Friday, May 25, 2012Partly Cloudy 20°C
Arts

Shary Boyle shows Flesh and Blood at the AGO

Posted by Matthew Purvis / September 21, 2010

Shary Boyle Flesh and BloodScarborough native Shary Boyle has just unveiled a substantial exhibition of her paintings and sculptures at the Art Gallery of Ontario. "Flesh and Blood" was curated and organized by Louise Dery and Galerie de l'UQAM. It will be travelling the country over the next year. Most of the work on display is new and was created explicitly for the show.

Shary Boyle Flesh and BloodThe exhibition is spread out over four rooms and encompasses a wide range of unique images. Combining characters from old fairy tales and the cliches of our times, she channels her figures into a highly personalized mythology, stripped down to symbolic nudity. She then decorates her pallid figures with jewels taking the place of vomit, blood, excrement and other bodily fluids.

The distinctions between bodies are often unclear. Copulating bodies collapse into each other, sometimes in pornographic detail, sometimes by sheer vagueness. Most of her figures are small and porcelain with elegant details. They would seem at home on my grandmother's knickknack shelf if it wasn't for all of the monstrous sex. Others, like the scarecrow and figure copulating on a haystack, seem more like frozen moments from a forgotten Ken Russell film. Meanwhile, dotting the walls of some of the rooms are her charmingly twisted paintings, notably the "Highland" series which depicts the kinky exploits of various highlanders and exciting new uses for plaid.

Shary Boyle Flesh and BloodSuch a front and center exhibition at the AGO for a relatively young Canadian artist is pretty rare. Aside from the fact that Boyle has actually decided to stick around in Canada, she manages to embody a lot of what's been going on in the art scene in this country, although always in her own very particular way. On the one hand, she embraces a rigorously theoretical, political and conceptually based practice. On the other, she displays a disciplined enthusiasm for traditional craft work. Although one can often find these two tendencies at odds, either polemically or in market terms, they are perfectly melded together in her work.

When looking at the intricate and delicate details that are apparent in so much of her body of work, it is easy to forget their extremity, to ignore the fact that these are aesthetic celebrations of actions more macabre and violent than what is commonly found in slasher films. Casting such imagery in stylized porcelain figures distances the actions they display from their shocking character. Porcelain is a hard medium, both in terms of craft and tactility. Yet, in no small part because of its longstanding cultural marginalization as part of feminine culture, whether in the sculptures of the Rococo or in the dolls of the Victorians, it creates the illusion of softness, of gentility. It is precisely this, historically misogynistic, misunderstanding of the medium that she exploits in her work as a vehicle to examine the constantly collapsing boundaries between the carnal and the carnage of history.

Shary Boyle Flesh and BloodWhat is truly subversive is the deliberate pleasure which she cultivates in the spectacle of this violence. One of the most interesting things about her work is the way that she, to use an old phrase, 'aestheticizes violence'. They're sadistic pieces cast in a radicalized softness. The exhibition isn't simply about a bunch of tantalizing or shocking objects though; it's more about the audience that filters through the porcelain world she creates.

In fact, the use of porcelain is achingly appropriate since the work is about the repressed end of human consciousness and society, which reaches its most sublimated form in the institution of the museum. It is here that Boyle plays an openly perverse game and her subversiveness comes to fruition. The museum goer is oriented less as a viewer than as a voyeuristic sadist who can't help but enjoy the scenes of rape, torture and mutilation as they are played out with a coquettish viciousness.

Flesh and Blood runs from September 15 until December 6, 2010.

Shary BoyleAll photos by Rafael Goldchain. Artworks by Shary Boyle courtesy of Jessica Bradley Art + Projects.

Discussion

25 Comments

Aaron / September 21, 2010 at 06:00 pm
user-pic
Yikes, this stuff's terrible.
Marc / September 21, 2010 at 08:46 pm
user-pic
This is the problem in art today. In art, you not only have the artistic merit and expression, but in art there is also the importance of aiming for beauty, including ties to the classic roots of all art. This is atrocious.
Michael / September 21, 2010 at 08:59 pm
user-pic
Perhaps it is not everyone's cup of tea but I find it interesting. At least it is not boring.

Who said art has to "aim for beauty?" Dubious
S / September 21, 2010 at 11:24 pm
user-pic
"What is truly subversive is the deliberate pleasure which she cultivates in the spectacle of this violence."
Barf.
bob replying to a comment from Marc / September 21, 2010 at 11:27 pm
user-pic
No, the problem with art today is that spectators feel as if limiting art to what they think art should be is the same as critiquing it.
Aaron / September 22, 2010 at 01:30 am
user-pic
Ok, I'll critique it. I have always had a problem with gimmicky art - the kind of art which is comprised of one very small idea. You look at it and say, "Alright, traditional porcelain figurines with...oh, a guitar and an amplifier..." and then it's over. It lasts all of two seconds. And once that's over, what's left? The long, drawn out "explanation" of what the artist is trying to convey. Yawn, really. There was a whole bunch of that kind of stuff at OCAD when I attended long ago and it drove me nuts. Papier-mache cows drinking from a carton of milk, etc and ad nauseam. They're like items from a novelty store.
mondayjane / September 22, 2010 at 03:17 am
user-pic
i like it.
evalyn / September 22, 2010 at 09:06 am
user-pic
there are five photos here out of an entire exhibit at the AGO. do you know anything about shary boyle? Have you seen any of her artwork other than on this blog? maybe before you say 'this sucks', go check out the exhibit.

also bob, yes.
sniderscion / September 22, 2010 at 09:25 am
user-pic
These are absolutely hilarious :)
Aaron / September 22, 2010 at 10:41 am
user-pic
Evalyn, yes, I've been to her website. I wouldn't have commented had I not seen more of her work. I stand by what I said. Some of her paintings are terrible. This is the problem when you've got a gimmick. After you peel that back, all you're left with is the composition, colour, etc, which, in her case, leaves something to be desired. I may be old school, but whatever happened to solid, visual art with proper line, composition and colour. Master that and you can say whatever the hell you want because once that silly idea loses it's steam, you've still got a timeless piece. Picasso's Les Demoiselles d'Avignon was shocking for many reasons when it first appeared, but once that shock dissipated, we were left with a wonderful piece of art, which stands on its own AS visual art. Artists today are taught right off the bat to have a theme or a gimmick. They all have their little websites with their "artistic statement", which they put more thought into than their art. It makes me ill because it's so painful.
Courtney / September 22, 2010 at 11:51 am
user-pic
I'm into it, I'll be checking out the show.
wowee / September 22, 2010 at 06:31 pm
user-pic
Haha Aaron, of course you bring up Picasso...
I guess you are "old school"!
You know, one could critique 'Les Demoiselles d'Avignon' the same way you've critiqued Shary's work.
If you look for a gimmick, you'll find it. Why not look beyond that?
ha....Picasso...jesus...
bob replying to a comment from Aaron / September 22, 2010 at 11:07 pm
user-pic
So basically, you think that aren't shouldn't change from what it was decades ago.
bob / September 23, 2010 at 05:13 pm
user-pic
*ART, not aren't
evalyn / September 24, 2010 at 09:49 am
user-pic
Picasso? Really?

oh, you're killing me. i could hardly get through your giant paragraph about "solid, visual art with proper line, composition and colour".

booooring
Jill / September 27, 2010 at 10:10 am
user-pic
This stuff is just awful. I don't see any connection with porcelain "figurines" and her subject matter - it makes absolutely no sense - and this does not constitute "art"
Jill / September 27, 2010 at 10:13 am
user-pic
This stuff is just awful. I don't see any connection with porcelain "figurines" and her subject matter - it makes absolutely no sense - sorry this does not constitute "art"
jill / September 27, 2010 at 10:15 am
user-pic
This stuff is just awful. I don't see any connection with porcelain "figurines" and her subject matter - it makes absolutely no sense - this does not constitute "art"
Ian / September 27, 2010 at 04:39 pm
user-pic
This thread is hilarious. Especially the "This is not art" comments. I think when people are upset enough to call something "not art" then it becomes art. Anything that has got you worked up enough to be angry is art in my opinion.
leo / October 3, 2010 at 06:20 pm
user-pic
don't you feel like contemporary artists these days only know how to mix opposites together and claim it's a sort of social commentary? like that naked nymph with the electric guitar, a mix of mythology and technology. sure some people may argue that she's trying to expand the boundaries of art but that is only in the most superficial sense. contemporary artists are actually putting art in a box because all their works are inherently the same: just gimmicks.

the pieces are visually pleasing and i appreciate the sentiment involved but there are much better ways of expression than just putting two contrary things together.

T-pain / October 10, 2010 at 11:12 pm
user-pic
This stuff looks great!

I can't believe some of you think this is not art. lol
Lisa / October 29, 2010 at 07:25 am
user-pic
Ian yes I agree. I believe art is one's own personal language and their interior world , their view, their perspective and it should come from within. Yes they can master technique ( line, composition) if they want to. In the end if an artist can create something truly without caring about who is going to like it or critique then it truly is art. Art belongs to the artist not us
tam / November 17, 2010 at 08:44 pm
user-pic
I have to say that I find the discussion about what is and isn`t art ridiculous and I hear it on a weekly basis. People tend to think that paintings and sculpures from hundreds of years ago are true art. Art changes over time like technology and fashion and I think that art is what the artist believes it is.
Andrew / November 21, 2010 at 02:23 pm
user-pic
Shary Boyle is amazing.

Her combination of porcelain, fantasy, and mythology juxtaposes and fuses violently in her miniatures that leave the viewer saying, "WTF?!" Her art creates discussion (as evident on this very blog). Why does she uses porcelain? Or plasticine? Why projections? Why is a scarecrow dry humping a disco-ball woman???

She pushes and creates new horizons for art today. Look back on the history of art. If Shary Boyle made an anatomical study of a foot, it would be boring. No one would care. If ancient greeks or Leonardo Di Vinci made detailed studies of the human foot, scholars and art critics would hail their importance in the history of art.

If you want to see classical art, find a book on art history. Check the internet. If you want to see the future of art, look to Shary Boyle.
Maya / February 11, 2011 at 03:39 pm
user-pic
The technique and the style are quite amateurish . Colours are drab and the message , heheh there is no message. Too naive. An yes, I saw more then one of her paintings .

Add a Comment

Other Cities: VancouverMontreal