‘3 & 4 Will. IV c.73’ by Cameron Rowland @ ICA
Cameron Rowland’s exhibition '3 & 4 Will. IV c.73' which ran at the ICA in London is the artist’s first solo exhibition in the UK, and although it has received very mixed reviews from the media, Rowland still presents a very compelling exhibition through his use of the found object and text.
The show’s title refers to the Act for the Abolition of Slavery throughout British Colonies, and the works he presents all relate in one way or another to slavery and racism faced by black people.
Rowland presents a number of objects and documents in the gallery without much alteration to them -- either placed on the floor or mounted to the walls -- some are even part of the gallery itself. The exhibition must be viewed accompanied with the thick press release given, where Rowland provides detailed captions on the history of the works he has presented in the gallery. In this way, the artist barely leaves any interpretation open to the viewer by presenting these objects as work, however it does allow for the viewer to ponder the artist's intentions of presenting merely objects -- is it an act of reclamation over what was historically used in the slave trade? Is it to make these (majority white) viewers face a key part of Britain's history?
Rowland very cleverly makes use of the gallery walls, railings, doors, which were probably white before, stripping them to show the dark wood underneath -- possibly alluding to the act of whitewashing history (quite literally in this case).
What makes this art? What makes this different from presenting such objects in the museum? Is it the fact that viewers look at art through a much different lens? Are viewers much more critical about the objects presented as art, are they more willing to learn about something they wouldn't usually pay attention to in a museum? Is it how Rowland has presented and named them? Is it how he has written a well-informed and lengthy press release that viewers have to read to understand the individual works? Is it just because he put them in an art space? Is the art in the object, in the readings, or both? (I think it's both.)
While it is argued that Rowland is “holding viewers at the length” by seemingly making his exhibition and press release complicated and inaccessible, I would like to argue the opposite. I see the artist as inviting viewers in to read and educate themselves—he very deliberately provides viewers with deliberately written and curated information that he has compiled, not to mention that the ICA does free entry to exhibitions on Tuesdays.
Rowland creates an exhibition very carefully with a clear understanding and stance on the topic of slavery and colonialism, and how this is still perpetuated today. In presenting simple objects, a powerful collective narrative is presented along with it in the form of the press release that viewers have to understand. Maybe Rowland calls out colonial ignorance by forcing his audience to read and educate themselves.