I could have written about any single one of the things/people/creatures/sticks ( I love a good stick), I have seen over the past month, but Mitch Griffiths is my chosen one. Interestingly, I haven’t even decided why specifically. He went and painted Keira Knightley and if you knew me, you’d know, I wouldn’t paint her. It pains me to even use her name in this. You get the picture. But before we all get swept up in Mitch Griffiths as already many young collectors and art worldians have and will, (he’s just that type of artist), I’d like to discuss what this artist has done, and why, to me, he sort of glitters.
I was informed by the dashing and genetically superior male humanoids that were assisting in the halls of New Bond Street’s Halcyon Gallery last Friday, that this guy only ever presents his work to the world every 3 years max and each piece is a labour of such serious ‘love’ that even when they requested he did so, Halcyon were surprised he produced enough for a show this year.
I entered the space.
Wearing a sly smile.
Bit of an anti-climax there. My lofty apologies. ‘Oh-ho-ho yeh, let’s see what this Brit’s got ey?’ I thought to my innately suspicious little self.
I searched for ages for the image on my picture producing device that would convey what I am trying to here, the precious allure of his work in situ. But I don’t seem to have been able to capture it. Maybe it was the space the paintings and photographs were in. Or maybe I am just being overzealous. I doubt it; art is either about liking/disliking something and, failing that, at least attempting to appreciate something for what it is, on some level, however trace in nature.
What I can’t understand is how and why such little justice his website and indeed Halcyon’s does the artwork and by default the artist. In life these works actually breath. Some elements of the screen based photographic works actually do. He makes both paintings and photographic works. Take the lovely lady below; I can’t show you here as this is a mere still but in life her auburn hair wafts ever so detectably in an invisible breeze. The rest of her remains totally still. I don’t know how the artist has achieved this; video art is not my department. But by gum is it stunning. Quieting and haunting and just exquisite.
I’m not even going to say what Griffiths thinks his work is about at this point; I kinda didn’t want to know at the time, and was not best pleased that he chose to map out celebrities along the way, but I think the non-celeb tableaus are nicer to behold than the other works any which way. I guess I am just intrigued as to where this guy will go, what he’ll do and who’ll take him on. Both proverbially, (another artist of perhaps similar aesthetic) and market-wise, via gallery, dealer or collector.
I aggressively recommend you go and see this exhibition. Mitch really wants you to too. I read that somewhere.