An immediate response on seeing them is laughter, or a wry smile; not in the derisory way those faced with contemporary Art are prone to do, but in recognition of the playfulness of the images. Acknowledgement of technical mastery comes next, the intrigue of “how’s it done” made all the more fascinating because of the ordinariness of the choice of place. But it would be as much of a mistake to see the work as lightweight, an amuse bouche, before one moves on, as to minimise the power they have to make us laugh. For the laughter is often ironic: an expression of self-recognition or that of human experience.

 

Though artists often surprise or question us, and the strange and iconoclastic nature of modern artwork is risible to the unsympathetic, there are not many that make us laugh with the warmth that Phillipson’s do. Perhaps it is this that is the precursor to our willingness to linger and to reveal the detail and depth they have. For these are no lightweight results of the slick application of digital technology. They form a body of work which gives evidence to our physical and spiritual existence at home, at work, in galleries on the one hand and on the other, provide a dialectic about the nature of Art, of photography’s place in the lexicon of Fine Art and Phillipson’s celebration of the precedents he values, the contexts in which Art is seen.

 

The work is playful and at times has the immediacy of a snap shot. This belies the contemplation, the search for environments and the meticulous planning that goes into taking the necessary images for later digital manipulation. Whilst the technical quality of the images and the meticulousness with which Phillipson gives to the process of creating his photographs, -because the form affects meaning- he is dismissive of technique per se. Facility plays no place in what he wishes to be recognised for. He would whole-heartedly share the views of artists like Maholy Nagy that technology is the means, not the end.

 

 

He much appreciates the work of Tom Hunter and Jeff Wall. Artists whom he has come to, through his own processes and concerns, rather than them being in any way directly influential. Seeing what they do and have done however acts as points of reference, often as much as for dissimilarities than similarities. Phillipson would be proud to be seen in such society however. He has always striven to have a true voice unmindful of mere originality. Indeed in such a complex society bombarded with imagery he might see this as unattainable and certainly undesirable. It is the very ubiquity of the photographic image, which attracts him as his chosen media.

 

His choice of photography and the potential digital manipulation affords, is wholly deliberate. In relation to his interests in light and our continuing fascination with illusion and increasing immersion in cyber worlds; it is vital.

 

If one was to pigeonhole the work, the surrealist context is unavoidable though not useful in understanding his work. Phillipson is not concerned with the revelation of dreams, fantasies or the paranormal as such. Neither can they be seen as real, for all of his images, save the right-hand side of the “Plane and Simple” diptych are manipulated and contain levitated images. What his work requests is, that you should suspend disbelief and view them as real. He is insistent that his images are not dramas or re-enactments. In this way he sees his work as very different from Cindy Sherman’s or much of Wall’s or Hunter’s. His involvement at the time the shots are taken using a remote is important to him. The facial expression is always right he says. It’s something to do with a total immersion in the moment and his intentions. 

 

If one found it necessary to find a surrealist parallel it would have to be Magritte rather than the psychosexual direction of many others in this domain.

I find echoes of Gormley’s concerns in John Phillipson’s work. Phillipson cites Vermeer and Velasquez as directly influential as are the influence of the Modernist compositional strategies.  He pays homage to earlier heroes like Rauchenberg, Mondrian, Paul Klee as well as Picasso. Traces of all of whose work can be detected in his own form and content.

 

Picasso would have gladly recognised the autobiographical nature of his own work. Phillipson avers that despite the obvious inclusion of his own body image in his work he rarely makes self-portraits.  His presence in the images came rather more from practicality initially. It was convenient to have a ready model. He considered using different models but decided that variation, which asks for different interpretations, negates the sense that we are being asked to look at a person in spaces rather than make personal interpretations.  We can empathise with a young man and interpret accordingly rather than see the works as relating to John in particular.

 

I have already alluded to the humour inherent in the placing of the figures, which for all their plasticity hover or float or otherwise deny gravity. Their lack of connectedness has other intentions however. The images are real but also metaphorical and symbolic.

 

The disassociated figures demand attention. They make one consider the relationship of people to surroundings; they express emotions or suggest the presence of other forces. They indicate aspirations, our need to progress and be elevated, our seeking for experiences. They infer entrapment, involvement, stasis and energy. They acknowledge our voyeuristic enjoyment and our fear of, being watched, and of not being watched. They suggest the presence of guardians of buddies of being in love or bored. The angels and supernatural figures in the works on show at the National Gallery fascinate Phillipson. He also refers to the influence on his generation of movies like The Matrix, and their empathy to the spiritual power of the Jedi Knights.

 

That we look at the surrounding environment is crucial to him but if that were the only thing we looked at, the work would not have the power it does. Everything in his images is there for a purpose: knowing that gives us access to interesting deconstruction but not necessarily the definitive one because there are alternatives and in the end the work stands by and for itself.