By David Cave

Jackie Hinkson

The discreetly-titled “Unveiling” exhibition at Soft Box Studios raised more than a few eyebrows when the veils came off the pieces at the opening on June 24th. Part of a broader initiative called “Erotic Art Week”, the exhibition embraced erotic and provocative discussions in the trendy watering holes and a la mode gathering spots of the Newtown/Woodbrook area.  
As exhibitions go, it is interesting enough although, as art goes, I left this one wondering: Why this show and why now? 
As of writing, the response to the initiative has been positive.  The gallery’s bold decision to opt for a theme display instead of another solo exhibition or an exercise in randomness like the Art Society’s “Caribbean Canvas” (June 11th to the 19th) which was more Trinidadian than Caribbean, gave art lovers something intriguing to look forward to. But perhaps, therein lay the problem.  After all the titillation and aroused expectations, the end result of the Soft Box exhibition, though pleasing enough, failed to scale the heights of ecstasy.
Eroticism is a finely tuned experience. As art, it is not to be entered into lightly. Art of this nature demands a finessed sense of tension in order to be effective: too little and it fails to stimulate, too much and it offends.

Irenee Shaw

Therefore when Soft Box Studios announced the exhibition, I must admit that I feared the worst.
Fortunately the worst did not happen.  Most of the approximately fifty pieces on display are tasteful and well-executed works of art, although tastefulness might not exactly have been in Michelle Isava’s mind in  creating “Man 1”, a gigantic green phallus literally sticking out against the demure poses of Boscoe Holder’s and Jackie Hinkson’s nudes.  The element of shock may have informed Isava’s approach, but pieces like Francisco Cabral’s “Red” and “Parallel to the Moon” demonstrate how imagery can be used to evoke sensuality and eroticism. Paul Kain’s recent charcoal drawings with lithe male figures in poses reminiscent of Michelangelo’s “David”, also form part of the stronger examples of work on display.  Another notable piece is Rex Dixon’s “Eye Balling” which shows a strong morphing between reality and abstraction, very similar to the work of the Irish artist Francis Bacon.
There is also a significant degree of variety in the art on display offering a wide range of media, subject matter and intellectual treatment of the erotic theme.  In addition to traditional drawings and paintings, Francisco Cabral’s images also effectively utilise the rusty galvanized roofing to give the viewer the sensation of peering into something forbidden.  There are also examples such as Kwynn Johnson’s conceptual pieces

Asraph

consisting of embroidered text; remnants of her “Red Appropriated” exhibition that was held earlier this year.  Added to the mix are the papier maché bottles of Ashraph and the photographs of Bertrand De Peaza and Jeffrey Chock.  There is certainly an extensive scope of art to choose from that ought to satisfy a range of tastes, but one element of this exhibition that is hard to miss is the fact that it is dominated by the older art work. 
The pieces that command the show- such as those of Cabral (1993), Irenée Shaw (1990s), Hinkson (1970s) and Holder (1970s)- are larger in terms of size and complexity. These pieces are positioned closer to the entrance of the gallery, greeting the viewer and defining the first impression of the exhibition. Ultimately, “Unveiling” though quaint and attractive, is more nostalgic than titillating. 
It was great to revisit such pieces as Irenée Shaw’s large installations, now resurrected from the late 1990s.  But the changed context leaves something missing. When initially unveiled, the context of Shaw’s art had been one of self-identity and femininity, with very little to do with an overt focus on eroticism.  While in some circumstances time heals, in other cases time distorts original intentions. However, since much of what art evokes comes from what the viewer brings to the engagement, one can only hope that the personal experience of those seeing it for the first time was richly rewarded.

Boscoe Holder

Despite the good intentions of this exhibition, there is much rehashing, recycling and lack of novelty that might make a Lazarus envious.
Throughout history, erotic art, particularly when explicit, has always received a raw deal.  The essay “Art and Human Sexuality” written by art critic Geoffrey MacLean to accompany the exhibition, offers a chronology of Trinidad and Tobago art that was banned or castigated through the latter half of the 20th Century by a society that was too uptight to appreciate the beauty of skin and hedonism. 
Now, in the first decade of the 21st Century, MacLean’s lamentations appear “so 1990s”.  Today’s elevated sense of dysfunction and lack of social order leaves very little left room for shock. Which brings me back to my original question:  Why this art and why now?  Art history recalls another distinct period where the well-to-do social elite were more concerned with naughty sexual frivolity than the real issues faced by the suffering masses. It was the French Rococo period of the eighteenth century which preceded the great revolution of 1789.  It is my hope that our art aficionados will heed the harsh lessons that history can teach us.  The erotic art of the past will always have its merit;   however, using it to mask the mayhem of the present and escape reality can be a dangerous road to embark upon.
“Unveiling” continues at Softbox Studios until July 10.

De PeazaFrancisco CabralHarold Jimenez