Writings
Ms Lawrence, by The Dirty Collective's Alice Lea
This is a letter addressed to an artist who submitted work to our invitation for participation in the exhibition. We gladly accepted her work yet we heard nothing (and haven’t since) from her in response. The work nonetheless, merits and encourages discussion- a discourse that I aim to begin, whilst simultaneously giving a sense of the fabrication of the show, and restricting myself to focus largely on the limitations and melancholic features of each. From the outset, in my relatively new role as curator, I was concerned with the resentment and inaccessibility the visual arts sometimes present. As a response to this boundary, I have asked a friend uninvolved in the field to pinpoint the areas of text that seem unfamiliar. I have placed a literal, often dictionary defined, translation aside the original text to make a comparison of vernacular.
Ms Lawrence
Where were you? And your mysterious inflated spheres of carbon dioxide? You stood us up so I’m writing to straighten a few things out.
You led us on you know. Your post so enthusiastic and sincere appeared on the submissions blog in March- it served only as a tease, which dissipated in such a similar transient and elusive way as the nature of the pieces introduced to us.
I write with a sense of lack, an unrequited conditioning that can only postulate what might have been had our fields; mine of curation, and yours of art making, crossed in real life. An unreturned or unreciprocated process of changing behaviour by rewarding or punishing a subject each time an action is performed until the subject associates the action with pleasure or distress that can only claim, assume, demand, what might have been had our fields; mine of ?, and yours of the production, expression, or realm, according to aesthetic principles, of what is beautiful, appealing, or of more than ordinary significance. Therefore, I apologise if my analysis and commentary is inadequate or not true to form with regards to … Does your work have a title? There, from the outset I am without a proper address to the fruits of your practice, which issues me with a regulation of language, and stands between I and the work- the work that will now be referred to as the ‘Cells'. I hope that this does not offend, although, you were not, and are not, here to fight your corner. I will endeavour not to let my communication become bitter or afflicted by our decided unfamiliarity.
‘Untitled’ 2007
We are not so dissimilar you and I. Your artist’s statement is negatively composed and your conceptual thought subverts conventional phenomenology. I was not all that convinced of what could be achieved in our hodgepodge-d collective, and our experimentation with context responsive curation healing . I began every brainstorm, every meeting, seminar and explicative text with what I considered to be beyond our means. This extended to the audience, the space, in whatever form it may have taken whether virtual, literary or physical. The artworks, and what medium would mutually serve both us as curators and the pieces themselves, to display and be displayed, in the best possible way with regards to the space. My foresight did not positively view the idea of twelve individuals attaining an equal opportunity of curating in its most direct manner. I was bound by the liminal the final, utmost, or furthest boundary (noun) , which is a quality I have come to embrace in my confrontation of your non –presence negation of proximity in ‘You’ve Got Some Explaining To Do’.
All of the above attributed to what I felt would inevitably hinder the way in which we obtained artist’s contributions. In your case, this was only half true. I have learnt that exhibitions are formed as a result of an identification of a zeitgeist, which may not necessarily be confined to contemporary art practice. In our vocation as ‘Floating signifiers’ written or verbal speech, symbols or gestures that convey meaning with little or no attachment to a particular place (French trans.) artworks are selected in response to whatever idea this zeitgeist potentially presents. The Dirty Collective (D.C.) used an element of this method in that we recognised the boundaries evident in the relatively undeveloped art cultures in Leeds, predominantly surrounding the three art institutions (University of Leeds, Leeds Metropolitan and the Leeds College of Art and Design) and based the nature of the event accordingly. You Lawrence, have highlighted by default a further boundary between artist and curator. I remember reading very early on in the process that a curator should aim to maintain a conspicuous distance from the art they are interested in creating a platform for. Perhaps this bound my ambition too much at first but I’d never have taken the role of Cheerleader for you . Nonetheless, had you attended, we could have shared a few drinks (the organic whisky was particularly good), discussed the display, whilst listening or dancing even to the DJs, and watched one of the numerous screenings and performances. I’m finding it hard not to use the word ‘alas’.
I felt restrained by the fact that all of the D.C. are relatively new to the field of curation and therefore, any noticing of zeitgeists would have been rushed and embellished, and the product of which, false. Perhaps with a broader timescale this tactic would have been achievable. However, we took a different approach and sent out a nation wide ‘call for submissions’ to which you duly responded. Perhaps this mirrors how we as a collective united in interests- the module syllabus was what we each independently responded to, and through much negotiation and experimentation we found a broad and messy framework through which to conduct our curatorial decisions and actions. ‘Social Boundaries’ is what we acclaimed praised, often publicly, with enthusiasm as symptomatic of the institutional, specifically undergraduate, art scene and is a theme you and the D.C. saw to be applicable in your work. I know it may seem strange for me to privilege an artwork that eventually never featured in the final exhibition. Foolish maybe. But by describing this absence of yours, I am highlighting what shape the final product took. If that includes a Lawrence wrought hole then so be it. In the Vegas Gallery press release for ‘Against Nature’, it seems to be a more effective analysis to describe what the exhibition isn’t rather than what it is.
‘This is not the high-octane hysterics of the horror orgasm in the Gothic. It might look like it at times but this is a place in which inertia and melancholia replace death and arousal and intoxication pass for penetration.’
The ethos of the show mirrored the Decadents’ temperament of late 19th Century European culture. It is unashamedly matter-of-fact in its attention to the invited artworks and offers no accountability for its interest. I enjoyed the description provided by the curator, and author of the press release Ken Pratt that negates the essence of ‘Against Nature’, and circles around a lack of orthodoxy and the profane practice, custom, or belief in addition to irreverence or contempt for God or sacred principles or things; irreligious. I’ve been thinking about translation and language in relation to the experience of ‘You’ve Got Some Explaining To Do’, and have come across a book titled ‘ Art Speak’ . It almost sounds like a command. Nevertheless, it functions as a tool for thinking and talking about art, categorising terms and movements for the purpose of quick and accessible reference. I found a section devoted to ‘Social Realism’. I wondered if this would describe anything to do with the boundaries of which, but you know it didn’t, Lawrence? Although, it interestingly described itself by exemplifying what indeed is certainly not it. Social Realism is not ‘Aestheticism’ or ‘Art for Art’s Sake’ (‘go to page 228’)- which indicated that the latter two are one and the same. L’art pour L’art was established as a result of such philosophers as Emmanuel Kant who deemed art to be something that should be judged by its own standards. Interestingly, artists related to this movement by ‘Art Speak’, included members of the Decadents. Well isn’t it a small art world after all, Lawrence. Consequently however, Charles Baudelaire, as I’m sure you’re aware, quashed such ideas in 1848 with his contribution to the debate, ‘[art] is inseparable from morality and utility.’ Phew. What is interesting here is how this guide to our field, aims to describe one thing by using examples of what it is not. So that is your role in this essay, Lawrence. You No-Show.
‘Could you put your art out? It’s bothering me.’
I had anxieties of the binary opposition consisting of two conditions of conflict that may have taken effect in relation to audience. For example, those who have little to no involvement in the visual arts may have perceived the exhibition to present them with a boundary of knowledge. In the work of Jacques Derrida he maintains that the binary must be reversed in order to show its working, to demonstrate it side by side its opposite. In the initial stages of the show I played around with my perception of what art is and what the expectations of it are.
This presented my curatorial thought process with a binary opposition that was not entirely counterproductive.
This logocentricism ‘mode of thought that works through the erasure of the metaphorical status of privileged terms within a binary opposition in order to support a conceptual order structured around the valuing of such terms as positive’ that I feared may have limited our audience significantly and excluded some individuals proved not be the case.
I must confess my fears of the Cells’ incompatibility with our choice of reception. The Common Place is a graffiti wall of a space. It supports far-left doctrines that allow communal and equal use of its innards. Although, there is evidence of hierarchy in its management in that there are a core group of key holders . Nevertheless, this is not entirely restrictive as all at liberty to permeate this circle by simply contributing to The Common Place’s upkeep and participating in your own and others events. Individuals and groups come and go unavoidably leaving traces of their involvement. This may manifest from the scale and impact of the event they hosted to a niggly unwashed coffee cup. The equal ground that the Common Place promotes is what breached the boundary of the audience and the art. I am sure it is a place with which many have reservations, and it is possible that along with the D.C.’s stature in the art world, perhaps it is this un-established aura that made ‘You’ve Got Some Explaining To Do’ accessible to those outside the art world. But that places a low standard for which to aspire to. Do you feel a lack of empathy for our trade, Lawrence? The tensions between knowledges were a motivating element to the evening, and added another layer to the theme. Pierre Bourdieu identified the split between critical sociologist and public intellectual of the power of thinking and reasoning open to all persons in that it is the latter profession’s ability to interrelate with media resources outside the public realm. It is a field that can remain separate from status distinguishing factors such as accent, language, spelling and artistic taste. Those not bound to an established field have potentially a superior position from which to comment upon the social arena in which people manoeuvre and struggle in pursuit of desirable resources a source of supply, support, aid, or communal wealth worth having or wanting. The Common Place is an exciting and ever-changing place, and it is this unpredictability that I admire in your work, Lawrence. Last year I visited Annette Messager’s retrospective held at the Centre Pompidou. And it is in her pieces ‘Leeward’ (2004) and ‘Inflated-Deflated’, (2006) that I find elements of your creative thought process. ‘Leeward’ delineated a theatrical composition of the gallery and confronts one face on ‘situated in or moving toward the quarter toward which the wind blows ’ marked out an of or pertaining to dramatic presentations that combine parts or elements to form a whole of the room devoted to the exhibition of art, encounters one front headedly. The veil that covers the many objects is inflated and spotlights what it smothers. Only when it seems to be at its optimum capacity, its source of life is deceased. The air that held the material aloft is pushed out from under it, into the faces of the audience. ‘Leeward’ interweaves a human quality with the divine:
‘It signifies what it hides and it hides what it signifies’
‘Leeward’, 2004
‘Leeward’ presents us with a Christian drama of joy and sin and all spiritual and bodily opposites. The veil is suggestive enough to urge an obsession in the viewer to uncover what is kept underneath. Regardless of the destruction this may require as a sacrifice, it is the gamble that ‘Leeward’ entices us to take.
‘Inflated-Deflated’ re-orders an illogical amalgamation of the body’s parts. The objects are occluded closed, shut off as subject matter yet each counterpart overlaps and re-configures in its overall aesthetic.
‘Inflate-Deflate’, 2006
‘The brain encounters a breast which is friends with a stomach which itself rubs against a hand which is touching some entrails.’
It is this acquisition of personal space, this tactility and of-the-body visual that I implore in your work, Lawrence.
I was apprehensive that the Common Place’s strong atmosphere would impose upon and disrupt the work, rendering it unavoidably site specific. The Cells, however, have a resilient presence in that I envisage them to affect the space they are in. I couldn’t imagine them to submit to the character, however assertive, The Common Place exudes. I see mutual homage to participation in our transitory gallery and your work. Whether active or unconscious as you describe we ‘cannibalise’ elements of each phenomenon.
There is something very human, raw and chaotic about the Cells. These qualities are certainly what attracted me. The materials you use are inexpensive and day-to-day, however after the Lawrence touch, they are transformed into mystifying and tactile objects, overlapping what is familiar and unfamiliar. You subvert the stuff’s original function of use, which as you say ‘renders them useless’. Why so negative and matter-of-fact in your analysis? You seem resentful of the control air and breathing exercises, in how it is an innate trait of our mental and physical being, well or not. The Cells are delicately reaching for an epistemological a branch of philosophy that investigates the origin, nature, methods, and limits of human knowledge aesthetic as a result. You question the personal affect to each aspiration, for which you have created a tangible encasing as a reactionary feat to the power air and breathing has to our existence. The D.C. intended to assert no such control over you- I give you my word. We merely wanted to entertain your creativity for a spell, and to record its actuality in all its glory for our eternal web-rapture. We worried that the space would prove hostile and unyielding for your fragile sculptures- they seem so tactile and responsive. I understand they are intended to deflate and decease as art objects, I wonder if they might have been overlooked in our social gathering. I doubt it. They have a maternal and endearing quality yet they still connote a daunting aggression, one that perhaps ‘Number Six’ might relate to. We thought of exposing them to the elements, the little courtyard outside the Common Place might have animated them to a playful extent. And we considered placing them as objects for the viewer to spatially negotiate with in a pathway of the exhibition space. How do you feel about others touching your breath?
‘Untitled’ 2007
Why have you chosen to create receptacles for which to store, however fleetingly, proof of yourself? There is something implicitly morbid, and gothic even, in how you contextually place circumstances of an event or fact in a particular portion of space, whether of definite or indefinite extent the Cells. They are placed on the same level as the viewer, and they are alluring and sensual yet inevitably abject. You introduce yourself as a mature student, and why is this? Age is unimportant to me, however as a theme it does present another boundary. Don’t change the subject. In this case, you seem to be concerned with contingency and the passing of time. Are you celebrating death as an escapist tactic?
The sculptures drown. You intend for that to happen, and we as the audience anticipate it. There’s something very gothic about that.
I am intrigued by your notion of breathing to demise, rather than oxygenating to life. They are set up to fail almost, physically buckling under scrutiny. We could have shared our worries of failure and exorcised and subverted them together. The public face of ‘You’ve Got Some Explaining To Do’ was superficially obscure yet offered much connotation. The title is a performative statement, (of an expression or declaration) performing an act by the very fact of being uttered and along with the supporting press release, the event’s profile was lifted which placed pressure on its output, and unavoidably us as curators. In a good way however, a little stress from time to time is life assuring and in some sense and purposes, fun. We saw the challenge to exist thusly: To promote a notion of the particular in each artwork but to also have the courage to bring out an aesthetic that embraced and/or complimented the space in which it was framed. We kept in mind the haptic branch of psychology that investigates cutaneous sense data of ‘You’ve Got Some Explaining To Do’ when selecting the combination of pieces submitted, and when placing them. We circled around a range of presentations of social boundaries, from familial relationships, cultural comparisons to notions of cleanliness, and shock thresholds. This was to elucidate each piece by compliment and comparison in an almost domino dynamic. You operate in this essay of a letter in much the same fashion. Nevertheless, fundamentally the D.C. made suggestions but it was left to the viewer to harvest associations and ideas from the concepts presented to them.
‘Untitled’, 2007
Just as you manipulate and use materials, I have abused the liminal information you have leaked about your practice for my own ends. You have provided by default the structure for me to describe the experience and processes of the exhibition. In describing what has not been in order to shape out what was, your Cells have bestowed us with another paradigm of boundaries. In their case, this manifested to be applicable to a fundamental human level that takes a visceral and necessary occurrence and questions its innate and metaphysical highly abstract or subtle, concerned with abstruse thought or subjects, as existence, causality, or truth implications to oblivion. I hope this letter will provide me with some form of closure by allowing me to re-live ‘You’ve Got Some Explaining To Do’, focusing on the limitations and cynicism, which you have affectionately tainted, Lawrence. The D.C. merely wanted to be the go-between from your art and the public sphere . Maybe this is my lesson of a long-distance relationship; it had shortcomings for both parties involved. I’ve sucked you dry. Lawrence, my ghost in the machine , perhaps it was never to be. Our loss.