Nathalie Djurberg 'Claymations'

The word ‘claymation’, is a combination of the words clay and animation, which explains itself as a stop-motion form of animation using clay as its medium.

The first thing that comes to mind when I think ‘claymation’ is Wallace and Gromit. The second thing I think about is that the factory for Wallace and Gromit was burnt down… Cue Nathalie Djurberg.

The term ‘Garden of Eden’ carries the idea of a perfect natural world. Djurberg has added her own Tim Burton-esque style to this concept, making the shape and colours of the flowers quite awe-inspiring. It’s this twist that gives it a surreal quality to the traditional idea of the Garden of Eden.

The comment ‘all that is natural goes awry’ refers to how skewed her garden is. Djurberg’s work has a dreamy quality to it, which makes you expect something lovely, but a moment later you realize this couldn’t be further from the truth.

There is a strong complexity of emotions that Djurberg confronts us with, such as disgust, nervousness, horror, but above all confusion. I think we find it unnerving to see amorality in such intense issues, and the fact that the content is so sexual just adds to the bucket of convolution.

The characters in her videos are all girls who have a wide-eyed naïve attitude to them, as well as the landscapes having a child-like fantasy characteristic. By playing with these ideas her work is even more brutal/effective as it attacks the very notion of innocence.

I think the current fascination of turning the innocent and sweet into something disturbing is because some designers are malicious. … No? Ok. I actually think this has come about due to the changing role of the artist, as well as the recent surge of mass media making people more aware of what’s happening outside their own lives.

I think Djurberg’s work is interesting because of the emotional effect it has on it’s viewers. The fact her work is so bold and memorable makes it a good choice for the Venice Biennale.

To be honest, I’m in two minds about Djurberg’s work. I think her ideas are brilliantly executed, and that her work is thoughtful, unique and aesthetically interesting. I think she achieved her goal. My issue is, what was her goal? (it’s ramble time) I mean, to me, her work is basically exploring human morality, pointing out our inconsistencies and showing how crap the world is. But really, is that helpful? Is that contributing to society? I don’t think her work would be appreciated by anyone who didn’t already understand and agree with her point of view. And if you boil it down, she is basically saying ‘The world is bad. Maybe.’ Which isn’t exactly avant-garde thinking.

I guess you could go on to say ‘what is ‘bad’?’ Which is a bit more interesting, but once again, the part of her audience who can draw these ideas out of her work are already capable of asking these questions independently.

Call me old-fashioned, but I think artists are meant to make the world a more beautiful place (not necessarily in an aesthetic sense), and though challenging ugliness is a form of this, I question whether Djurberg has helped or just kicked beauty in the face.

REFERENCES:

Regine

on April 25, 2008

Nathalie Djurberg solo show at the Fondazione Prada

http://we-make-money-not-art.com/archives/2008/04/there-are-very-very-few.php

Venice Biennale: Nathalie Djurberg

By Regine

on October 26, 2009 11:27 AM

http://we-make-money-not-art.com/archives/2009/10/nathalie-djurberg-who-won-the.php

nathalie djurberg: 'experiment' at venice art biennale 09

leeji db 07.05.09

http://www.designboom.com/weblog/cat/10/view/6886/nathalie-djurberg-experiment-at-venice-art-biennale-09.html

IMAGES FROM

http://www.artltdmag.com/admin2/data/upimages/NDjurberg4%5B72%5D.jpg

http://arttattler.com/Images/Commentary/Denver%20Biennial/Nathalie-Djurberg-Experimentet.jpg

http://www.we-make-money-not-art.com/wow/0ada4faiscapourmoi.jpg