Olive Bishop's 'Wash and War' anti art in clay from 1960s and 1970s South Australia-led Skangaroovian funk

One of ceramic military uniforms (at left) by Olive Bishop (centre right) from her Wash and War series. At right: Portrait of the Father in clay. Bottom tight: Ceramic trapezoidal teapot in the form of an alligator with lid as a female figure.
Images courtesy Australian War Memorial, Art Gallery fo South Australia, State Library of South Australia

Olive Bishop was part of the quirky anti-art anti-establishment 1960s/70s funk movement, centred in Australia on Adelaide, and nicknamed “Skangaroovian funk” (a composite of South Australia and Kangaroo) by Art Gallery of South Australia director Daniel Thomas in 1968.

The funk movement in ceramic art emerged out of the social political change of the 1960s/70s. Starting in San Francisco in the United States of America, it saw ceramic artists turn away from creating functional objects. Instead, they made works with an underlying satirical meaning or social commentary, and explored previously taboo subjects such as politics and religion. Funk artists used clay to create everyday objects, sometimes irreverent, perverse or grotesque, with ambiguous meaning.

Born in Victoria and a graduate of the South Australian School of Art, Olive Bishop’s ceramics gained most prominence with her Wash and War series of clay military uniforms. They were included in an Art Gallery of South Australia collection, featured on the 1978 Adelaide Festival of Arts poster and among exhibits at the Australian War Memorial in Canberra. 

Wash and War came out the 1960s/70s social and political change, overshadowed by the issue of conscription to the Vietnam War. Bishop created jackets that played on different elements of society, including the Wash and War series. By taking the military uniform and rendering it in clay, she gave the garment new meaning, while asking the viewer to reflect on war’s futility and its intergenerational impact.

The Wash and War title played on the phrase “wash and wear” and cycle of war, its repercussions and aftermath. Separated from the person who wore it, the nameless uniform could be seen as removing individuality from the wearer, making them a faceless cog in the war machine. The work asked: “What, then, did the war achieve? At what cost? And is it inevitable that the cycle of war will continue?”