Colin Siyuan Chinnery “It Might Also Be”

Colin Siyuan Chinnery 秦思源: It Might Also Be 也可以是
Art-Ba-Ba Mobile Space, 1/F. Bldg 10,18 Wuwei Road,Shanghai, Sept 4 –Oct 7, 2012

Colin Siyuan Chinnery is an artist and curator based in Beijing. He was Director in 2009 and 2010 of ShContemporary Art Fair in Shanghai, and before that he was Chief Curator / Deputy Director at the Ullens Center for Contemporary Art (UCCA) in Beijing. (Art-Ba-Ba)

At first glance, the interesting point about this exhibition is the play with and resulting confusion about authorship. Wang Jianwei (汪建伟) is the curator. Chinnery (Chinese: Qin Siyuan), the artist, collected ‘failed paintings’ of fellow artists and used the collected material to ‘curate’ an exhibition, including a unique maze-like exhibition architecture.

When one enters the exhibition, it feels like entering the bowels of some large animal or an underground labyrinth. The light is dim, in reddish and yellowish hues. The air is stiff and warm. One can smell the wood the construction is made of. It indeed feels like the limbo where all the ‘unwanted’ paintings, rejected by their authors may end up. As one proceeds, images pop up behind each corner: Sometimes the pop up in big size, right in front of you; at other times the pop up as small specimens to be viewed through a small opening in one of the walls.

Each of the paintings has its own story, and even if severed from its author, it still exists and expresses something: a prematurely terminated line of thought. Walking through the exhibition feels like entering the corners of one’s own memory. Even discarded ideas have to go somewhere.

In the text accompanying the exhibition, as well as in the invitation, the concept is further linked to the historical event of the “Salon de refuses” (Salon of the rejected – from the official Paris Salon in 1863). This is almost unnecessary, and it feels like a leap in another direction. Being refused by a jury and taking counteraction is a political gesture, linked to the current state of society and its power relationships. In contrary, refusing the idea carried in one’s own painting follows an intimate logic of ones own mind that can have many different motivations ranging from emotional reactions all the way to technical problems or calculated art market considerations. The idea is rejected before being published, and therefore has not yet entered the realm of the political. But we do not really have to stick with this reference to enjoy the show.

The show engages the viewer through the exhibition architecture, while at the same time giving enough ideas to contemplate on. One can contemplate about each of the ‘failed paintings’ in the show. One can also contemplate about the notion of authorship and the voluntary denouncement thereof as it occurred to these paintings. Or one can contemplate about ones own ‘failed paintings’ (or failed ideas) – where did they go?