Page 32 - Art Almanac (February 2020)

Pleasure

Dr Joseph Brennan

‘This exhibition seeks to embrace frivolity, contradictions and minor perversities’, I am told by
one of its curators, Julian Goddard. It ‘examines various forms and manifestations of pleasure
as opposed to trying to define it.’ After hearing from each of the three curators (Goddard, Helen
Rayment and Evelyn Tsitas), and observing the diverse articulations of pleasure that play out in
works of more than 40 artists, I am left with a deeper appreciation for the exhibition’s mission not
to reify the term ‘pleasure’ in any way.

The genesis of ‘Pleasure’ was a ‘collaborative exercise’, as Tsitas explained to me. It came about
through shared ‘interests in representations and disruptions and decorations of and to the
body.’ When planning was in its infancy, the exhibition had the working title ‘Pleasure & the
Grotesque’, which is a reference to the work of Mikhail Bakhtin. Bakhtin’s ‘the Grotesque’ is, in
Tsitas’ reading, ‘a phenomenon of unsettling ruptures of borders, particularly bodily borders.’
Pudica (2019), Misklectic’s life-scale sculpture, is on display in the exhibition, and illustrates
such ruptures. Combining technicolour with bone-white, the work brings into uncomfortable
unison: the pristine with decay, life with death. Both exuberant and stifled feminine sexuality
melt together in the sculpture through a reef-in-turmoil metaphor. Yet despite its resonance
throughout the exhibition, ‘the Grotesque’ was eventually dropped from the title, as the curatorial
process matured. I was intrigued to know why.

I am told it was decided that ‘the Grotesque’ should be removed in order to avoid perceptions
of ‘judgement’ and to not ‘give anyone the opportunity to misinterpret our intent’, in the words
of Tsitas and Rayment, respectively. But more crucially, only naming the exhibition ‘Pleasure’
was intended to – and I believe, did – free it from expectation. As Goddard said simply, ‘I’m
really happy if people don’t ‘understand’ the show and the works in it. While I’m not against
interpretation – I’m all for enjoyment. I wouldn’t approach the exhibition with any pre-conceived
idea of what you might want it to be – best just let it happen around you.’

The RMIT Design Archives provided key inspiration for the exhibition by showing the curators
works on paper from the Robert Pearce Collection. These works, in Tsitas’ words, ‘captured the
opposing forces at play in bodily expression – especially within sexuality, and especially in the
1980s.’ This would serve as a key moment in sketching out the scope of ‘Pleasure’. As Rayment
told me ‘Right from the start of our research we were keen to find a way to contextualise the
Robert Pearce Collection. Robert was an independent graphic designer, illustrator, artist and
creative director, and was central to the alternative fashion scene that emerged in Melbourne in
the early 1980s.’

Pearce’s significance can be found in the exhibition’s 1980s-to-now timeframe, and the included
artists’ celebration of diversity in our region – most working within Australia or its neighbours,
including Indonesia and India. But while Pearce’s contribution to ‘Pleasure’ – and the Australian
gay liberation movement – is difficult to over-emphasise, the exhibition remains ‘open-ended’,
as is in line with the subjective nature of pleasure. ‘In my opinion it’s almost impossible to define
pleasure,’ Rayment said. ‘You can walk around the exhibition and see pleasure through how
artists identify with subculture, with dress, with dance, food, being male, being female, working,
making, being hairy, decorating the body for a religious experience. There is pleasure in being
joyous at any age – no boundaries and that is the freedom we wanted to convey.’

32