Later a boy came up to me and told me he was watching me write that morning but thought it was probably an extremely long, angry letter to my boyfriend. He he!
A photographer dude took this. hence the writing across my face.

Street based true stories and art from East London
After school in the summer I would walk to Ravenscroft Studios down Columbia Road, eating one of these:
The studio building was a warehouse and had double doors opening over the street. From the hot pavement below I could see that he was in and would whistle, or climb the iron gate and reach for the bell.
A rusty hand rail led up the paint-spotted concrete stairs and there was a strong smell of turps, which was even more intense inside the studio - and on my Dad's painting shirts.
Inside the studio there were some objects which are very clear in my memory, and which I would like to describe.
The first is a large antelope skull propped against a wall, which was stolen from the still life room at St Martins . Although aged and delicate with cracked nostrils and splintering eye sockets, it was crowned by shining, twisted brown horns three times the length of the head and as thick as my wrist. My Dad told me that he regretted this theft but I saw it as a trophy neverthless, imagining the herd of bellbottomed long-haired art students who lounged, smoking, outside St. Martin's on Charing Cross Road in the early 1970s.
The second is a miscellaneous collection of china cups on a shelf, made of blue and pink dipped porcelain, with half worn chipped gilt lips and dry drips of ink running from the rims. Inside were hardened pools of ink. If I wanted to paint a picture I could use one of these ink cups, dipping the wet point of a paintbrush onto the pastel of pigment, circling the tip and summoning up a little slick.
The third object is the industrial bulk of an etching press with its handle and wheel - the heaviest object I could imagine - associated in my mind at the time with Ironbridge, a Victorian mangle I had seen in a museum, and the Royal Mint.
Finally, a black woodburning stove, stoked with wood and coke through a hole in the top. (In winter, I would make tea in plastic thermos cups - mine with four sugar cubes - and then we'd eat fingers of shortbread that had been heated on the stove.)
Beyond the stove's silver chimney, upstairs, was Miguel - who was friendly, listened to loud music and painted naked women... in jungles? I remember his paintings as exotic and pornographic. (My brother crept upstairs to get a look.) Downstairs was Bob Mason, our American friend Cathy's husband, and the painter Hughie O'Donaghue who produced enormous canvases of crows against bleak, streaky-grey landscapes.
At first my Dad painted people - funny bands of people partying - men with ponytails and punks in brightly coloured clothes getting drunk. He also painted potraits. Later he stopped painting people and painted spots and circles and made some small sculptures using the balls he found in the gutter by the studio toilets.
Although they were outside with ricketty wooden doors that wouldn't shut, the studio toilets were magical. Outside, at the back of the building, they shared a wall with Columbia Primary School. Tattered tennis balls; the soft sponge balls used for Dodgeball; green plastic soldiers atttched to parachutes; model aeroplanes; the occasional football; dwarf bouncy balls which came to rest, like multicoloured marbles, in the paralell rungs of the drain cover ; all these came over the wall - a blessing from some benevolent playground god.
(When I was at the gallery I happened to stand next to one of these art students. I overheard her telling her friends about which sections she had worked on.
‘I was up on a stool, bent over that small part of the piece, completing the flowers by that join. It was ridiculously tricky because the whole thing was still wet, so you couldn’t lean on it or brush against it. You had to come at it from above. It was back-aching and bloody hard to get it all the panels match up.’)
But they are sublimely beautiful – camp as a Christmas tree (is that the phrase?) – naked demons and demi-gods bound with diamante encrusted ropes - and so blindingly brightly coloured, sparkling and intricately worked that it hurts your eyes to try and figure out what’s actually going on. I stepped backwards and forwards, trying to unlock the detail of one small section close up, before piecing it into the wider narrative.
The whole room is dimmed, which enhances the dazzling effect of the work. Perhaps it also adds to the ecclesiastical vibe White Cube have gone for (they make much of hanging the show so that the room resembles a church, with altar piece/stained glass windows etc.). You could say that the dimmed room also gives the spectator’s experience a cinematic quality – but then cinemas are like churches too in terms of lighting, layout, and ritualistic communal behaviour - and galleries in fact - full circle: we whisper in all three.
I haven’t laid eyes on anything quite so spectacular in a long time. It offers the densley crowded visual entertainment of Where’s Wally?, sexed up with eyeball-boggling homo-erotic, rhinestone-spangled, grotesquerie.
White Cube draws out the influence of Hieronymous Bosch (1450-1516) in particular - see The Garden of Earthly Delights, below, with the creation of man (Adam and Eve on the left - evil invading the world), earthly paradise (centre - sensual pleasures) and vision of hell (right - horror and tortuous punishment). In Shaw's work sensual pleasure and torture are bound together in a teaming S&M paradise.
The show made me think of Salman Rushdie – Immigrant literature/Magic Realism – in particular Gibreel Firishta’s half-magic half-mad (schizophrenic) dream visions. The way Shaw irreverently mixes up Eastern and Western religious imagery and narratives is perhaps partly responsible (Gibreel/Gabriel in Rushdie, for example - not to mention the sexy rendering of the Prophet Mohammed). Perhaps in Shaw the realism of Rushdie’s Magic Realism is classicism?. I noticed there is an essay by Homi K. Babha in the catalogue that accompanies the show – renowned theorist of post-colonialism/nationality and identity (Nation and Narration, 1990) and of such renowned wordy impenetrability that he won a prize for most unreadable academic writing style. His commentary would be fitting – in form as well as content. Unreadable in one sitting but richly dense and intriguing.
The gore is extravagantly ladled on. The lobster raping Adam is silly. However, I could look again, with pleasure, and would enjoy sucking out a little more juicy ocular detail.