‘Babble On’ continues with the idea of the visual tease and mischief making that was espoused by ‘Babble’. It playfully, yet seriously, still ponders the question of the interpretation of a photograph.
The photographs are presented in a familiar style reminiscent of 17th century Dutch still life paintings where possessions of the well-off colonists of the far off West Indies were shown off but with warnings of the transience of life to God fearing Protestants of the time.
Here the objects on display are gathered from junk and charity shops and arranged and displayed to give an impression of familiarity. Some of the objects are deliberate nods to other genres of art, particularly Marcel Duchamp and Surrealism, and Pop Art. I find the humour and subversion of these genres exciting.
I’m interested in the question: if something worthless is presented in a familiar style of art can it be called art? It could be easily answered: yes of course; but I pose the question regardless in order to open a debate about the individuality of interpretation. I’m keen to leave interpretation completely up to the viewer. I fully understand that once a work has been made available to the public gaze it is laid open. Of course, there will be conscious and unconscious parts of me contained in the work. That is unavoidable, and I do not seek to avoid it.
For those unfamiliar with these nods and references there are still enough visual puns and teases to enjoy.