Tuesday, March 28, 2006

work, part 7


This was the last drawing in the series that I am making here in Rotterdam. I note that it is an advantage of the Netherlands education system that most people educated here have a fairly firm knowledge of the system of government here. Or perhaps the fact that I feel that I learnt nothing at school means that I simply wasn't paying attention ... my knowledge of the Australian system is by no means as comprehensive.

Labels: ,


Monday, March 27, 2006

today

Today is dedicated to the friendly and generous customer service staff at PRAXIS hardware store, and the timely and thoughtful writing of Sal Randolf. Her site is ... here

It's spring, the crocuses are out on the traffic islands and it is a balmy 11 degrees in Rotterdam.

Thursday, March 23, 2006

(no title)

I'm sure that it's common that you suddenly feel that a song or a piece of writing is addressed specifically to you. (You know this if you are or have ever been a fan of the Smiths.) I'm reading the first volume of the Forsyte Saga by John Galsworthy, and it's gradually dawning on me that it is a fairly black commentary on the Victorian middle classes, struggling their way into the 20th Century. What is happening in the quote below has happened to me. Different time, different place. Same bewildered middle class boy trying to be an artist. When the dominant discourse is the movement of capital (financial or intellectual) ... What do you make work about?, how do you find a value for your work outside of this discourse?, what's the point?

An Art critic who had recently been looking at his work had delivered himself as follows:

'In a way your drawings are very good; tone and colour, in some of them certainly quite a feeling for Nature. But, you see, they're so scattered; you'll never get the public to took at them, Now, if you'd taken a definite subject, such as “London by Night”, or “The Crystal Palace” in the Spring, and made a regular series, the public would have known at once what they were looking at. I can't lay too much stress on that. All the men who are making great names in Art, like Crum Stone or Bleeder, are making them by avoiding the unexpected; by specializing and putting all their work in the same pigeon-hole, so that the pubic know at once where to go. And this stands to reason; for if a man's a collector he doesn't want people to smell at the canvas to find out whom his pictures are by; he wants them to be able to say at once, “A capital Forsyte!” it is all the more important for you to be able to be choose a subject that they can lay hold of on the spot, since there's no very marked originality in your style.'

[…]

The words bore good fruit in young Jolyon; they were contrary to all he believed in, to all that he theoretically held good in his art, but some strange deep instinct moved him to turn them to profit.

He discovered therefore one morning that an idea had come to him of making a series of watercolour drawings of London. How the idea had arisen he could not tell; and it was not till the following year, when he had completed and sold them at a very fair price, that in one of his impersonal moods he found himself able to recollect the Art critic, and to discover in his own achievement another proof that he was a Forsyte.


from: John Galsworthy, The Forsyte Saga Volume One, Book One “The Man of Property” pp 250 – 1; first published in 1906 by William Heineman Ltd., the edition that I'm reading published by Penguin Classics, 2001.


What is a Forsyte? The central character of the first three books, young Jolyon Forsyte, defines what a Forsyte is in a conversation with an architect, Bosinney, at an earlier point in the first book …

‘[…] what I call a “Forsyte” is a man who is decidedly more than less a slave of property. He knows a good thing, he knows a safe thing, and his grip on property – it doesn’t matter whether it be wives, houses, money, or reputation – is his hall-mark.’

‘Ah!’ murmured Bosinney, ‘you should patent the word.’

‘I should like,’ said young Jolyon, ‘to lecture on it: “Properties and quality of a Forsyte. This little animal, disturbed by the ridicule of his own sort, is unaffected in his motions by the laughter of strange creatures (you or I). Hereditarily disposed to myopia, he recognises only the persons and habitats of his own species, amongst which he passes an existence of comparative tranquillity.”’

‘You talk of them,’ said Bosinney, ‘as if they were half of England.’

‘They are,’ repeated young Jolyon, ‘half England, and the better half too, the safe half, the three percent half, the half that counts. It’s their wealth and security that makes everything possible; makes your art possible, makes literature, science, even religion possible. Without Forsytes, who believe in none of these things, but turn them all to use, where should we be? My dear sir, the Forsytes are the middle men, the commercials, the pillars of society, the corner-stones of convention; everything that is admirable!’

‘I don’t know whether I catch your drift,’ said Bosinney, ‘but I fancy there are plenty of Forsytes, as you call them, in my profession.’

‘Certainly,’ replied young Jolyon. ‘The great majority of architects, painters or writers have no principals, like any other Forsytes. Art, literature, religion, survive by virtue of a few cranks who really believe in such things, and the many Forsytes who make commercial use of them. At a low estimate, three-forths of our Royal Academicians are Forsytes, seven-eighths of our novelists, a large proportion of the Press. Of science I can’t speak; they are magnificently represented in religion, in the House of Commons perhaps more numerous than anywhere; the aristocracy speaks for itself. But I’m not laughing. It is dangerous to go against the majority – and what a majority!’


pp:202- 203

Monday, March 20, 2006

work, part six


Labels: ,


Friday, March 17, 2006

work, part five

I look at these photographs and remember that this drawing was a really nice experience.




I worked with an artist who is currently staying at another guest studio in town - Stichting BAD, which is in the south of Rotterdam.

The drawing is quite comprehensive, and takes in the judicial system, as well as two houses of parliament, the provinces and Gemeente. What is also interesting is the appearance of the word "bevolking" on the edge of the drawing. Bevolking is Dutch for "the Population".

It looks back to the interview with Chantal Mouffe that I was reading at the beginning of this work, in 2004. Mouffe discusses a work by Hans Haake at the German Parliament building which brings the terms "the population" and "the people" into play - and from there, discusses the influence of the work of Carl Schmitt on the development of her political philosophy.

If Haacke’s piece is seen as a way of questioning the manner in which “the German people” is currently defined, then it is a very interesting intervention. In terms of political philosophy, it points to the need to redefine “the people,” to extend it by introducing people who have until now not been considered citizens. But that should not happen by abandoning the idea of “the people” because it’s necessarily related to either a Nazi past or to a certain type of exclusion. The existence of a certain type of exclusion is something that politics cannot do without. That is one of the questions I’ve been trying to address in my thinking about Schmitt and the idea of “the demos.” You cannot have a demos if it is not in some sense exclusive. The very idea of “the demos” simultaneously implies both a logic of inclusion within and exclusion without. It can never be the case that everyone who happens to be in a certain territory—be it France or Germany— should be entitled to vote. There needs to be a definition of who constitutes the body of citizens, who constitutes “the people.” This is something that needs to be discussed in Germany—less now, perhaps, with the broader immigration laws, although the conception of “the people” is still too restricted. However, it can never be a question of replacing the political conception of “the people” with the sociological concept of “the population.”

In this drawing, the population have limited influence on the workings of government - exercised through the vote. Outside of this influence are the military, the judiciary and the eerste kamer (Senate), bodies which act upon the population.

Does this emphasise one intention of the project? - the idea that, in a system over which we have, in theory, the controlling influence of the vote, but in practice are only secondary to the greater influence of state machinery, we have a kind of responsibility to understand how it works. Does knowledge such as this lead to greater involvement, or greater influence?

Throughout this project I have been thinking of a line from a book, I think that it is by either William Gibson or Neal Stephenson, that you should never trust anything if you can't see where it keeps its brain. The 'brain' of the system of democratic government is variously located by these drawings as being the media, the parliament ... but rarely 'the population'. It is something dispersed, ambient - mutable.

Labels: ,


Friday, March 10, 2006

cooking

I have added three new words to my Dutch vocabulary:
foelie (mace), kruidnagels (cloves) and laurier blaadjes (bay leaves)

Rotterdam lamb with prunes (lamen met gedroogde pruimen van Rotterdam)
Place about 200g (about 15 prunes) in a bowl and cover with beer (we used Leffer Blonde).
Fry one onion, chopped small, and three bay leaves in oil until the onion is soft and slightly browned.
Sprinkle with pepper as they are frying.
Add about 500g cubed lamb, cut from the leg. Brown the lamb.
Add 3 cloves of garlic (knoflook) chopped finely and fry until the aroma rises.
Add the prunes and the beer that they were soaking in, and top up with more beer ( you could also use stock).
Add about 3 blades of mace, 4 cloves, more pepper and salt to taste.
Stir in a teaspoon of appelstroop (apple concentrate).
Bring to the boil, reduce the heat and simmer for about 50 minutes. Check for seasoning. You may need to add more pepper to counteract the sweetness.

Serve with mashed potatoes, and lightly stewed apple.
For 3 to 4 people

Thursday, March 09, 2006

work, part four

What I know about the government of the Netherlands increases. For instance, I know that Parliament consists of two houses, the eerste kamer and the tweede kamer. The tweede kamer is a directly elected group of about 140 representatives, and the eerste kamer is like the Australian Senate, also representing the interests of the states - but in the Dutch case, the representatives aren't directly elected by the people, but proposed by the provincial organizations. Here, my knowledge gets foggy ... I'm trying to clear it through asking questions of each person that I draw with, but this is usually the occasion for some embarrassment, foot shuffling and bemusement. I guess this would be like me or one of my peers attempting to explain the finer points of the Australian electoral system to a visitor from another country. But I am not always sure whether it is my questions that cause the embarrassment, or whether it is a case of people feeling that they need to come up with the right answer.

The drawing in progress below was made with a graphic designer. The conversation was really great, and the drawing conveys some of the sense of the way that that the conversation progressed. It also shows, I think, the process of learning that the conversation and the drawing became. There was an interesting back and forward discussion about the media being the thing that you see - and how much political debate is represented graphically - but I wanted to push beyond this and find the mechanics of political process that underlie the representation in the media.


I have tried a tactic of pushing things along by asking more questions. This works, but I am not interested so much in the work being purely description.

I think about my friend Stephen's Doctoral research into the practice of sand drawing in Vanuatu. The drawings are symmetrical abstract designs, a kind of template that is both a representation of the particular story that is being told and a means by which to remember the story. The drawings that I'm making in this project are a trace of an interaction, always partial and subjective. What do I want from them? I return to the idea that the accurate representation of the subject of the conversation (how does government work?) isn't the aim of the project. It’s aims are aesthetic, it seems to me, or an investigation into aesthetics.

The drawing that is shown in progress below took up some of these questions. Why this topic for conversation?; why drawing?; why collaboration?; how does the process relate to the topic of conversation?


I am thinking about ways to push the project forward, to make both the process of interaction and the process of drawing more structured, and ways to carry the knowledge from the previous works into each new conversation and the drawing.

As it stands, the project is interesting to me. It could carry on this way for a long time with no or little change. To take the work into a more exhaustive examination of government would require a change of method, I think. Like making drawings with more political scientists or with politicians. I actually tried this in Melbourne and observed an agony of indecision from the person who I asked to make a drawing with me, firstly about drawing, then about being photographed. In the end I got the feeling that the problem may have been that they didn't want their opinions to be revealed in the drawing, and made public.

The work will be displayed as planned, a further development of the project will have to wait for another opportunity like the residency I am doing now.

Labels: ,


Monday, March 06, 2006

link

just in case you were burning to know more about the Australian Green's policies on constitutional reform, here is a link to their current policies. Do scroll down past the "Policy Snapshot Booklet" to the actual policies. The stuff on constitutional reform is under "Democracy and Constitutional Reform".

Sunday, March 05, 2006

happy days



work, part three


The most recent drawing in progress (above), was made with a political scientist. So the knowledge I've gained through making this drawing is considerable. I now know more about what I don't know - which is the type of knowledge that I seem to be involved with in this project ... perhaps with everything that I do, workwise at least

(there are some things that I would love to be certain about in real life, but that is again the type of knowledge, or lack of knowledge, that keeps me making art. The question being "is it worth continuing to make work" both in a personal sense and a general sense ... the idea of a truthful, profound and honest work of art being another of those new yet unapproachable countries that I continue to chase)...

anyway, I learnt allot about the structure of parliament, the role of the Monarch, and the relationship between National, Provincial and "Gemeente" (municipal) government. Interestingly, the relationship between national and local government here in the Netherlands is more direct than in Australia. I'm still unsure about the role of the provincial governments ... it seems to be around coordinating larger scale public works and issues, but I am sure that it more than that.

It is (or was) an aim of the Australian Greens to work toward devolution of State Government in Australia and create stronger local government with a direct relationship with government at the national level. It's been a while since I read their policies, so they could have changed [and forgive me if I have misunderstood something] ... but it seemed like a sensible idea; and what a fabulous way to reduce government spending, rather than cutting spending on hospitals, education and the arts. It would also seem to be a strategy that would foster greater involvement at a grass roots level in the process of government. I don't know... a more direct relationship betwen national and Local government seems to work here - voter turnout has risen to about 70% in recent years in the Netherlands, which is pretty good going in a country that doesn't have compulsory voting.

I did all the drawing this time, which I didn't mind, but I wondered the whole time whether I should apply a little more pressure to the other person and get them to draw as well. Was this true to the project? I was more interested in finding out as much as I could. Every drawing is an experiment, I guess. The drawings that are made by non-artists are often my favourite drawings. … this goes back to the question about working with artists or non-artists. I can’t help feeling that if I were to work with non-artists it would be a different project – much more about what distinguishes art from ‘not-art’, expert from amateur. Which would be interesting, but maybe not what I’m interested in. It is a question to return to.

This is different from the drawing below, which was really a collaborative effort, both in terms of knowledge and in terms of making the drawing. I particularly enjoyed using Wikipedia to find out some details as we were making the work. The details in this drawing are really nice. It includes a portrait of the queen of the Netherlands in her purely symbolic role. Really nice.


I have started to think about ways to extend the project, and I am reminded that the work first grew out of an interest in the way that the Australian Parliament was designed, and how the formal qualities of the building expressed a vision of government. So the first idea I had was to make the drawings, and then collate them somehow to produce a new design for parliament house. It still sounds like a good idea. But I remember thinking that before I started to work with artists on the redesign of Parliament House, they would need to be informed about how parliament and government worked in Australia. This was followed by the realisation of how little I knew about how parliament and government actually functioned - so I thought I needed somekind of 'consciouness raising' exercise. What followed was this project, which is, as I said to start with, more about what I don't know than it is about the things that I do know.

The other way that I have thought of extending the work is to complete a series of para-drawings which show the cumulative effect of each conversation. Or perhaps, making a drawing at the end of the project that combines aspects of all of the drawings to date.



an aerial view of parliment house, Canberra, Australia. Below, a view of the approach to the entrance of Parliament House. Note the mosaic in the forecourt, Michael Nelson Jakamarra’s Possum and Wallaby Dreaming, commissioned by the Australian Government ... I remember thinking when I did the "field-trip" to visit Parliament how you actually had to walk over the top of this symbol of the First Peoples of Australia in order to enter the building. I'm not sure whether it is symbolic in a negative or a positive way. It depends how you think about a mosaic.


Labels: ,


Thursday, March 02, 2006

The urgency of my practice

There has been allot of thinking and thinking and thinking over the last few days. To the point that I feel I have thought myself into a corner. The cause of this is trying to write a press release for my show here - which leads to contemplation of the difficulty of trying to explain my practise -

At an interview for a place at an internationally prestigious art program in Amsterdam a few years ago I was asked the question "what is the urgency of your practise?" My response then, as now, is that I find it hard to understand the question.

I feel like taking the person who asked the question to the window and showing them the world, if you could, showing the largeness of the world and the many great urgencies that occupy people's lives and asking if they feel art could answer that. “Do you mean that kind of urgency?” I want to ask.

The oddness of it was that I felt I was being asked how my work was going to change the world. But the question was in a different context.

I am interested in the fact that we do art because it is a cultural thing. Imagine asking someone “what is the urgency of using your knife and fork like that?” I guess the discussion would become interesting if the person who you asked happened to have done their PhD in table etiquette. They would be able to tell you why, and what it meant to do this, in certain contexts, and what it would mean to do it differently.

Labels: ,


Wednesday, March 01, 2006

no title

"I don't understand you. There is sometimes a vagueness about the Dutch that we English find hard to understand. Something like the reflection of your beautiful skies in your characters."
Louis Couperus Langs Lijnen van geleidelijkheid 1900
Translated as Inevitable Paul Vincent, Pushkin Press, London, 2005



This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?