PORTABILITY/PACK IT UP: Artists often talk about other artists, but aren’t always afforded the public forum to say whatever might be on their mind. That’s just one of the several reasons I enjoyed the opportunity to participate in the Artist Talk series at the Portland Art Museum which occured last night. Moreover, it’s a bigger pleasure when that opportunity, such is in my case, avails the discussion to surround an artist (or two) who have had a resounding effect on your own work. I guess I was lucky that the museum has two pieces that are important in the ouevre of both Sol Lewitt and Marcel Duchamp.
CUBISM 2.0 (+ MORE): Both pieces, for me, as is, stick out like a third thumb within the space of the museum. Perhaps its simply within the codified, unspoken (until now) relationship with them as objects? Or their certain mystique/mythology, and of course the foregone fleshed out presentation. In a new world order where I was the curator, of course I think Duchamp’s piece, Boîte-en-valise, Series F, should be presented in a lavish parlour-like library with thick tapestries and ruby red drapes. It would be laid out so two players could try their hand at perhaps piecing it together and taking it apart in a way that might either make chronological sense, or perhaps offer a further conundrum. On the other hand, the Lewitt (Incomplete Open Cube, No. 8-12) I could best see in the changing light of day in a cornfield maze cut to the appropriate geo-proportions, among the army of like pieces from its extended series. These two internationally renowned artists could induce a mouthful or words in which I could have exhaled into the air, but I found it a best strategy to be in the moment, rather than sputter anything more grandiose than what was right there in front of us.
THE OBJECT: Sol Lewitt
AMICA Library (Lewitt Videos), The Book, NYTimes Obit
LECTURE: Within the discussion I said lots, mostly “off-the-cuff” as one colleague mentioned, true. In fact, in retrospect, it all went by so quickly that it felt like I spoke quite a bit and didn’t say much at all. To that end, another attendee mentioned he felt I had a way of alluding a central perspective which he referred to as very “Duchampian”. However, though I may half-heartedly agree with that sentiment, I don’t know how else to discuss these particular artists’ work without posing more questions than what is actually concrete or navigated within the space they are situated in. I did intend on speaking to the ‘compositional’ aspects of the cube, as it relates to sound, and didn’t get to that. Though someone kindly offered that my discussion was like music. If that be the staccato dissonance of broken language, I do concur.
THE SUBJECT: Marcel Duchamp
National Gallery of Australia, Specific Object, Dot Net
ALL FORMALITIES ASIDE: It was all very much freeform as I had hoped, improv almost, and though someone mentioned I seemed nervous, and another said they were nervous for me, I wasn’t at all intimidated as much by the crowd as I was mirroring the master, Duchamp. After having received some constructive feedback I wrote to a friend this morning:
“It’s always been about the indirect connection to these artists which continuously draws me to them…(last night) I threw out a few other “hints” about why I feel drawn to these particular works, and even mentioned that the Duchamp piece is hardly my favorite, and that it doesn’t suffice for seeing the original readymade. The two major connections (between my work and theirs) are probably hidden between the humour and the intellect (cleverness). Or perhaps it’s just the attitude. There’s a lot I didn’t say, but I think what separated me from the audience was (not being in) a living room and the microphone.”
FACE VALUE: Even referencing private email, though in my own “voice” seems like appropriation, call it Duchampian, or post modern, what have you. In fact, part of what my intent was in this talk was to partly break down some assumed barriers within the institution. Aside from wanting to get beyond the plexiglass case, I took the liberty of walking inside of Lewitt’s cube. It felt awkwardly safe, and if I had thought of it earlier I may have done the whole second portion from inside the center of the open space created in the form. Though the talk was more about interaction for me than action unto itself. In the spirit of Rrose Selavy, I considered dressing in drag for the talk, but felt glitter and glam may have upstaged the bridge in a real exchange. Given that Duchamp was a serious chess player, I wanted this to be more of an homage, to him in the form of a mystery game (ala Clue) not a SHOW. So, instead I wore my cherished “Bottle Rack” t-shirt under my button down.
Sometimes the ringing in my ears brought on by an old adage like “it’s all been said and done” really is where the buck stops, and how I truly feel about an artist like Marcel Duchamp. In another place and time, we would have been grande friends. I imagine Lewitt’s kind face, only recently lost and his generous nature of working with and promoting his many assistants, some of who would go on to adventurous careers of their own within the field of conceptual art, etc, etc. I could potentially go on forever, and with your blessing I will do just that, whenever forever is. But, maybe that’s enough said for now. Dear reader, it is your turn…What do you make of it?
FURTHERMORE:
Portland Arts Watch, Fifty Two Pieces and TheBuzzByBrian
