Tim Woodward’s written response to Sebastian Moody’s new body of work has been published in a blog discussing home decorating.
The essay can be viewed HERE.
Sebastian Moody ‘The Prohibition of Isolation’
by Samantha Littley
‘To sit for one’s picture, is to have an abstract of one’s life written, and published, and ourselves thus confined over to honour, or infamy’.
Jonathon Richardson 1715 (1)
‘Similarity has gone, contiguity is proposed as the new mode of portraiture’.
Ernst Van Alphen 1997 (2)
In ‘The Prohibition of Isolation’ Sebastian Moody offers us five paintings of cash-register receipts as a portrait of his subject, 26-year-old Brisbane architect Jackson Lightbody.3 In choosing to portray Lightbody through the records of his consumption Moody questions our ability to act as individuals in a post-industrial, service-based society in which freedom of expression takes place within prescribed limits. He also engages with a complex range of ideas surrounding the tradition of portraiture.
In conceptualising his work as a portrait Moody has elected to explore and critique a genre steeped in tradition, in particular that of the ‘Grand Manner’ or ‘Swagger’ portrait popularised in Britain from the 17th century. Within this tradition the portrait painter is judged by his/her ability to ‘capture’ his/her subject and, in effect, render them present through their likeness. Moody implicitly queries the validity of these criteria and the very notion that it possible to know someone through their painted image, recording instead Lightbody’s purchases:
- Dinner and drinks at the Blue Grotto for Lightbody and his girlfriend;
- Taxi ride home to Toowong from the Family nightclub, Fortitude Valley;
- Stuffed toy from Mr Toys Toyworld;
- Three photo frames from Myer;
- Gold Class cinema ticket to Mr and Mrs Smith at Greater Union Birch Carroll & Coyle, Indooroopilly.
While the painted receipts makes us conscious of Lightbody’s absence rather than his presence Moody asks us to accept them as ‘proof of purchase’ and, consequently, as ‘proof of life’ and to construct Lightbody’s persona accordingly. It is for us to bestow Lightbody’s faceless image with meaning and to determine the true nature of his individuality. Without clues to his appearance we are required to read the receipts as indicative of his leisure-time choices and to gain a ‘picture’ of him through them. The receipts refer to Lightbody indexically rather than iconically, in much the same way that Christian Boltanski referred to his randomly-selected subjects through their possessions in his Inventories installations of the early 1970s.4
In contrast to the rapport traditionally shared by portraitist and subject, Moody at no time met or spoke with Lightbody and has no knowledge of him other than through the evidence of his expenditure. Far from developing a relationship through this process Moody and Lightbody are engaged in a virtual exchange mediated by commerce. If we accept that someone’s purchases are revealing of them, it might be argued that we gain an understanding of Lightbody through his outlay of capital. Moody’s work, however, prompts us to ask ourselves whether we define our purchases or whether they define us and are used, moreover, to control our future spending choices. The computerisation and exchange of information pertaining to us effectively allows retailers to customise and market goods to our ‘unique’ requirements, further restricting the range of products they make available. Under this system anonymity and individuality are effectively precluded.
Despite the apparent authenticity of the receipts further questions regarding their veracity as indicators of character arise. We might, for example, consider whether Lightbody has provided Moody with all the receipts for purchases made over the elected period, or altered his spending habits to reflect the personality he hopes to project. Extending this process of selection further, Moody has chosen to paint only those receipts that he feels are indicative of Lightbody. The approach recalls that of 18th-century portraitist Sir Joshua Reynolds (1723–92) who depicted his aristocratic subjects alongside the trappings of their success, or in the guise of historical or allegorical figures of their choosing. The aptly-named Jackson Lightbody is perhaps today’s equivalent of the aristocrat: part of a new generation of upwardly-mobile technocrats with disposable incomes operating within a consumer culture. Unlike Reynolds, however, Moody has created his portrait in order to critique his culture and is not intentionally complicit in its promotion. He is at the service of neither his subject nor society and, in fact, challenges the system whereby social status is bestowed according to the accumulation and display of wealth.
In offering us these records Moody presents us with a portrait of both an individual and the society of which he is a product. He asks us to interrogate our own acts of consumption and the reality of choice and freedom. Through this process Moody proffers a new way of conceptualising portraiture: as a method of exploring issues surrounding the construction and control of character in the 21st century.
Samantha Littley
Curator, Australian Art to 1970
Queensland Art Gallery
1. Richardson, Jonathon. ‘Essay on the Theory of Painting’ in Wilton, Andrew. The Swagger Portrait: Grand Manner Portraiture in Britain from Van Dyck to Augustus John 1630 – 1930. Tate Gallery, Millbank, 1992, p.36.
2. Van Alphen, Ernst. ‘The Portrait’s Dispersal: Concepts of representation and subjectivity in contemporary portraiture’ in Woodall, Joanna (ed.) Portraiture: Facing the subject. Manchester University Press, Manchester, 1997, p.250.
3. (Scott) Jackson Lightbody is the boyfriend of a hairdresser at Fabrik, the salon where Moody gets his hair cut. Moody selected Lightbody as a subject on advice that his lifestyle reflected the culture Moody wished to explore — they have not met. The receipts represent a selection of purchases made by Lightbody over a seven-day period (6–13 June 2005).
4. Van Alphen, Ernst, 1992, pp.249–250.
___________________________________________________________________________
SEBASTIAN MOODY in conversation with LISA GREENAWAY for theprogram.net.au
November 2007
> What, to you, is the essence of conceptual art - and is it the only kind of art that really matters?
Ideas hold this world together- not things. Conceptual art is the acknowledgment and investigation of that. Conceptual art is concerned with value systems and how meanings are put together. I am more interested in why things matter than mattering.
> I've read that your practice is "primarily concerned with how meaning is made and shared." With works such as the "idealised social environments", what do you hope the viewer might take home from experiencing your work?
The viewer or participant I hope will leave the environment with an increased sense that anything is possible- that we all contribute to imagining the world into existence and we shouldn't take it lying down! All meaning is contractual- it is based on an agreement. Therefore meaning is a product of communication. The environments that I have been a part of creating are an acknowledgement of the role of sociability in creating meaning and hopefully have had an empowering effect on the visitors/participants who have let themselves be imagined as part of those communities for a short period of time. Again- while I am increadibly interested in what things 'mean' I think that meaning is irrelevant. I am far more interested in how meaning is constructed and how those structures are supported.
> Tell us about the artist group 'The General Will'. Who are you, and what do you want from us?
The General Will is an artist group that began in Brisbane in 2005. There are three members living in Brisbane at the moment (Chris Bennie, myself, Shaun O'Connor) and one member living in Montreal (Justin Stephens). We all have strong individual art practices, so in the beginning it was an experiment to see how we could put them together and what it might look like once we had. Over time a General Will language has developed and that has made it easier to develop ideas for our projects as we can better guess what other members will get excited by.
> Is collaboration an important part of your practice? If so, what do you find in collaborative work that you don't find when working alone?
I try not to live in a bubble. I just seem to prefer working with other people. I have so many amazing friends and whether they are artists or not sharing time with them is important to me. Even solo projects usually involve working with others or at least require some form of public engagement.
> With your current project "This is Now" taking over advertising spaces - are you aiming to reclaim the public sphere? Taking creativity back from the "creatives"?
There is a certain sense of hijacking in what I am doing but I don't think that it is really that dramatic. This is Now is about turning the market research process onto autopilot. I don't know that my ads will be Trojan Horses or not- we will have to wait and see. I predict that if this project discovers a new way of using communication channels then some bright marketing spark will work out how this model can be used to strengthen the branding process rather than continue critiquing it.
> Finally (we ask this of all our interviewees) - Is art important? If so (or if not), why?
Art is important, but creativity is more important.