fixing



Wandering around Tate Britain yesterday afternoon I came across the 1993 installation by Lucia Nogueira, entitled Vai e Vem (in English, Come and Go) purchased for the permanent collection sometime in 2008. The installation consists of a dvd player and tiny monitor screening a whirling spinning top which, as it moves across a sheet of paper, leaves in ink the trail of its passage in concentric shuddering curves, a range of hiccuppy blotches or sharp right-angled jolts, revealing the sudden changes in direction of the spinning child's toy, and a selection of paper images mounted on one wall depicting these various marks during successive spinning sessions.

In a descriptive notice explaining the artist's motivations for creating the piece, she describes her responses to what might be called the 'automatic drawings', the by-products of the work, which chart the arbitrary movements of the spinning top in its aimless trajectory that goes nowhere in particular and is a kind of fixing of the ephemeral and of play, and in reading this note I am reminded of the directionless time of writing once again extending before me, captured in letters and words, trapped within this sentence, pivoting upon this comma, and inferred in this ellipsis… going nowhere in particular, fixing...

Hiccuppy blotches...

Shuddering...

Arbitrary.

ventriloquism



In the show entitled Altermodern at Tate Britain, Lindsay Sears exhibits an installation Extramission 6 (Black Maria) which documents her life as an artist. We learn that as a child she did not speak but retained an eidetic memory, capturing images of the world around her like a camera, recording, documenting, storing, archiving, measuring the world as the reader measures a text, progressing from one page to the next, without the need for speech, building with her pictures a repertoire of responses, of interpretations. At the age of eight she began speaking, projecting words into the world, and as she spoke, her eidetic memory faded with the onset of language. To cope with this traumatic memory loss, as images faded, she explains how she became a camera, holding light sensitive papers between her teeth and using her lips as the aperture and shutter for this fleshy optical-oral device. Images emerge from the darkness, unexpected and intense, a lost moment unearthed and written into another context or double-exposed upon the present. Instead of forming the shapes of words, her lips help capture in a kiss, ingest, then spit out their pictorial record. In this moment I am reminded of the reader, who in accepting the writer's transmissions, recreates for himself, from the building blocks of words and sentence, his own plots, regurgitates, without rule, rewrites, authors - like the ventriloquist, holding up the original text as a dummy, mouthing empty sounds; like the cuckoo, claiming the nest of another in which to hatch her awkwardly ill-fitting eggs.

shaw



I find my appreciation of time-based art easy, if not oppressed. Its tendency to capture and manipulate the viewer in darkened seated rooms is a bit like watching tv. I find the installation, which works on my senses like a day out at the fun-fair (I’m like a child in a sweet shop) not unlike like the frustrating pleasure of catching the fading morning memories of what seemed an all too vivid dream. The installation has a sense of devil-may-care about it, it's hard to take seriously most of the time, and there aren't any rules. It often seems neurotic, unbalanced, fixated, hysterical. It may consist of endless shelves of knick-knacks, splices of film in loops, bits of tv, photos, spillages are popular, coloured abstractions of light, darkness, sculpture, sound, often bean-bags to enhance the viewing pleasure.

My viewing of a show of paintings (canvases, boards hung on walls) however, is generally a more impatient affair. A show of paintings is unequivocally more robust, accountable. It delivers a set of viewing rules which I must manipulate and measure: I stride past the less-than-eye-catching, stand back agog at the monumental, wander through rooms of irksome dullness, or inspect too closely (now I’m an arbiter of the craft before me) the texture of the pigment’s application, in order perhaps to extract a message in the gesture of the brushwork, perhaps even to detect something of the artist’s soul (whatever that is) undressed in the microscopic lumpen physicality before me. But I'm usually in a hurry with paintings. Perhaps in order to complete the tour, my negotiations of the gallery are akin to a thumbing through, the equivalent of idling through a magazine. I want to have it over and done with. Without a narrative, the viewing seems time consuming, the plot wanders off course, and here's my reservation: I might have better digested the work at home, or on the train, whilst flicking through the catalogue. Here I would have given the pieces a different type of time, allowed the pages to sit open, perhaps whilst I made a coffee, maybe returning to the image, looking up, listening, glancing at something else, dipping in again, in short, adding my own narrative, the covers of the catalogue the beginning and the end of a time of viewing mapped out before me, perhaps the turning of the pages as pleasurable as the images, the transit more gripping that the getting there.

Today, I’m in a gallery in Bethnal Green; I’m wandering amongst a new collection of charcoal drawings and earlier painted works by artist George Shaw, the Smiths obsessed Humbrol painter. Of course, I admire the technical skill displayed in the laying-down of colour, in the rendering of this industrial, glossy metallic medium into delicious fields of tone and hue; I imagine the charming painterly language of gesture which the preliminary sketches are sure to exude. The compositions are alluring, the colour palettes familiar, I recognise the common and repeating subject matter (streets like sixties film sets, housing estates, wasteland, woods) which have formed the focus of this body of work, since its birth in the mid 1990’s.

But whilst I amble through the show, the familiar urban landscapes and bleak broken woods strike up within me a recognisable and almost bilious sense of toxic monumentality. There is something that is without this work that unsettles me, something, in absence, which unbalances any comfortable percolation of pleasure. I find myself in a fit of exquisite mourning for a place, for a world, where I wonder... have I ever been? The unihabitedness, the lonely aspect of the work has been much documented, but the emptiness in these scenes is deceptive. Theses scenes are not vacuous, these landscapes, tower blocks, and terraces of Coventry's Tile Hill (like the urban jungle of Derek Jarman's 'The Queen is Dead' video for The Smiths) are populated at the very moment we think we observe their vacancy. It is the invitation to enter their painted vanishing worlds which ports us from the now, draining from us the certainty of today as if it was nothing more than an expression of romantic pathos, a once removed melancholy for a world that doesn't care.

Like the sweetest pain of remembering lost, cherished times, of the absent lover who does not call, now vanished, exhausted, undone, a memory re-lived in absence, these paintings unwrap scenarios, replay, dress up and mimic what was once keenly sensed. Our engulfment lies in the tension, faded, half recognised, that those times are slipping out of grasp, and in over-reaching, perhaps for the last time, we slip, we trip and fall. In the emptiness, beyond the city horizon, in the deep dark wood, there is a light that never goes out, and it flickers on relentlessly through the ephemeral moments captured like film stills in Shaws images, manipulating absence, extending the interval and hovering at the agonising moment when everything we cherish might topple sharply from absence, into death, as we turn the final tortured pages of a book we wished would never end.

prattle

I seldom write here about myself, well, when I say about myself, what I mean to say is, I seldom write here the stuff of a journal, well, why would I bother? This might be contrary to the motivations of many who do write, as I think it fair to say that journaling is the preferred form hereabouts, the preferred ‘prattle’ if you like. We’ve chronology on our side after all, and the obsession Blogger and Wordpress exercise with date-tagging which forms the back-bone of this post-mapping system, without which, I suppose, there would be no line upon which to peg out and air our dirty metaphorical laundry.

Personally, I would prefer a patchwork quilting approach to journaling, a kind of desultory scrap-booking by which snippets of this, that or the other are scattered in no particular order, broadcast randomly, certainly not a chronology (the rotary clothes airer comes to mind here - the laundry analogy) no merit in following this extract with that, no tension in a hanging narrative, no dénouement. Like the circularity of Steve Reich (I mention this only because a Steve Reich track has started playing on my ipod) whose compositions seem to grow not in narrative form, whose music moves away from the unpacking of plot, instead layering up an elaboration of sound, crafted, finely honed, exquisitely integrated ‘presences’ which keep returning back upon themselves, regenerating, rebuilding, over and over again, a marginally enhanced form of that which had been before; but I digress…

It’s not as if I have secrets to hide, or that I exercise caution dipping my toe into the inviting shallows for fear that the bleak and dark unfathomable depths beyond may throw up indescribable scenes of the unknowable, or that in declaring my thoughts and drives, in uncovering that which to date has remained unspoken, I fear that you will discover something in me, what is the word, something representing the essence of me. But perhaps I am missing the point, perhaps this essence, I can’t think of a better word, is what it’s all about? You see, I’m not sure whether this work, this stuff of journaling, is really me. Don’t get me wrong, I love the diary, I love stealing upon the abandoned book in an empty room, I love the tension evidenced quivering between the written words, of the author’s sanctuary of the privacy in pages; yet this excitement born in the very moment of each words formation, in the time it takes for the pen to scratch out the letter shapes and for the ink to dry (I enjoy this image, although it’s hardly relevant in the age of instant messaging) the author’s clandestine declarations longingly await discovery, ache for it, you might say. There always remains this tangible self-conscious dialectic: between the secret diary and the moment of its discovery, or when that moment might reveal itself, the one existing in deference to the other.

It is not dissimilar to the tensions resident in the endless prattling in posts such as this.

journal

I love the journal precisely because of its audacious claim to truth. Words emit truth like radioactivity the minute they take form, but unless the writing is purely cathartic (ie: it takes no published form, or the pages are burned when complete, or the post is deleted rather than published, or perhaps the draft is kept locked in a tin box, stuffed under the bed, hidden deep in the inaccessible depths, or set sail majestically amid the myriad stars of the firmament, where perhaps it remains true to its author… ) writing resonates to the style of its telling, emits the reader’s needs, and what is truth for me is that which I need at the moment I read. When I read your journal aloud, it tells a different story, it’s suddenly all about me.

I don’t know how to respond to the tremulous narrative of ‘truth’ because I don’t know you, I don’t know what part of yourself you think you’ve knitted into the text, I have to ‘make you up’ as I go along, I make a kind of identikit ‘you’ and this is the truth for me, this is how my reading becomes writing. I measure and sample the scenes in your text, taste the narrative for what it can offer me, what texture, what frisson, what jouissance, and it is for the love of this tension that I adore the journal (I said that before somewhere). Because of its precocious obsession with self, the ‘I’, the ‘me’, the ‘my’ (and therefore the truth) and because of this contradiction: it never really knows who it is, and partly, as Barthes has said, because the ego only discourses when it is grieved, the journal is a kind of masochist's journey.

Everything I write here is my journal, but I tend not to borrow the form: today I thought, today I hate, today I love, today I reflect, today I cry (well, actually I do, but it’s deeply stitched). I link to your journal because the writing I find there gives birth to all this, and that for me is what it’s about, that’s the truth for me.

slipstream


I’ve been reading. It’s a job, a project; NetNewsWire grooms for me, post after post, a reading list expanding without end, a list which splutters in fits and starts, mapping out a histogram of frequency, flooded with data, a mapping of observations which fall under disjointed tags. Is there an optimal number of blogs one should follow? Should one choose one or more based on the frequency of posting? Should one measure one’s consumption?

Sometimes I find myself unwittingly following certain posts, well, not the posts exactly, I find myself slipping into the glide path so to speak, into another’s slipstream, and this other is the poster of comments. Perhaps because I see his or her commentary consistently posted on a site that I follow, of a writer whose work intrigues me, I get sidetracked, I follow the commentary. Maybe I do not care much for the voice of this commentator, for his or her style, but because this body is a hypertext - levels of authoring beget authoring and voices mesh - I have to remind myself who it is that I’m reading, where I came from, the route I took, where I’ve got to, and whether it matters. My reading becomes hysterical; this reading revolves not in the kind of orbital circularity of the inertia of planets travelling at their own momentum, but more like a catherine wheel, spinning and spluttering fragments and sparks in unpredictable directions.

As these distractions occur, as the commentary swallows me up, I begin to imagine a nomadic kind of posting, a posting without site, without origin, which I admire; a reactive occupation, a parasitic commentary whose fuel is the writing that feeds it; a subversive, scatterbrained, machine-gun writing which originates nowhere, is untraceable, unidentifiable, seemingly without ego, asking for no response, seeking no acknowledgement, and which provides no track-back to home.

I regularly detect the hysterical ego when I read, the anxiety expressed in the ‘do I post often enough/when is the right time to post/what does my frequency of posting say/not say, about me, when does it exceed me?’, the blogging with obligation dialectic. The comment-only piggy-back posting I admire offers the neat solution; it is a kind of reading without writing, a hijacking of sites, a tainting, an invasion, an infection, a stalking, but neurotically, this is an endosymbiotic activity which provides validation whilst at the same time requires the life of the p(h)ost in order to survive. Like the festive mistletoe, once considered a pest that killed and devalued its habitat, but now thought to have a pervasive influence over its community, I find the commentary often precedes and exceeds its subject.

In the brave new world in which we switch off the comments, we find a kind of writing without reading and without the reading there’s no one to look after the writing.

oliver

At the heart of these stories, these fables, these tales strung from unearthly worlds, call them what you will, lie creatures strange, worlds stranger still, in which terrible witches cast their evil spells, where toys come alive, where the mouse-organ plays its endless roll, where a mechanical chicken rattles in space and in the depths of the shimmering green soup wells, the soup dragon gurgles; where Pippin, the earth-born son of the fairy king, lives with the Pogle’s, and the railway engine of the Merioneth and Llantisilly Rail Traction Company Limited sings in the local choir. Such peculiar and odd characters from my childhood brought back to focus today by the death of Oliver Postgate who invented them and with his gentle master's pen scribed, then narrated each and every glorious one, and who will never be forgotten. R.I.P.

pogles

The Pogles, now where shall we find the Pogles? Yes, there is the notice board, can you read it? Of course you can: “Pogle’s Wood”, the wood where The Pogles live. Now then, let us go into the wood and let us see if we can find a hedgehog. You know why we have to find a hedgehog don’t you? Because the hedgehog goes to wake The Pogles in the morning.

bagpuss

Once upon a time, not so long ago, there lived a little girl and her name was Emily, and she had a shop, there it is. It was rather an unusual shop, because it didn’t sell anything. You see, everything in that shop window was a thing that somebody had once lost, and Emily had found and brought home to Bagpuss, the most important, the most beautiful, the most magical, saggy old cloth cat in the whole wide word.

clangers

Stranger stars by far than ours ever shone in our night sky, and planets too. This calm serene orb, sailing majestically among the myriad stars of the firmament - perhaps this star too is home for somebody. Can we imagine the sort of people that might live on a star like this? Let us go very close, let us look and listen very carefully, then perhaps we shall see…. and hear…