Marina Abramovic at the Lisson Gallery

Abramovic is one of the most famous female artists of the 21st century. Her performances from the 1970s and 80s are famous for their extremity. In 'Art must be beautiful, Artist must be beautiful' a work foundational to the women's activist art of the 1970s, Abramovic brushes and combs her own hair with varying degrees of violence whilst chanting the title of the piece. At one point she pulls in different directions quickly, catching and knotting her hair, her declarations quickening in pace and anger. This work, which connotes on a number of levels, questions the nature of beauty in art, the woman in art and the woman artist. Making herself the subject she interrogates the position of the woman's body to be perfected, what happens when it is not the man performing this action but the woman herself, when she takes the role of artist. As such does the woman artist have to violate herself to place the woman as the centre of the artwork?

This work features in the Lisson Gallery's exhibition of Abramovic's work. Split across two sites the exhibition includes the complete collection of Rhythm works (10, 5, 2, 0, 4) along with works with Ulay in the main gallery and the more recent 'Back to Simplicity' series in the second space.

This splitting was interesting; from the angry, emotive and disturbing work in the first space to the large scale photographs, films with similar photographic stillness and marble pillows for visitors to line-up their 'sex, heart and head', there was a definite shift. A case of maturity and maturing work perhaps? The press release would agree suggesting the work illustrates Abramovic's desire for a simpler life. However it is not the specific meaning of the piece that really struck me, but the difference, the shift from historicised feminist-activist work to those high resolution images of Abramovic holding a lamb as if it were a baby or lying still, dressed in white underneath an incredibly mythic looking tree. Shocking maybe not, but definitely bambooziling. No bodies on the verge of mutilation, no pushing the limits of the artist making artwork beyond consciousness just concentration, animals and lush natural settings.

There could be suggestion of the woman and nature, a redefinition of what it means to reengage with the living planet after one has tested the body and the definitions placed upon (gender, profession, etc). This seems to be a conclusion too easy to draw and it is the uncomfortability of making this or any certain definition which is provocative. The difference between the works resonates between the two settings as if splitting work that is labelled contemporary into two; the near-past and the too-near-present/future. Seeing either space alone would not be as affective as seeing the two combined-at distance, the works play off each other, jarring temporalities and contexts, juxtaposing the smooth, youthful face of anger and activity with the older face of passive wisdom. This interplay between sites and works marks the strength of the exhibition, no matter what other conclusions maybe drawn.