on 11/3/03 12:13 am, Anne Teahan at [log in to unmask] wrote:
> 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.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
Very good question.
For me their permanence has made them all but invisible except for on one
date a year; no not invisible, because people use them as meeting points and
kids smoke and snog on their steps.
The rhetoric of the implacable figures(although some are benign they are
still wantonly classical) and tableaux of heroic deeds beneath, are cased in
indestructable stone and bronze, reinforcing a very classical, imperial
version of history.
Personally I love them, for their poetry and ironic innocence but they
represent a surety and righteousness that I cannot see when I think of war.
I like using forms alluding to catafalque, roll of honour and elongated
frieze (studies for hypothetical memorial, Jerwood 2002), as they already
reside in our lexican of commemorative forms.
The subversion lies in the temporary nature of the materials or the
uncertain authenticity of the monument or events depicted.
I am interested in the compression of a memorial form that has an imminent
demise, I think that it creates a different kind of memory.
MA
|