Sex Offenders, Christ, and Conceptual Art
The Disruptive Silence of Vanessa Place's Poetry
Molly Corey
VANESSA PLACE After Susan Sontag.
Tools
When you talk to Vanessa Place, you talk about Facebook ("My life is an open Facebook!" she laughs), Chinese temples, the genitals of Christ in Renaissance art, why we've been interpreting Duchamp's readymades the wrong way for a hundred years, beautiful pictures of Satan, the fact that postmodernism is over and is followed by conceptualism, how we've overlooked Leni Riefenstahl's influence on contemporary art, and Dada ("If Dada was a disruptive scream, [conceptualism] is a disruptive silence"). Place is a fierce poet. She's coming to the Frye Art Museum on January 5 for a talk called "Con Art or Con Job? A Conversation on Conceptual Writing" with Seattle conceptual writer Doug Nufer. I'll be interviewing them about what they mean by "conceptualism."
The real reason LA-based Place will be in Seattle (and in a story about this writer, you have to point out a phrase like "LA-based Place"—is sprawly LA even an LA-based place? The brain churns) is the Modern Language Association's annual conference. She's on two panels: "Provocative Feminisms" and "Self-Narrating Lives."
Stranger Personals
A recent phone conversation with Place began with the fourth Council of Constantinople, in the year 869. This was when images of Christ and saints were decreed to be as sacred and as "infused with divinity" as the Bible. "This is the birth of allegory," she said, with the enthusiasm of someone who has found a sympathetic moment in history. "The image becomes the word, the word becomes the image—and this is a huge advantage to visuality, to visual arts, and to vision itself. And textuality doesn't have to depend on—oh, I'm blanking on the word, that's crazy—oh, literacy."
Yeah, that's a crazy word to blank on.
Place's concepts are hellaciously complex but not far-fetched. The medieval decree that word and image were equal—an event that did not have a corollary in, say, Islam, where representational imagery is forbidden—has had a lasting effect on the entwined aesthetics and ethics of Western image-making.
To look at an example of Place's conceptualism, you should know that Place is not only an artist; she is also a defense attorney for indigent sex offenders on appeal. Her cases fall into the realm of the unspeakable, yet her job is to steward them through their spoken life. In 2010, as a poet (not an attorney), she published a book of these appellate briefs, the words unchanged except for the names of the victims and the accused. It's called Tragodía 1: Statement of Facts.
Some people criticized her for putting it out there without adding her authorial voice—without packaging poverty, racism, and child molestation under a subjectivity that says those things are bad. That was missing the point. In Statement of Facts, Place put you as close to the crimes as you could get. But you got so close that it turned out to be monstrously far.
"What is art but the failure of representation?" Place wrote in an essay earlier this year. "And the greatest failure of representation is the thing that is the closest thing to the thing it is not." That sweet "spot of failure," she writes, is the "spot of poetry... the spot of art." The brain churns.
This article has been updated since its original publication.
1
Does anyone else find it odd that Jen can't find something else to write a feature about besides the f 'n Frye, Lawrimore Gallery, or inane odd news bites??? Insipid, narrow, BORING, and nepotic among other terms come to mind here...
You could do us all a favor and help us with who the current artists are who are doing the work of today and not work in style five years ago. It would be very helpful if you would supply a list of, say, five current artists who represent the now in art. Please help us know whom we should be looking to. Why wouldn't you want to help solve the problem you point to?
BUT... would anyone here recognize it??? Doubtful.
And fyi...you can't know the now (or future) without knowing the past.
That goes for you, Jen, the local gallerists(Lawrimore, etc) and the Real Housewife Curators of Seattle, as well as all the others who shit on anything threatening by tearing it down to build up themselves so falsely.
Happy New Year
http://www.intercapillaryspace.org/2011/…
http://ronsilliman.blogspot.com/2009/06/…
Did she really write a 50K word novel in one sentence?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nmr_6DeuW…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u5V7gk8To…
It's really too bad you're not very intuitive or gifted at this art game because your involvement in the "conversation" and enthusiasm for it is admirable. 'A' for effort-I suppose.
Maybe you should apply for Jen's job, since you feel so inclined to laboriously expound upon that which she's TRYING to say in all her...well...you know...unsuccessful ways, shall we say?
(sigh)
I’m clearly not an expert nor do I see myself as qualified or knowledgeable anywhere near the people active in the art community. Because of many factors, they run circles around me when speaking on art. In my latter years, I’ve come to understand and embrace the contemporary art scene, an achievement I’d stumbled over in my early years. I now look at the revolution that took place in art mainly in the 20th century as one of the most remarkable turn a rounds in intellectual history. I came from a mid-century middle American pov that found it difficult to understand why paintings of Campbell’s soup cans could be considered art and cost so much to looking forward to being challenged and surprised with my experiences with the new art in museums and galleries. I’m blown away by the intense dedication and energy of art students, artists, galleriests, curators and collectors representing the current scene. I remember being introduced to conceptual art at the Henry around 1970 and being puzzled and mesmerized by the idea that art could be seen in this way. I was at first put off by the following statement by Place:
“The difficulty is to continuously invite meaning while always avoiding meaning-making. To be a cogito-tease.”
But now think of it as maybe a very good definition of what conceptual artists are good at. But also I’m thinking her words kind of express what you generally offer on this blog. I’m not sure how I’m to respond to your post. If you are giving me some credit, I probably should say I appreciate it. You can be so crass but I often get the feeling you have a soft side. It is still the case that many of us would love you to give us some specific information as to what turns you on—not off.
I’m not fit to be a professional writer because of my problems with grammar and other things. I offer nothing to approach Jen Graves’s ability or qualifications. She, as many in the field, impresses me extremely in their love of the subject, depth of awareness and continuing pursuit to experience as much of the current scene they can. I’m gratified by these people who continually travel and interact with art communities and art in as many outside venues they can get to nationally and around the world. I’m pretty much an outsider with nothing more than bare personal opinions.







RSS
Comments (10) RSS