The Mundane World of David Shrigley
Nishita Mehta, 2004
Shrigley has received criticism for the humour in his art, yet in today's world of comic books and tragedies (like George Bush) it represents a new evolution of Art. Art is often viewed as a serious rendering of life, but the humorous character of Shrigley's work furthers a tragic-comic agenda within his social commentary. By adopting this approach, what critic have called "faux-naïf", Shrigley has essentially held a mirror up to the naiveté, no, complacency of the world so that it can see for itself how ridiculous it really is(3). So is are we all mad then? "No," says Shrigley, "Just a bit stupid"(4).
There is a brand of Punk, DIY aesthetic to his style; it is manifest in the spontaneity of his scribbled misspellings and carelessly rendered sketches. Obviously these are intentional, every line serves a function and they are misleading in their simplicity because they are revealed to be a masterful economy of media to present a tragic-comic stoicism (5). "Shrigley's drawings seem not to be the result of bad draughtsmanship so much as a careful destruction of drawing's normal rules... it also artfully muddles abstraction and figuration while pointing to the limits of visual understanding"(6). This intended destructive approach is what lends Shrigley a Punk air; Punk is an integral part of British Sub-cultural history and it is apparent not only in his technique but also in his choice of subjects.
Although Shrigley has an affinity for found drawings, which he collects and treasures, he does not actively draw with a punk aesthetic in mind but rather "out of a desire to say what [he] wanted to say as directly as possible"(7). His drawing is "simply the kind of drawing that is easiest for [him] to do"(8). The Sex Pistols and The Clash shared the same sentiment; they had to sing about what they knew and what they were living; their music was their life and it was easiest for them to sing about it, just as Shrigley's art is his life. And the artists' life is a happy one; in fact "it is the best life a person could have"(9). His work centres on his life and is, as is any art, his own intuitive distillation of it. He is unafraid to simply speak his mind especially about topics that are usually considered taboo, particularly on subjects such as death(10). He is independent of a preconceived agenda and this is the making of his own brand of art, the act of which is indeed punk in origin. Punk is a concept based on anarchy of the establishment, a marked departure from the mainstream and a criticism of it, and it is this concept that I see clearly in his works such as Lost and the animated video for Blur's "Good Song" .
There are larger themes of Death and Love, aptly explored in the elaborate animation of Good Song that was released in 2004(11). It is a new media that Shrigley has been itching to explore and now has been successful within. He collaborated with British animators Shynola, contributed to the script and did all the drawings in his amateurish schoolboy doodles(12). Shrigley's drawings were destined to be animated; it is absurd to see a squirrel and a fairy, so carelessly drawn, to physically make such nuances of affection. The video begins through the binoculars of a lonely fairy looking for love. It has a list, and Shrigley has an affinity for 'found signage' like lists(13), the fairy is hard-pressed to find a companion and ultimately all his options are crossed-out. But lo and behold it spies a rummaging squirrel in the garbage; it is love at first sight and the two enjoy a night of dancing and affection. The fairy presents a 'murdered' flower to its buck-toothed love and both are in rapture(14). The squirrel has its head in the clouds, quite literally in fact, for it dreams of nuts and unwittingly nibbles off the fairy's nut. It realises with great horror and sadness that it has killed its lover out of clouded love. But too soon to grieve or repent, along come an army of fairies and bumblebees who abruptly murder the squirrel in cold blood. And, in the most poignant of falls, it is thrown to the ground to rot with the leaves. This is when the narrative takes a turn towards the ultimate 'Shrigleyism': a man with a leaf-blower comes along and blasts the squirrel and the leaves away, probably into the dustbin. The rest of the video is composed of quips of the leaf-blower, set on "danger-ous", blowing away everyone and everything - leaves, fornicating dogs, golf balls into groins, dandelions, flip-flops and a house of cards. This amazingly hilarious sequence continues the agenda of the death of the fairy and squirrel while making the viewer completely forget about their demise.
This story of doomed love, parodied within the miniature world of fairies and squirrels is inanely poignant, they are substitutes for any Romeo and Juliet. The lovers who were from different worlds, could be from different genders, races, ethnicities or societies, they defied boundaries and were doomed to be brutally murdered by their love. When the squirrel gnaws into the fairy's head, it is a striking commentary on the self-destructive quality of love, which is apparent in any relationship. But Shrigley also points out that any and all love is doomed, when asked why the squirrel and pixie have to die, he answers quite simply, "Death comes to us all in the end"(15). This is his philosophy on life, love and death; he is telling the audience to reconcile themselves to death and life because it is an unchangeable destiny for us all. Everyone ends up in the dustbin of life, living in others memories, just as the squirrel and fairy live on in our memories. The comic final segment serves to alleviate the shock of the brutal murders, and also to drive the ultimate eventuality of death home to the viewer. It was also intended to fill in an extra minute of the song left over after the story was done, but, far from being "inept story telling", it does prove to be important to the work as a whole (16). Good Song has a slap-like quality in its immediate shock-and-tickle tactic, which renders Shrigley's premiere animated work a complete success. This is a re-occurring theme in his work.
In drawings such as Pay Nothing Until You Are Dead , he criticises the mass consumer culture we live in today while reminiscing a Nazi concentration camp-like narrative on death which cannot help but be darkly comic. In What Happens After Your Dead two sinister looking people drive off with a coffin and throw it over a cliff, as though that is really what happens after a fake burial ceremony. He addresses the temporality and worthlessness of the material body while simultaneously portraying a humorous interpretation of society's reaction to death. These sentiments are echoed strongly in Good Song . In all three works he does not necessarily criticise, but rather parodies death; thus by making one laugh at it he effectively negates the serious connotations of the event. Shrigley is adept at "bringing language to a point nearing dislocation, he is without equal in making absurd associations, in speaking trivially about important subjects, cruelly about sensitive subjects, and seriously about perfectly irrelevant subjects"(17). He retains a decidedly Warholian approach to the world; Andy Warhol famously wrote in The Philosophy of Andy Warhol "being smart could make you depressed, certainly, if you weren't smart about what you were smart about. It's viewpoint that's important not intelligence, probably"(18). It is this matter-of-fact style that complements the no-bullshit attitude of his message while simultaneously instead of isolating and offending, he forces the audience to just laugh out loud thus simultaneously reconciling one with the tragedy and happiness of life.
Another method that Shrigley aptly puts into play within his works is to magnify not only the oddities, but in fact more frequently the normalities that pepper the mundane modern existence with character, immediacy and presence. He absolutely delights in the absurdities of our contemporary society. In works like Lost, Black Snowman and Sculpture of a Nail , Shrigley focuses on extremely mundane aspects of daily life, but either satirises it or just presents it as a moment of delightful happenstance. These works seem to be autobiographical while at the same time represent society and are simultaneously self-effacing and reconciled. He himself belongs to this society of pet owners who have lost their pets in a moment of irresponsibility, he lives in world where nails a bent into walls, he lives in a world where there were previously no black snowmen, chiefly because snow is white; but so does everybody else. By laughing at and mocking his own society Shrigley is mocking himself as well as his audience. But, importantly, he is encouraging his audience to laugh with him. Furthermore, by parodying these miniscule events, he parallels his larger themes of Love and Death, providing a strong contrast that borders on the ridiculous, but provides an integral balance to his work. It is a continuation of Shrigleys characteristic stoicism.
Lost , is a droll snapshot of a sign on a tree, soliciting the passer-by for information on a lost 'pet' pidgeon. Written in thick black marker on a lined foolscap, and in bold upper case is, "Grey + White pidgeon with black bits. Normal size. A bit mangy - looking. Does not have a name. Call 257 1964." It is stuck on a park tree with wide sticky tape. It is probably a made up number, in case kids try and prank call, but this is Shrigleys prank call on the neighbourhood. It is as though he is mocking the ridiculous 'exotic' pets people tend to keep. Pigeons are the rats of the city sky, and the sign on the tree is likening or indirectly describing pets as mangy, scruffy, dirty, and disease carrying rats that are an inescapable and permanent fixture in every city, world wide.
Photographs such as Lost and Black Snowman , initially seem to be witty quips, but upon further contemplation seem to more about the process involved with the community in which they occur. There is a communal interaction and understanding of the pun, intended or not. Yet, Shrigley's work at once criticises and celebrates daily life, craftily maintains this balance precisely through is humour. Once again by making the audience laugh at themselves, they at once are reconciled to the fact. Another, more self-effacing agenda is revealed through these works because they are autobiographical in relation to the world around him. They are what he calls "interventional transient pieces" where the community became an extension of his sketchbook and becomes the three-dimensional equivalent of a doodle. The sign probably blew away in the wind, or got used to wrap some chips in, or perhaps was even ripped off and stuck on some college student's door.
In a world and society over-exposed to cynicisms and slapstick comedy, Shrigley's work, his life, his attitude is a refreshing breath of laughter to brighten up even the dreariest day. His ability to manipulate such minuscule objects as squirrels and nuts to create a narrative on the larger themes of life such as love and death commands an admiration from the more discerning audience. The humorous world of Shrigley transcends the monotony of life and forces one to embrace it. He chooses his message and content carefully often returning to works over periods of time, each of which undergo an extremely selective process. He does it all which such a subtle sleight of hand, that the casual observer would pass by and pass his art off as some infantile attempt at Pop art; the widespread acceptance that almost anything can be art is undeniable and Shrigley uses it to his advantage, but does not abuse its power. But the careful, more perceptual viewer would immediately do a double take and be able to see past a tongue-in-cheek appearance and appreciate the genius that is David Shrigley.
David Shrigley is an ordinary guy who notices the ordinary things in an ordinary life and then draws, photographs or sculpts them in an ordinary way - highlighting them as if to say "isn't this simply extraordinary".
Bibliography
Amanda Cruz, "The Good Guys Don't Always Win", Cat. David Shrigley , Centre for Curatorial Studies, Bard College Annandale-on-Hudson, N.Y, 2002
Andy Warhol, The Philosophy of Andy Warhol , Harcourt, New York, 1975
Frédéric Paul, "Vandale et Moraliste", Cat. David Shrigley , Domaine de Kerguéhennec, Bignan, France, 2002
Michael Bracewell, "Come to me those who labour or are heavy laden and I will give you rest and a nice hot cup of tea", Frieze, 1995
Neil Mullholland, "Brown Laser, D.S in conversation with N.M", ibid
Russel Ferguson, "An Authority On Bad Weather", ibid
Will Self, Introduction to "Why we got the sack from the museum", 1998
Interview with Argentinean Magazine 20/9/04
Interview with Bill Kenny, 2003
Interview with David Musgrave, 2004
Interview with FLAUNT magazine, 2004
Interview with James Bourne, March 2003
Interview with Nishita Mehta, 9/12/04
Interview with Tim Clark, April 2004
Internet:
www.davidshrigley.com
http://www.shynola.com/movies/goodsong/goodsong_download.htm
Good Song
Blur
(Think Tank)
Waiting, got no time to hide in
The country got a hold of my soul
TV? Dead
And there ain't no war in my head, now
And you seem very beautiful to me
Sleeping, but my work? Not done
I could be lying on an atom bomb
I take care
Cos I know you'll be there
You seem very beautiful to me
It? The rest of my life
Just rolling and rolling
The picture in my pocket
Looks like you
It? The rest of my life
Just rolling, rolling, rolling
We're all
Interview with Nishita Mehta, 9 th December 2004
Q.1. here is a sort of Punk, DIY aesthetic to your style; it is manifest in the spontaneity and scratchiness of your scribbled misspellings and carelessly rendered sketches. Obviously these are intentional, but do you feel that this observation is correct? I have recently studied the Punk movement as a uniquely British subculture, and I see traces of it in your work and approach to your subjects.
A.1. I like the DIY aesthetic. I have a collection of found drawings, etc which I treasure. I came to the kind of drawing I do, however, not out of a love of the 'punk' aesthetic but out of a desire to say what I wanted to say as directly as possible. My drawing is simply the kind of drawing that is easiest for me to do.
Q.2. You told Bill Kennedy that "Death comes to us all", is this indeed the general philosophy behind this re-occurring theme of death in your work?
A.2. I suppose death is a taboo subject, so that makes it a target for comedy. I like to deal with serious issues and I like to laugh about them. I like to laugh.
Q.3. Within your works you do not necessarily criticise, but rather you parody death. Is it a reaction against a religious upbringing that presented death as something to be feared? You seem to aim not at cynicism, but rather seek to, you have previously stated, dispel the seriousness of life; thus by making one laugh at death you effectively negate the serious connotations of the event. Could you elaborate further on this?
A.3. I don't think I ever set out to deliberately defuse any seriousness around particular issues, though I guess my work does that. As I've often said, my work is made very intuitively, so the subject matter is just what happens to be in my head at that particular time, therefore I must think a lot about death and such.
Q. 4. In photographs, Such as Lost, and Black Snowman, they seem at first like witty quips, but upon further contemplation seem to be more about the process involved with the community in which they occur. Is this indeed so? And if so how? What sparks this introspection on everyday life? Your work is such a simultaneous criticism and celebration of it, how do you maintain this balance?
A.4. I haven't made any works like this for quite a few years now because I reached a point where I got bored with it. I used to make a great many interventional transient pieces and photograph them and only a few made it to being 'finished' artwork. It was a similar process to drawing, but the public space was my page. I guess I wanted to engage with people, but as with all of my work, I didn't set out with the intention of saying anything in particular.
Q.5. You have received criticism for the humour in your Art. I feel that in today's world of comic books and George Bushes it represents a new evolution of Art. Art is often viewed as a serious rendering of life, but the humorous character of your work furthers a tragi-comic agenda within your social commentary. By taking this approach, what critics have called "faux-naif", would you say that you have essentially held a mirror up to the naiveté, no, complacency of the world so that it can see for itself how ridiculous it really is?
A.5. Maybe. I can't really help making work that is humorous, that's just the way I think.
Humour is just one facet of what I do; it doesn't determine whether a work is good or bad.
If I were solely interested in making people laugh I'd be a comedian, which I'm not.
Q.6. Did you decide to end the video with the leaf-blower-practical-joke segments to lighten up the mood after having just brutally murdered and literally blown away a fairy and a squirrel? I believe that people today are indeed stupid (You did once say that we're all just a bit stupid), arguably stupidity breeds ignorance and sometimes people require a tight slap across the face just to shake them out of complacency and wake them up to reality. Your work has this slap-like quality in its immediate shock and tickle tactic. Your matter-of-fact style complements the no-bullshit attitude of your message while at the same time instead of isolating and offending the audience forcing them to just laugh out loud. Is this reconciliation indeed a part of your agenda?
A.6. This piece was the first that I had made with a proper narrative, so it was quite an adventure. I designed a little story which was supposed to end with the squirrel lying bleeding on the ground, however as the animation turned out he had been lying there for quite a while and there was still a minute of the song left so something else had to happen. Hence the leaf blower. Perhaps it was just inept storytelling rather than anything else.
Q.7. Your work seems to be autobiographical in relation to the world around you, especially in the delightful study of the mundane. Would I be right to assume this?
A.7. There must be some element of autobiography there, but only fragments.
I suppose everything I see and hear and feel has the potential to be included.
Q.8. Are the fairy and squirrel are meant to be androgynous> they look quite ambiguous to me. Would be so kind as to clarify?
A.8. Originally the animators pitched the idea as a little boy and a monster, but I felt the 'love' aspect would throw up a feeling of paedophilia or homosexuality which were not things I wanted to comment upon. Hence the fairy and the squirrel became quite androgynous.
Q.9. In Lost, are you making fun of ridiculous pets people keep? thus likening or indirectly describing pets a mangy, scruffy, dirty and disease carrying rats?
A.9. I don't know. I'm not a big fan of pets (I'm allergic). For me pigeons are the most dirty worthless horrible creatures in the world. They are rats with wings.
Notes
(1) Interview with FLAUNT magazine, 2004.
(2) Amanda Cruz, "The Good Guys Don't Always Win", Cat. David Shrigley , Centre for Curatorial Studies, Bard College Annandale-on-Hudson, N.Y
However, he further states: " I don't think I ever set out to deliberately defuse any seriousness around particular issues, though I guess my work does that. As I've often said, my work is made very intuitively, so the subject matter is just what happens to be in my head at that particular time, therefore I must think a lot about death and such." Interview with Nishita Mehta, 9/12/04.
(3) Amanda Cruz, "The Good Guys Don't Always Win", David Shrigley (New York, Distributed Art Publishers, 2002). Pg. 4.
(4) Interview with Bill Kenny, 2003. NP.
(5) Interview with David Musgrave, 2004. NP.
(6) Ibid., NP.
(7) Interview, 9/12/04
(8) Ibid.
(9) FLAUNT , NP.
(10) " I suppose death is a taboo subject, so that makes it a target for comedy. I like to deal with serious issues and I like to laugh about them. I like to laugh." Interview, 9/12/04
(11) Watch the video at: http://www.shynola.com/movies/goodsong/goodsong_download.htm
(12) Interview with Bill Kenny, 2003. NP.
(13) Interview with James Bourne, March 2003. NP.
(14) Both characters have an androgynous quality to them and this was Shrigley's intention. He explains; "Originally the animators pitched the idea that as a little boy and a monster, but I felt the 'love' aspect would throw up a feeling of paedophilia or homosexuality which were not things I wanted to comment upon. Hence the fairy and the squirrel became quite androgynous." Interview, 9/12/04.
(15) Interview with Bill Kenny, 2003. NP.
(16) " This piece was the first that I had made with a proper narrative, so it was quite an adventure. I designed a little story which was supposed to end with the squirrel lying bleeding on the ground, however as the animation turned out he had been lying there for quite a while and there was still a minute of the song left so something else had to happen. Hence the leaf blower. Perhaps it was just inept storytelling rather than anything else." Interview, 9/12/04.
(17) Frédéric Paul, "Vandale et Moraliste", Cat. David Shrigley , Domaine de Kerguéhennec, Bignan, France, 2002. Pg 59.
(18) Andy Warhol, The Philosophy of Andy Warhol , Harcourt, New York, 1975. Pg 182.