|
An interview with Talan Memmott, page 2 Q. The W/Readers Consider: What else? MDC: We already sense an overtone of irony in the juxtaposition of the "self portrait" and the "publicity bio-blurb"—certainly two life forms that never did rest easily together. The irony is extended (and embellished with bursts of background laughter) by the recombinant and random aspects of each of these two elements. The biographical sketches are taken from the lives of twelve artists: David, Goya, Ingres, Delacroix, Manet, Degas, Cezanne, Monet, Renoir, Gauguin, Van Gogh, Matisse. For each of these, Talan wrote short biographies based on the historical records. The biographies were then divided into twelve sections, with some control over where the breaks would happen, to render the recombinant bios would at least be readable. The "portraits" are randomly assembled from seven pieces, pulled from each of the self portraits—a pixilated base image, a transparent line image, left eye, right eye, nose, mouth, ear. The initial effects of the combinatory manifestations might be amusement at Van Gogh's nose with David's eye or surprise at finding that "Matisse was primarily involved in house painting, public art and salvage." By positing that the physical features and the biographical details of each artist could be interchangeable, though, you invoke critical issues both postmodern and romantic. Is this a move to endorse the demystification of the artist, to illustrate the interdependence of the artists (and arts?), or to suggest, perhaps, the tension between the two? TM: I suppose all of these . . .. As I was doing research for this piece I was noticing how formulaic the artist biography can be. They sort of operate as sets of anecdotes. Early development, major works, aesthetic and political affiliation, legacy, etc. There is also something of a drive to say such-and-such and artist motivated some drastic change in the form without looking too much at the social aspects that surround the change. The artist becomes it. When I started stacking these up it was quite amusing to look at the formal similarities and the maintenance of genius they create. It is important to consider the painters that are included in this piece, how their work does indeed represent some radical changes in painting and how the artist was viewed culturally. We begin with David and Goya and finish with Van Gogh and Matisse. If we were to juxtapose a painting by David with a painting of Van Gogh or Matisse we would immediately recognize the differences a century made to painting. I think this is somewhat recognizable when a recombined portrait presents itself with say, David's mouth, Matisse's left eye, Renoir's nose. . .. This is not only a compression of a century's worth of painting; here we have painting(s) and painter(s) (since these are self-portraits) collapsed into one picture plane. Perhaps, in doing this there is a simultaneous demystification and remystification. At the same time we are demystifying individual painters through a sort of facial excarnation, we are remystifying the artist, by relating one to another, to make one—The Artist. The biographies undermine any coherent recognition. Sure, one could read a bio and say, "oh, that bit is about Gauguin, here we have Manet, and the 'Ear Incident' has to refer to Van Gogh." This may be true of the bits, but it is not true of the whole. The biographical text(s) may not necessarily correspond with the recombinant portrait, so we never have a single painter in either the text or the portrait, or in combination. What we have is a fiction of, again, The Artist.
|
 |
|
Q. The W/Readers Reconsider: And? MDC: You have also given us a mouseover feature on the portrait panel where we get quotes, such as "I am quite overwhelmed by what I have seen." Here, the function comes without editorial comment—either implied or explicit. Do these function in the irony of the scheme, or are they value-neutral? TM: The quotes that appear when you mouseover the mouth image of the recombined portraits are directly attributable to specific artists in the collection. In fact, each quote comes from the mouth of the artist whose mouth is visible in any given portrait. So, for Delacroix you get, "I am quite overwhelmed by what I have seen." For Renoir you get, "I never think I have finished a nude until I think I could pinch it." In all the noise that is created in the recombinations this is perhaps the most directly referable asset. This also, at some level gives the artists within the collection the opportunity to speak for themselves. The quotes are certainly not value-neutral in the scheme of things. Aside from giving a voice to the collected artists, this coherency, the direct referability of quote to mouth, mouth to artist disrupts the combinatory context of the work. Because so much of the piece does operate at the level of irony, the directness here, I think, is made ironic by its lack of irony. Q. The W/Readers Reconnoiter: If? MDC: Probably more than any other prose style, ironic humor depends very much on what the W/Reader brings to the equation. This is one of the reasons, for example, that jokes are difficult to translate. In Self Portrait(s), the comic effect is predicated on the W/Reader's recognition that Matisse, for example, would have been unlikely to have known Jasper Johns. Also, the addition into the mix of Jeff Koons, Andy Warhol, Jenny Holzer, Barbara Krueger, along with titles and biographical details, adds to the preposterous nature of the text. Do you feel that this necessary specialized language limits your audience? TM: As an artist, I don't really concern myself with audience during the development of a piece. As a poet, how could I ~ really. As an experimental fiction writer I am perhaps more concerned with effect. As a theorist . . . is there really an audience for theory? I think this piece could have a wider audience than something like Lexia to Perplexia. I mean, there would seem to be more people with a base knowledge of art history out there than there are network phenomenologists . . .. I think of this work as an Art Historical post(e)-pedagogical to[y|ol]… Something that is both toy and tool. I do think a piece of this sort could have pedagogical applications. One could be 'tested' as to which artist the biographical references refer to, or whose nose is that? Perhaps, pulling out the red herrings from the biographical text. On the other hand, the post(e)-pedagogical (anti)method is really directed more toward invention than reification. While I was developing the piece I had this little subversive fantasy running through my head (not obsessively or anything): A student comes across this work and uses the biographical information in an art history term paper, unaware of the red herring texts within the piece. I suppose this is where some poetics of subversion creep into the piece. I would hope that irony would be deliberate enough but with irony you do run the risk of misinterpretation. Of course, since the entire concept for the piece is somewhat specialist, this risk is increased. Or, this could elevate the schema to allegory. These are allegories of the Artist. One has to already know the code to crack it. >> |