Photographs
Disagreement about whether or not artists need theoretical knowledge causes many a bitter argument. On the one hand, artists frequently claim that they work visually – in a language quite distinct from verbal concepts – so they needn't bother with all the latest theoretical jargon. On the other hand, a purely spontaneous, instinctive, artist's work, more often than not is both naive and inconsistent.
There is no doubt that "theory" can be both obtrusive and incongruous within a visual art product. But this is only so when theory is merely illustrated by the work or attached to it by ad hoc rationalisation, foregrounded simply for the sake of fashion. When theory instructs the choice of direction in visual experimentation or exploration, and guides the artist's assessment of experimentation's success, then it becomes inscribed in the work rather than imposed onto it.
Ruth Frost, who showed at the Roz macAllan Gallery last month, uses theory in this second way. She is one of the new generation of artists in Australia – well educated in both the practice of her profession and in the theoretical implications of that practice.
If there is any weakness in her work it is not due to an overemphasis of theory but to a youthful overenthusiasm with technique.
The works she showed in Brisbane are photographic montages she completed recently for her degree as Master of Fine Arts from the University of Tasmania. Their theme, and her strategy for conveying it, were both soundly analysed by the artist in a research thesis done concurrently with the visual project. And while there is an unnecessary overload of technical manipulation in some parts of her pictures – equivalent to
Ruth Frost, Untitled, 1986-87. Silver bromide print. 304 x 183cm. Courtesy of Roz macAllan Gallery, Brisbane.
