Is the Welsh dragon symbol really 'arbitrary'?

The closer you look at the rationale behind Tigers & Dragons: India and Wales in Britain – the current major exhibition at Swansea's Glynn Vivian Gallery – the more it disappears, argues Jenny White

- Jenny White

WITH a newly-published book intended to expand on its themes and an accompanying conference held yesterday, Tigers & Dragons raises questions about how spending decisions are made at Swansea's Glynn Vivian Gallery, and who this exhibition actually serves.

It is time to start declaring - loudly - whenever the emperor is wearing no clothes.

A good art exhibition should stop you in your tracks. It should speak to your soul, communicate clearly. Ideally, it should inspire some kind of meaningful real-world action beyond chin-stroking - especially when addressing themes such as colonialism and nationalism.

But while Tigers & Dragons does include some artworks born of real fire, it wears them as a badge of right-on-ness while simultaneously stultifying the visitor with a fruitless hunt through accompanying blurbs for any coherent argument.

To give one empty example from the gallery's commentary for Tigers & Dragons: "This show joins the dots between India and Wales, exploring imperial connections while probing national equivalences."

Hmm.

Many years ago, on an MA course, my class and I were told to carry notepads in which to write down any long, complicated words and phrases that would make our essays sound more intellectual.

I never completed the MA. If something is worth saying, it's worth saying simply. Yes, make it elegant, beautiful, poetic. But don't use word salad and obfuscation to hide the lack of any strong, coherent point. People are not stupid.

And while Tigers & Dragons does contain some truly lucent art, the exhibition as a whole is a great big bag of slippery, out-of-date word salad.

The premise behind Tigers & Dragons: India and Wales in Britain is hard to find from the get-go. Even the title doesn't make sense: is this show about "India in Britain, and Wales in Britain?" "India, and Wales-in-Britain?" or "India and Wales (together) in Britain?"