The Big Smoke Curator's Notes

A monument can be defined as a structure erected to commemorate a famous person, event or site or structure that is of historical and cultural importance. Although it is not implicit in its meaning, the common sense idea of a monument is less invested in its referent than it is in the monument itself. ‘The Big Smoke’ brings together six artists who have defined through their practice the monument as a reminder rather then a signifier, particularly 'monuments' within regional Victoria that highlight a partially symbiotic, partially antithetical relationship with Melbourne's urban society.

Jacques and Noah's work represent the most literal interpretations of the ‘monuments’ concept, both having created Interpretations of real world monuments that cut at the heart of the regional/urban relationship in this country - water and mining respectively. The pipe and the mine are monuments to the technical abilities and natural resources that keep society, both regional and urban, up and running.

Kathryn, on the other hand, is more in the business of creating monuments, although she creates them to commemorate items and experiences that traditionally have been ignored by monuments makers. Her subjects are not great and grand but they are significant, which makes their commemoration a monument in accepted definitions. Some may criticize her works for being purely photographic. Traditionally, monuments have been statues or structures but film-based recording overtook statues as the dominant form of remembrance long ago. Having said that, Kathryn's work is influenced by 'stone' monuments of old, especially the stoic character of the objects in her catalogue series. There is a definite 'suburban’ feel to Kathryn's imagery. What better monument to the urban and regional centers of Melbourne than the vast suburbs that lie in the no man’s land that defines their separation

Tara and Andrew operate in a similar vein to Kathryn but instead of creating large monuments, in the traditional style, to subtle things (as is Kathryn's method) they challenge the idea of the stoic and proud monument by creating subtle monuments to subtle things - small traces of human emotions and the subtle languages of the body. They defy the notion of a monument’s grandeur. The intimacy of headphones and a personal DVD player are miles from the stone and concrete of ‘old’ monuments. They adhere to modern notions of reflection and remembrance as aspects of self.

Lastly, Greg is creating a solid trace of cast shadow and light, bringing solid form to the ultimate transient moment. I've included Greg's work because it is deliberately not a monument; even the work itself is not permanent, created using gaffa tape it will be destroyed by the process of de-installation. It illustrates the nature of monuments as reminders and the true nature of memory, which is far less concrete then a traditional monument, would have us believe. At the end of the exhibition, all we will have is a digital image on the website, a monument to the solid work, which was a monument to the cast light that created its form, which was a monument to the real world referent.  How many changes has it gone through in those steps? How far removed is the monument from what we are supposed to be reminded of?

Julian White

Other Links

The Big Smoke - Penny Peckham