Why do you want to 'subvert' memorial forms?
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mark Anstee" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Sunday, November 02, 2003 6:10 PM
Subject: 'encounter'
> Dear All
> this is my first contribution to the mailing list despite good
> intentions to the contrary.
> This year I was invited to be Artist in Residence at The In Flanders
Fields
> Museum, Belgium, where I had proposed doing a live drawing as a kind of
> temporary memorial.
> The commission was open, so I felt no pressure to illustrate or
commemorate
> any specific event. Important, as my interest lies in the use and
subversion
> of existing memorial forms and not historical authenticity.
> I designed and had built a 4metre sq wall, 20cms deep, in the belltower of
> the museum, and commenced drawing on the 23rd May. The structure alluded
to
> a monolith or memorial wall for a roll of honour, and acted as a blockage
in
> the middle of the museum. The depth of the wall represented an actual
> distance of confrontation, in scale with the drawn figures. This critical
> distance refers to the 'fight or flight' boundaries used by all animals
and
> humans when confronting imminent death or danger.
> On completion, 72 days later I had drawn 19,386, 1:32 scale soldier
figures
> (Rucken blick) in blue biro, on both sides of the lemon plaster
surface(the
> natural colour of post-it).
> This public articulation of a massed army as individuals was an attempt,
not
> only to slow down the viewers looking through witnessing an 'act of
skill',
> but to draw attention to the singular nature of conflict as a personal
> encounter.
> The drawing process was physically and mentally extreme and solicited a
lot
> of reaction from the 50,000 visitors who witnessed it, especially as the
> work was to be destroyed at an appointed date in the future.
> On returning some three months later I deleted the figures with a black
> marker pen over a two day period.
> This act of negation was seen by some as wilfull destruction or decadence
> but, the result was actually the creation of another kind of drawing, a
> cruder, blunter imminent piece looking more like an heroic abstract-
> expressionist painting.
> It was clear to me that the two opposing methods of mark-making were
> intrinsically part of the reading-off, and the ultimate demolition a
fitting
> conclusion to this absurd act of contrition.
> There has been a film made of the whole process which is awaiting the
> necessary funding for post production and, a catalogue charting the first
> stage of the drawing.
> If any one is interested in any more information, let me know.
> Many Thanks
> Mark A.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
|