What are You Laughing At? Fan art.

Kim Kardashian Naked Selfie celebrity portrait

Kim Kardashian Naked Selfie

I was recently part of a residency in London as part of Yinka Shonibare Guest Projects. The residency was called What Art You Laughing At, and we, as a group of artists, explored the power of humour in art. Here’s my statement from the show:

“I became interested in fan art after stumbling across and becoming absorbed in the worlds of Sherlock and Star Trek fan fiction on Tumblr. I believe that fan art and fiction are subversively feminist media – often sexual in nature, they involve women and trans people as architects, consumers and voyeurs of new versions of the stories and characters found in mass media entertainment.

Though my fan art is not erotic, for me at least it does display a certain vulnerability. While WhatArtULol is an exploration of humour in art, I am definitely NOT laughing at the people I draw – they are all people for whom I have a genuine admiration and who I find inspiring or iconic in some way. The humour in this series derives from the slightly uncool or dorky association with fan art, and the fact that I’m putting myself on display by beavering away in my studio to create celebrity portraits of my heroes and icons. Context is also vital in creating humour around these works – usually confined to the darker recesses of the internet, I am creating an unexpected dialogue by bringing fan art into a serious art gallery setting.

Fan fiction gives women and other marginalised groups the chance to subvert that perspective, to fracture a story and recast it in her own way.” – Elizabeth Minkel, New Statesman, 2014

Just Why Were Renaissance Babies so Ugly?

This excellent Tumblr is responsible for cementing the Ugly Renaissance Baby into popular imagination.

Before I read Ugly Renaissance Babies,  I had noticed that these babies looked just a bit fucking weird. But as everyone oohed and ahhed at Renaissance paintings so much, I felt that pointing out their disturbing oddness would render me some kind of philistine. Now that Ugly Renaissance Babies are out of the closet, let’s have a look at how they got so darn ugly.

St Nicholas Refusing his Mother's Milk

St Nicholas Refusing his Mother’s Milk

1. Context

Renaissance paintings weren’t there to look pretty on the living room wall. They were commissioned to live in high up in churches, glittering and  golden and striking awe and fear into the hearts of the lowly congregation who shuffled in metres below, raising their eyes to the almighty spectacle. Candlelight enhanced the effect, meaning that often all that was visible were the gold-encased silhouettes of the holy orders. Mary and Jesus would have been right at the top, of  course. So for a start, Renaissance painters had to go for extreme features that would stand out from a distance.


2. Symbolism

Renaissance babies weren’t always supposed to be realistic. Renaissance art is all about religious symbolism. The figures are meant to be awe-inspiring and other-worldly – the church was all about keeping society under control, and using art to cement the greatness of god, and the church, in people’s minds.

Wealthy patrons – i.e. the church, commissioned artists trusting that they would use a certain visual language; a symbolism that the common, illiterate churchgoer would be familiar with. Thus, Jesus was often depicted as a “little adult” to symbolise his precocious wisdom.

Screen Shot 2013-10-22 at 18.17.52

Jesus looking grown up. Bonaventura Berlinghieri, Madonna with Child, 1235, Tempera on wood.

More grown-up J-Crizzle. Madonna and Child. Duccio di Buoninsegna 1290–1300; Tempera and gold on wood

More grown-up J-Crizzle. Madonna and Child. Duccio di Buoninsegna 1290–1300; Tempera and gold on wood



Albrecht Durer, Weeping Angel Boy, 1591

Albrecht Durer, Weeping Angel Boy, 1591

3. Realism

This one’s going to be controversial, but I’d argue that a good number of the Renaissance Babies aren’t especially misshapen, they’re just harshly true-to-life. Perhaps we expect people, including babies, in paintings to look a bit “enhanced.” Well the Renaissance artists obviously didn’t. I think they were just painting what they saw, without the need or inclination to apply any kind of “cute baby filter”.


4. WTF?

I’m not sure what’s going on here. Can anyone enlighten me?

1.Why is the boob so high up?








 2. Why does the baby have boobs?

Unknown Dutch Painter, 15th century, Virgin with Angels

Unknown Dutch Painter, 15th century, Virgin with Angels
















3. Why?

Nature forging a baby.” Guillaume de Lorris and Jean de Meun, c.1490-c.1500.

Nature forging a baby.” Guillaume de Lorris and Jean de Meun, c.1490-c.1500.

Arty Bollocks Decoder: what they say vs what they mean

Screen Shot 2013-10-19 at 23.05.16International Art English is the indecipherable babble that galleries, artists, art writers and art students are prone to communicate in*. So predictable is much of this mush that  The ArtyBollocks Generator can auto-generate gems like these:

“Ever since I was a postgraduate I have been fascinated by the unrelenting divergence of the zeitgeist. What starts out as triumph soon becomes corrupted into a tragedy of defeat, leaving only a sense of nihilism and the inevitability of a new order.”

“As spatial phenomena become clarified through diligent and repetitive practice, the viewer is left with a clue to the outposts of our existence.”


Confused? Well I am. Nevertheless, as a qualified Artist™, I will go about deciphering some ArtyBollocks for your reading pleasure.


*DISCLAIMER – the author may have been known to write in artybollocks in the past, and copious examples of her obfuscatory prose may be found online.