Peter Le
Vasseur is a native of the Channel Islands. At a young age, his
family fled the islands to escape the Nazi occupation. In the 1960s,
he achieved considerable success in the London art world including
several one-man shows at the Portal Gallery in Mayfair. The Beatles
and several film stars are among those who purchased his works. In
1975, Le Vasseur returned to the Channel Islands and took up
residence in Guernsey.
“Consequences” is a temporary
exhibit at the Guernsey Museum's Greenhouse Gallery. It presents 16
paintings by Le Vasseur intended to provoke change and raise
awareness.
The works are realistic, highly
detailed, almost illustrational. The colors are bold but warm. This
lulls the viewer welcoming him or her into the scene. It is only
when you have gone beyond the first glance that you notice that there
is something wrong with these idyllic scenes such as pollution on a
beautiful beach or a fish deformed by atomic radiation cast up on a
shore.
All of the works in the Consequences
exhibit have a message. Most deal with environmental themes.
However, you also have works dealing with other issues such as
isolation in modern life. Le Vasseur presents a happy scene of
people enjoying a leisurely day in a public park. As you look at the
various figures you notice that there is no interaction, everyone has
earphones or is absorbed with their smart phone.
There, of course, is a long tradition
of using visual art to make social commentary. The works of William
Hogarth in the 18th century spring to mind. In his most
successful series “A Rake's Progress”, Hogarth painted a series
of scenes that satirize the mores of the English upper class of that
day.
The problem in social commentary art
is balancing the message and the artistic qualities of the work. If
the message is too strong, the work often loses its artistic appeal
and becomes propaganda, the best examples being the posters created
for authoritarian dictatorships during the 20th century. If
the artistic qualities dominate, the work may fail to convey the
social message that the artist was seeking to communicate.
In the Consequences exhibit, Le
Vasseur's works send strong messages. The scenes are colorful and
attractive with the foliage and figures superbly presented. But
there is always a man-made blemish to transform the happy scene into
one with nightmarish implications. As a result, the viewer is left
uncomfortable and forced to think about the issues presented.
The question then becomes whether the
message is too obvious. One could say that most people know that
pollution is a bad thing. As a result of this awareness, there has
been considerable progress in this area during the course of my
lifetime. But environmental scientists tell us much remains to be
done. Therefore, presenting a clear message reminding the public
about pollution is justifiable.
Inevitably, in social commentary art,
the viewer's opinion of the work will be influenced by his or her
opinion on the message the artist is trying to convey. But leaving
politics aside, the works in Consequences must be viewed as
successful. First, it cannot be debated that the works are
technically well done. Second, and perhaps more importantly, they do
provoke the viewer to think, which was clearly the artist's
intention.
Comments
Post a Comment