Interpretation Reflection: Andrew Gilbert, British Infantry Advance
Scottish artist Andrew Gilbert is known for creating artworks that disrupt Western colonialist narratives and his installation piece, British Infantry Advance on Jerusalem, 4th of July 1879, is an excellent example of this. Here we encounter a rather exaggerated and stereotyped display of 19th century British soldiers. Gilbert has stated that he was influenced by the tribal artifacts and military uniforms on display at Ethnographic and Military Museums but also Colonial/World Exhibitions, wherein native peoples under colonial rule were put on display. This artwork references the Battle of Ulundi, which the British won against the Zulu Kingdom of South Africa in 1879. Afterwards, the Kingdom of Zulu was annexed as a colony of the British Empire. Gilbert creates a hypothetical situation in British Infantry Advance; What if the British had lost the battle? How would the British have been portrayed in a Zulu Kingdom museum? I had previously thought about this work through the lens of postcolonial theory, which is concerned with recuperating the narratives of peoples impacted by colonial exploitation and control. This seemed like an excellent fit, considering Gilbert is clear about how his works counteract colonial imperialism. However, I believe applying psychoanalytic theory will illustrate how Gilbert’s works are influenced by his reception of ethnographic and military displays and, in turn, how the viewer perceives British Infantry Advance. This trail of viewer perception will dig deeper into the artwork’s influence than a standard postcolonial analysis could.
The branch of psychoanalytic theory that concerns itself with the psychology of the viewer is called Reception Theory. I believe the application of Ernst Gombrich’s theories of perception would provide an excellent starting point for this analysis. The “beholder’s share”, the idea that the viewer brings their own catalog of images to the process of viewing art, would be useful in analyzing perceptions of British Infantry Advance. How does a British, or South African, or American person react to this artwork differently because of their catalog of images? How has this artwork developed from previous representations of colonized peoples? The chain of viewer perception culminates in the act of viewing, British Infantry Advance, where Gilbert has taken stereotypes of British culture to new extremes. Their accompanying equipment, a large parasol, a teacup and saucer, and the British flag, mimic ethnographic photographs, in which native peoples are portrayed in ways that erase their individuality. I believe applying reception theory to this artwork would illustrate how the artist plays an integral part in this chain of perception. Viewing a piece of art is not viewing only that singular work, it is viewing a history of interconnected perceptions.