lenny!

as a response to the last poem's closing stanza, i thought leonard cohen's as the mist leaves no scar would be fitting:

As the mist leaves no scar
On the dark green hill,
So my body leaves no scar
On you, nor ever will.

When wind and hawk encounter,
What remains to keep?
So you and I encounter,
Then turn, then fall to sleep.

As many nights endure
Without a moon or star,
So will we endure
When one is gone and far.

april is poetry month!

i know, i know -- i'm late. oh well.

my intention is to post a favourite poem each day. i hope you will enjoy them as well.

first up - derek walcott's adam's song:

The adulteress stoned to death,

is killed in our own time

by whispers, by the breath

that films her flesh with slime.

The first was Eve,

who horned God for the serpent,

for Adam's sake; which makes

everyone guilty or Eve innocent.

Nothing has changed

for men still sing the song that Adam sang

against the world he lost to vipers,

the song to Eve

against his own damnation;

he sang it in the evening of the world

with the lights coming on in the eyes

of panthers in the peaceable kingdom

and his death coming out of the trees,

he sings it, frightened

of the jealousy of God and at the price

of his own death.

The song ascends to God, who wipes his eyes:

'Heart, you are in my heart as the bird rises,

heart, you are in my heart while the sun sleeps,

heart, you lie still in me as the dew is,

you weep within me, as the rain weeps.'

art as protest

over the last while i have been thinking of [my] art as a form of protest. this was triggered in part by a month-long binge of art:21 episodes, particularly season four's episode on protest with nancy spero, an-my le, alfredo jaar and jenny holzer. each had things to say that caught my ear:

part one (art:21)

• nancy spero made no bones about the fact that "i'm interested in messages", and that her work was about addressing"the way i think it [events, relationships, politics, etc.] should be".
• an-my le, on the other hand, affirmed that "the work seems ambiguous because it's meant to be". that said, the work raises questions, and those questions require taking a position in order to discuss them. interesting to place ambiguity in this grouping. it begs the question: what do we protest [against/ for]? and why?
• jenny holzer also made some statements that resonated with me, especially regarding her process and art's utility. she stated that she wants the viewer/ reader to concentrate on the content, and not the author. the work must be"of utility" to as many people as possible. the process is very collaborative, with high input from a variety of people and texts. and her desire was "to offer [her] texts in ways that are lovely and exacting" (sigh. what a beautiful turn of phrase!).

the real eye/ear-opener for me, however,was alfredo jaar. i had always known him as a politically engaged artist, though i often found his work somewhat dry and theoretical. however, this episode brought out a depth and passion that was quite instructive. some of the things he said that caught my ear were:

• "i strongly believe in the power of a single idea. the most difficult thing is to arrive at the essence of what you want to say. and when you reach that essential idea, it's extraordinary."
• "there is this huge gap between reality and its possible representations. and that gap is impossible to close. so as artists we have to try different strategies of representation" (i.e. let nothing be arbitrary)
• the exhibition is "a model of thinking"
• "the power of art to create connections, build bridges...fascinates me"

part two (i protest)

now let me be clear as to what i mean by protest. it derives from the latin protestari - to "declare publicly, testify, protest" (pro- "forth, before" + testari- "testify"; in turn derived from from testis"witness" (from which we also get testament). first appeared in english c.1340, and meant "a solemn declaration". its meaning as a "statement of disapproval" was first recorded in 1751; that of "expressing of dissent from, or rejection of, prevailing mores" is from 1953 (in ref. to U.S. black civil rights movement). protest as a verb is attested from 1440, "to declare or state formally or solemnly" (from the old french protester). the first record of protest march is from 1959. a protestor, or "demonstrator, public opponent of the established order" is from 1960. interestingly, earlier usage of the word also includes the concept of affirming or approving - one could protest for, as well as protest against.

the main thing here is that the word encompasses the idea of justice. until fairly recently (read: the mid 1800s) art was expected to have some sort of moral conviction - it was expected to take a position and proclaim it, whether for or against something. that inherent sense of moral commentary was lost to much art in the modern era, which is one reason why we now have the somewhat problematic term 'political art'. the artists mentioned above are among those labelled as such (along with artists like leon golub or anyone working the feminist/ queer/ post-colonial identity politics vein). those artists may explore politicized territory but it is not necessarily the same as seeking justice. justice, in turn, must be allied with Truth.

those of you who have followed this blog for a while know that i sometimes refer to walter brueggemann's the prophetic imagination. to nutshell:

the task of prophetic ministry is to nurture, nourish and evoke a consciousness and perception alternative to the of the dominant culture around us. they are to criticize the status quo and energize us to action. simply, it is to identify those things that are not as they should be. (emphasis added)

this is, i think, also what it means to make art as protest. it's not just a railing against, or an affirming of my own position. it is standing up for justice, for Truth, for others. with others. so choose. stop pretending that art is neutral, that it doesn't contain ideas, positions and even - gasp - [intentional] messages. artmaking is a deeply moral enterprise. or at least it could be.

the mending project

the latest issue of ARTnews has a small feature about lee mingwei's the mending project:

Strangers depend on the kindness of Lee Mingwei, and he on theirs, "For my practice, art is about exchange and interaction with strangers and gift-giving," says the Taiwanese-born New York-based artist, who cites the book The Gift: Imagination and the Erotic Life of Property by Lewis Hyde and his Buddhist upbringing as his main influences. "I'm not always the giver or receiver," he says. "It's a mutual gift-giving process."

those of you who know me know that the gift is a book i often encourage fellow artists to read -- it contextualizes the artist's role and responsibility, as well as how art functions in culture, in a very different way. a gift is quite different from a commodity; they create or function within markedly different systems, with markedly different effects. gifts are free, and, because they are free - both freely given and freely received - they must continue to be distributed in order to "live", a gift cannot belong to anyone. it cannot be controlled. it must continue to be given if it is to remain a gift. otherwise, it becomes a commodity, and it "dies".

gifts also bond people together - they connect us - whereas commodities do not need to. in fact, they limit connection, they are self-contained - they have no meaning other than how they refer to ourselves. gifts accrue meaning because they are relational in nature. another effect of the gift's connecting nature is an emotional bond, where commodities lack that emotional weight. in addition, since gifts connect us, they contribute to community building. ultimately, the idea of the gift has implications for society, spirituality, creativity and the individual. how different life, and art, would be if we approached it, and received it, as a gift.

(please forgive me for this rather rough synopsis of hyde's thoughts -- for more about and from lewis hyde, go here)

what i find most intriguing about this exhibition was the level of trust it required from both artist and participant. the artist offers to the [potential] participant a service. that service transforms that exchange into an art event or installation. that event or activity is only truly completed when the participant returns. it's a beautiful picture of bourriaud's relational aesthetics, where "art is a state of encounter"; and the relationship between art and viewer/ reader as an exchange. there is a surrender to the possibilities of the work on both sides of the equation. what matters is the experience rather than the object. what matters is surrender rather than control. what matters is the connection between art and viewer/ reader. what else matters?

a valentine's day poem for my wife

listen! you say, & i’m trying.

i really am. trying to work on the long pause

supposing there’s more, sounding the unsaid.

& so I wait.

maybe there are better ways to make this exchange,

& perhaps there are different sounds we can form,

rarer blessings, fuller words, less worn entreaties.

if there isn’t more below the surface

emptiness becomes our song, & we the poorer for it.

volume isn’t the solution either –

a cascade of words, of promises; a

numbing list of what we will or won’t

value. so this is important.

let my love be known as these words rest

in your hand, eye, heart.

eat them, and nestle them in your body.

then, tell them back to me. i’m listening.