Bodies in a grave, Belsen (1946) |
Nude and Dummy (1950) |
The trinity of the measure, the machine and the animal that runs throughout so much of his oeuvre is present in the nudes that have spanned his career. In general, he portrays the female body in much the same manner as he renders the domestic animals that populate his work. His male figures function more like the machines which dot his landscapes. The female is a figure and the male is a device, but both are only means to the establishment of measurement for the territorial markings of God. These markings, whether objects (ladders, furniture etc.) or figures (human or animal, vegetation is rare) provide delimiting zones within which the 'free' can operate. Its codification into a frozen, statuesque gesture is a means to mark the presence of God within the domain of the quotidian.
Dog and Priest (1978) |
Colville's figures do not perch on the landscape, surveying it from a domestic vantage as in the nudes of Edwin Holgate; it has already been completely domesticated. They aren't tourists; they are always at home. There is no wilderness, no alterity. Colville's nudes rarely have faces; they have minimally articulated heads which serve as totemic indexes of both personal history and the presence of Divinity. Their eyes are dim and their features, regardless of light sources, are bathed in an obscuring dankness. When they are not cut off at the neck, they are deliberately obscured by the heads of animals or by either a technical device or its simulacra. Burnett explains that "his love of animals is matched by his easy acceptance of the mechanized modern world." (Burnett 113) They are both Innocent facets of the world from which the figure and the device can calculate the ambit of their possibly instances of Grace.
Dressing Room (2002) |
In a sense, Colville's bodies are always nude. It is a recovery of the Innocence which was sought by everyone from Paul Peel to Prudence Heward, but it is given a very different tenor. Covered in light from all angles with minimal or no projected shadow, they are bathed in the light of God, an illumination which allows nothing to be hidden. It is here that their eroticism resides, the eroticism of a couple who are constantly being watched by the Divine. This variety of supernatural voyeurism approximates Colvilleꞌs notion of freedom – the space of minimal distinction for the prisoner of Godꞌs love. It is for this reason that there is such a stark contrast between the two basic models of nude figures in his work. There are the idealized, extraordinarily sedentary figures that seem to be constructed from the sand and are comparable to the maternal fantasies of Henry Moore. And then there are the figures of a positive banality – usually the artist and his wife in various states of undress – the occasional presence of undergarments operating as the fetish object of an existential choice; a fetish object, not so much in the sexual sense, but in the spiritual one, as the signature of the Divine in a space which might otherwise be transgressed. Like nearly everything else in his world, the nude is a matter for, and of, measurement. The dummy is its double.
Morning (1981) |
References
Burnett, David G. Colville. Toronto: Art Gallery of Ontario, 1983.
Colville, Alex. A Book of Hours: Labours of the Months. London: Fischer Fine Art, 1979.
Dow, Helen J. The Art of Alex Colville. Toronto: McGraw-Hill Ryerson, 1972.
No comments:
Post a Comment