Questions and Topics We Can Help You To Answer:

“Daughters of Uranium is a title redolent of both archaic chemical science and of generations born into an uncertain future. Citing the radioactive decay chain in Uranium 235, widely known for its use in the first atomic bomb, the successive isotopes in Uranium’s family tree are referred to as ‘daughters.’” (https://www.saag.ca/art/exhibitions/0738-mary-kavanagh-%7C-daughters-of-uranium- and Daughters of Uranium, hand-out at the SAAG) At the SAAG, Trinier pointed out the Trinity Historical Photographs, 1945-1946, installed in the central concourse to the left of the entrance to the exhibition, encountered by the viewer before or after seeing the exhibition in the main gallery space as a kind of parentheses. As archival images, they are set apart here from the rest of the exhibition. She later directed attention to the four archival photographs within the exhibition space: documents of the actual event – the first atomic bomb detonation, Project Trinity test, at White Sands Missile Range on July 16, 1945. These four photographs, she suggested, approach a time-lapse record of this event. For the artist, inclusion of the metadata with all the archival photographs was important. Throughout the gallery tour, Trinier pointed to aspects of exhibition design, demonstrating how aspects of design – installation and placement of artworks, archival documents, and objects in the gallery, in relation to one another; as well as the design of display fixtures – are an essential means of conveying meanings of the exhibition, with an impact on the viewer’s experience. The artist, she noted, designed the two covered plinths, used to display samples of Trinitite; and rubble from Hiroshima Castle, near the epicenter of the bomb, dropped on the Japanese city on August 6, 1945, the first deployment of a nuclear bomb. The diptych’ form of this work, Trinitie, connects the Trinity test to the bombing. For Rosa the Beautiful, Kavanagh also designed the welded metal table for the cast uranium glass legs and collaborated with another artist on deign of the panel of black lights in the ceiling. The installation in the darkened space was the artist’s design, with cast legs, lights, table and darkened gallery all, according to Trinier, to be seen and experienced as part of the work. Consideration was given to the display of items of popular atomic culture from the period, spectacularly, uranium glassware, together with plant material from White Sands Desert and soil from the home of American artist, Georgia O’Keefe at Ghost Ranch, New Mexico, and an array of artifacts, making up Daughters of Uranium: material study. How the viewer engages with these objects, representing the culture of radiation in popular culture, with the ‘scorpion light’ (black light) to see the uranium glass and other materials fluoresce, and the watercolour sequence, Tumour Timeline above, has been meticulously planned, put together to relate an interpretation of the work, as Trinier revealed. Such close attention to display apparatus and installation is an essential aspect of this exhibition. Trinier also spoke more generally about how galleries make loan requests to other institutions to borrow works from their collections for exhibitions. She went on to describe Kavanagh’s request to the Canadian War Museum in Ottawa for the loan of the pig suit, owned by the museum.. Met with refusal, the artist had a replica of the artifact in the museum’s collection made for the present exhibition. Trinier speculated on the reasons behind the Canadian War Museum’s refusal to lend the pig suit, suggesting that, as a military museum, dedicated to histories of war, the decision might have been prompted by concerns that, in the context of a contemporary art exhibition, critique of military programmes might be asserted. In discussion at the SAAG, this raised the issue of how different institutional contexts have the capacity to affect the meaning of works and artifacts; the pig suit could be understood in one way in the historical context of a military museum and in an altogether different way as part of an art exhibition, presented in a contemporary art gallery. Trinier sees the loan request made to the museum by the artist as a political act. The process of asking for the loan was part of Kavanagh’s concept, with the act of making the request and being denied being as much a part of the artwork as having the replica made. In the context of discussing the archival photographs here, Trinier pointed to how history can be made part of an exhibition. And, history, she said, is up for debate. Historical archives are considered by artists. There are always questions about how and why (and by whom) archives are made; as a system made by people, archives are open to question. She encouraged a critical response to history and to its representation and interpretation in this exhibition. Daughters of Uranium is the outcome of extensive and ongoing research, carried out by the artist over a number of years, in archives, through interviews and through contacts with a network of individuals involved in research into atomic history and culture and in the military. (She returns to White Sands this year in April.) You might reflect on this kind of historical and original research as part of an artistic process. For Kavanagh, the centre of the exhibition rests with Georgia O’Keefe’s letter of August 7, 1945 to Alfred Stieglitz, The New York Times from August 7, 1945 and Trinitite – with the work’s extended label: [Rubble at Hiroshima Castle gathered within one kilometer of atom bomb epicenter, 2007]. Describe the intersections of these three, around which all the other components of the exhibition might be seen to revolve. Extended labels accompany each component of this exhibition: artworks, including series of watercolours and drawings and the installation work, archival documentation, artifacts, material residue, and video. Trinity, the multi-channel video projection, using original and archival film footage in a diptych format, reflects on atomic landscape and present-day atomic tourism. Kavanagh’s project encompasses a historical era, the birth of the atomic age at mid-century, and the present time. You might describe the evidentiary aspect of materials and artifacts here. At the same time as her project considers political, military, environmental, ecological and sociocultural aspects of atomic history and culture, she is concerned with individual experience and with impacts on the body, traces left by the of the nuclear age. This is perhaps most immediately felt in the series of drawings, Breath Drawings: Infinity Series. You might describe the making of these drawings (see video on artist’s website). ‘Kavanagh often interrogates the residues and stains of history. In a series of graphite drawings, the artist explores the radical transformation wrought by the settling of radioactive and other toxic particulate in the body. Her forensic approach has also resulted in an extensive collection of artifacts and ephemera gathered from historic and active nuclear sites. In one piece, cast uranium glass references the body in a state of transmutation, while the inclusion of lead bricks points to notions of containment and exposure.’ ***This is how it must be written please. The aim is to arrive at an informed critical assessment of the exhibition, drawing on relevant sources and on your own responses. (In this context, and in the context of critiquing art more broadly, the term critical is not used in a negative sense.) Begin by indicating what, where and when: the exhibition title, the gallery where it is showing, and the exhibition dates. At this point, you might give a brief overall desсrіption of the exhibition, providing the reader with a sense of what they will see when they visit the gallery. A solo exhibition, a group exhibition; paintings, installation art, sculpture, photo-based work…. Early in your review, outline the central themes of the exhibition, taking note of any curatorial statements available to gallery visitors. To do this effectively, you might refer to relevant online information about the exhibition on the gallery’s website and to the introductory text panel in the exhibition, as well as any other text panels, hand-outs or other didactic information available in the gallery. Define the intentions of the exhibition, as articulated by the curator and/or artist. Indicate the exhibition’s themes. In establishing the curatorial premise here, you may want to quote directly from the introductory text, or paraphrase (in your own words) a curatorial statement, providing some context for your quotation or paraphrased passage. To make clear the curatorial premise, themes and aims of the exhibition, and to assess the exhibition effectively, you will need to understand the concerns of the artist, as embodied in the works shown. Knowledge of the artist’s practice is therefore essential. A comprehensive understanding of the artist’s work will enable you to contextualize the artworks selected for the present exhibition in terms of the wider practice of that artist. Draw upon the artist’s lecture and relevant online sources, importantly, the artist’s website, following links to published writings and other media coverage about their work. Consider the exhibition in light of the stated curatorial aims. Develop discussion of the exhibition systematically, keeping in view the curatorial aims and ideas that you have outlined. To do this, you will have to provide objective desсrіption of aspects of the exhibition and of artworks. Observant desсrіption is essential to conveying to the reader a sense of the exhibition and of the work shown, and to substantiate your critical commentary. Sensitive and focused desсrіption of selected works should form the basis of your critique. Highlighting specific works or series will enable you to demonstrate points that you make throughout your review. Base your critical views on observation, desсrіption and reference to sources, as well as reflection on your experience, avoiding unsupported assertions. You may choose to write in the first person, if you feel that this is effective. Work towards developing an assessment of the exhibition, in terms of its stated theme(s) and aims. Consider the success of the exhibition in communicating the underlying curatorial ideas. How are these ideas addressed and embodied in the artworks, and furthered (or frustrated) by the installation of the artworks in the space of the gallery? Are there works that undermine or detract from the central themes of the exhibition? Are there aspects of the exhibition that, in your experience, go beyond the stated curatorial aims? Does the curatorial framing of the artwork limit the experience? Open any avenues of discussion that you feel are relevant. Consider relationships between works. Desсrіptive and critical (again, not in a negative sense) commentary will enable you to develop your own informed critical assessment of the exhibition. Draw into your discussion the views of others and relate these to your own ideas. Reflecting on your knowledge of curatorial aims and of the artist’s practice, and your experience of the exhibition and artworks, offer insights into the exhibition for your reader. Conclude with an informed assessment that emerges coherently out of all that you have said. In approaching an exhibition and your review, consider all facets of the exhibition. Where pertinent, observe the installation of artworks in the space of the gallery. Be attentive to the position of individual artworks in the space and relative to other artworks, and consider how the installation affects our experience in the gallery? Does the arrangement and sequencing of works – to some extent, dependent on the interior architecture of the gallery – direct our movements and influence our responses? Does the installation of the exhibition enhance our experience and support the curatorial ideas behind the exhibition? Consider, as well, what is available to the visitor in the gallery, beyond the artworks. Has the gallery provided materials, intended to enhance our understanding of the exhibition and encounter with the artworks, that deserve mention in your review? Is there an exhibition catalogue? Are these effective in informing and enhancing experience? To be successful, your review must be concise, effectively summarizing significant aspects of the exhibition: curatorial aims, which will inform the basis of your assessment; artworks shown; and any factors of the exhibition design and installation in the gallery that have an impact on your experience and understanding of the exhibition. Your review should be informed by the wide scope of your knowledge of the artist’s work, as well as your experience of the exhibition. Visit the gallery on more than one occasion and reflect thoughtfully on your responses to the artworks and the exhibition. Introduce into your review perspectives of the artist, curator and other critics or commentators, where pertinent. Remember to cite all sources that you draw upon (see course outline). [You may not readily find ways of referencing text panels or lectures in standard forms of citation. Just be sure to make clear all sources e.g. Robin Peck, in his Art NOW lecture, said… or …(Robin Peck, Art NOW, March 1, 2019); similarly, The introductory text panel in the gallery says that… or … (Statement by the artist on text panel in the gallery).] A separate bibliography is demanded for the reviews. Your review should give evidence of your visit to the gallery, embodying your experience of the exhibition and reflecting a significant level of engagement. Reflect closely on your encounter with curatorial ideas and with artworks. At the same time, in order to gain your reader’s confidence as well as to broaden your review beyond the realm of opinion, incorporate the views of others: artist, curator, critics. Be sure to acknowledge fully ideas that you derive from various sources and integrate them effectively into a discussion that you create. Neither rely overly on sources nor be overly subjective. Aim to arrive at an independent assessment of the exhibition that does not just restate existing views that you have read.