breaks automatic. e-mail address will never be displayed. html allowed: <a href=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>