Contrarium ei quod dicitur intelligendum est(In which something contrary to what is said is to be understood) - Quinitilian (cAD. 40-95)
The understanding of irony has its origin in theatre and rhetoric. The earliest uses of the word ‘eironea’ can be found in works by Plato and Aristotle, with later Latin writers such as Cicero and Quintilian also providing definitions for this term. They saw irony as a special case, a decoration within an otherwise simple and literal language of representation.
All of this changed in the nineteenth century when the Romantics insisted that simple and representational world was only possible of the fluid and creative nature of language is ignored. Thus, if one accepts that language is not fixed, but is subject to change and creativity, the gap between word and the world itself, which they saw as irony, was unavoidable. Thus, to the Romantics, the truth of life did not lie in a single fixed, adequate representation, but more in the questioning and understanding the gap, the ironies coming from various representations.
Thus, to the Romantics, it was literature that held the truth of life, because it was ironic. And it is not surprising that the two figures which the Romantics saw as the most important figures and past masters of Romantic irony were two English figures; William Shakespeare and William Blake. These two figures had an impact on the language that can not be overestimated. And it is in Blake that we find the earliest examples of deliberate use of irony in visual representation, such as his ‘Newton’, whose 3-dimensonal representation by Eduardo Paolozzi can be found in the court of the British Library.
It is ironic to find that visual art, whose gap between representation and the world is the most obvious compared to other art forms, was far behind the times in the exploration of irony compared to literature. This may have been due to dominance of Modern art where artists were searching for their own singular unique representation, or when they were actively searching for the break between their work and the world around them. It seems that it is only in this recent postmodern age where contextual understanding is becoming important that this exploration and understanding gap between representation and truth (or truths) seems to gaining ground in the understanding and practice of visual art. And the practice of visual art is a multi-dimensional gesture, used to communicate this imperfect representation to those who sees it, and thus also makes them more aware of the gap and the world as they understand it. And I believe that this is one of the reasons why contemporary art that explores and utilizes irony can be so fascinating, as it can trigger many different responses and understanding according to each viewer.
The artists invited for this exhibition are characterized not only by their strong personal vision and their artistic practice, but also by their strong understanding and exploration of the world around them. It is this understanding, or their striving for understanding, that imparts the clearer understanding of the gap that imparts irony to their works, which, contrary to the original definition by Quintilian, provides a truer vision of the world.
