November 16, 2009
Words, Images and Playing Games
Left: Sophie Calle, Etoile dancer at the Opera de Paris, Marie Agnes Gillot, (detail) Take Care of Yourself, 2007.
Image copyright ADAGP Courtesy Galerie Emmanuel Perrotin, Paris/Miami; Arndt & Partner. Berlin/Zurich; Koyanagi, Tokyo; Gallery Paula Cooper, NY
Right: John Baldessari, Pure Beauty 1966-68, acrylic on canvas, 1152.5 x 1152.5 x 34.9 mm.
Image copyright John Baldessari, Courtesy of Baldessari Studio and Glenstone
Sophie Calle at the Whitechapel until 3rd
January 2010
John Baldessari at Tate Modern until 10th
January 2010
Sue Hubbard
From this single text
Calle weaves a web of female support. Spinning out the threads of the painful
missive in which her lover admits that he is again seeing the ‘others’, thereby
breaking their contract in which he agreed not to make her the ‘fourth’, she creates a complex polyphony of
female voices rather like that of a Greek chorus. Using photographs, text and
video the result is a complex multi-layered narrative which arouses both distaste
at her lover’s self-indulgent musings and a sneaking sympathy for his obvious
inability to make any meaningful emotional commitment. As a clinical
psychologist says: “He is an intelligent cultivated man from a good socio-cultural
background, elegant, charming and seductive with a fine, fairly subtle rather
abstract intelligence. He is proud, narcissistic and egotistical”.
Part photo-novella, part psychoanalytic text, fact and fiction,
reality and artifice, here, are continually blurred. Like Cindy Sherman Sophie Calle
is a mistress of disguise. Never actually present within her work she leads us
to question the validity of the narrative ‘I’. Who knows whether there really
was a lover and an email or if this is simply an intriguing artistic construct?
The work treads a fine line between turning us into voyeurs, conspirators and
dupes, never letting us settle into a single role. As with the novelist Paul
Auster, who wrote one of the essays in the Whitechapel catalogue, she is
concerned with how a subject sits within a constructed social and artistic
framework, whilst always remaining very much the omniscient narrator. One of
the underlying themes of her work is that of surveillance whereby she uses
photographs and texts to create a body of reportage and apparent documentation.
The first work she made in 1979 was only shown in book form. Having
come back to France after seven years travelling she felt lost in her own town
and took to following people in the street because she didn’t know what else to
do with herself. Choosing people at random she let them dictate the course of
her actions and neither wrote anything nor took photos. Following a man to
Venice, she shadowed him for two weeks. A photographer himself she tried to
duplicate the kinds of images she imagined he might make and created a book, Suite
Vénitienne, about the
experience. In her next work The Sleepers she asked people she didn’t know to come
and sleep in her bed for eight hours and then be woken by someone who would
take their place. For the day shift she invited those such as bakers who would
normally sleep in the day. Staying by the bedside she photographed these
strangers every hour and wrote down what they said. This continued for eight
days. The results are like the field notes and photographs of an ethnographer
or anthropologist; objective rather than intimate.
This objective control is a central element of her work making her
into both auteur and
conductor. In L’Homme au carnet (The Address Book, 1983) she reportedly finds a fancy red note book
in a Parisian street and constructs the personality of the owner, Pierre D,
through a series of meetings and
interviews with those whose addresses she finds written in his book. Detailed
descriptions were then published in the Libération during the August of 1983. When Monsieur
D returned from Norway and recognised himself in the articles the result was
outrage and distress. He claimed it was a callous invasion of his privacy and
demanded the right of reply. This was printed in the paper beside a photo of
Calle, naked in a domestic environment, her features masked like those of a
criminal. Who then was the victim? Calle or Monsieur D? And is any of it true or
do these Borgesian threads simply function as so many open ended possibilities
in a postmodern narrative? Chance, so beloved by the surrealists, also plays
its part in Calle’s piece When and Where? Berck, a creative game based on a journey of
uncanny synchronicities dictated by her clairvoyant.
Her work is also about lack. About the lack of her central characters - her lover and herself in Take Care of Yourself, of Monsieur D in the address book piece - who are always off stage, hovering in the wings. It this void that Calle fills with her complex, allusive narrative threads, standing in the middle like the spider weaving her complex designs. The persona she gives us is the one she wants us to see rather than the ‘true’ Sophie Calle. But not all her work is so detached. The poignant tribute to her dead mother in Souci captures, in text and works of black pigment, sandblasted paper, lead and hair, her mother’s last hours. It records her final pedicure, the final book she read, the last music she heard and her last smile. But, try as she might, Sophie Calle could not record her last elusive breath, which occurred somewhere between 3.02 and 3.12, and proved impossible to capture: perhaps like truth itself.
Sophie Calle, portrait copyright Yves Geant
Language and text are also essential
elements in the work of the Californian artist John Baldessari, who has been
described as “a cross between Walt Whiteman and a redwood tree”. Born in 1931,
an imposing figure of six feet seven inches tall, with a white beard and halo
of prophet-like hair, he is widely regarded as the granddaddy of conceptual art.
The current exhibition Pure Beauty at Tate Modern brings
together more than 130 art works in this most extensive retrospective of his
oeuvre in this country. With iconoclastic wit and irony, Baldessari deconstructs
the shibboleths that underlie much contemporary artistic practice and questions
the accepted rules of how art should be made. In the 60s he began to use words
as most artists use images saying “a word can’t substitute for an image but is
equal to it.” Beguiling his
viewers with humour he aims to be as “disarming as possible.” Instructions from
art manuals, quotes from celebrated art critics painted onto the surface of his
canvases drew attention to the prevailing aesthetic attitudes of the period. By
painting words on canvas he signalled that ‘text’ paintings were just as much a
‘work of art’ as a nude or a still life.
It’s hard not to chortle at his 1960s Tips for Artists who
want to Sell and the deliciously tongue in cheek canvas that simply
says: Everything is purged from this painting but art, no ideas have entered
this work. Baldessari has often said that semiotics and, in
particular, Claude Lévi-Strauss’s structuralism were major influences on his
treating language as sign and on his deliberate play between word and image, though
it’s not hard to imagine that he might easily have had an alternative career as
a stand up comedian. From the 1970s he married his
humorous pursuit of a new visual language to film. I Will Not Make Anymore
Boring Art 1971 sees him record himself on videotape repeatedly writing
the lines over and over again in a notebook. In 1970 he stopped painting to
focus on photography and film, but not before he had burned all his paintings
in Cremation Project, which was accompanied by an affidavit, published in the
San Diego Union. His approach to teaching was equally playful and unorthodox,
promoting what he called “post-studio art” based on the idea that “there is a
certain kind of work one could do that didn’t require a studio. It’s work that
is done in one’s head.” In his 1972-73
set of photographs called The Artist Hitting Various Objects with a Golf
Club he takes repeated
swipes, in a form of intellectual crazy golf, at objects found in the city
dump. There is also a set of photographs of
him blowing cigar smoke to imitate a picture of a cloud, and another series Choosing
(A Game for Two Players): Carrots, a sort of absurdist chess made up of arcane carrot moving rules. It is both mad and rather funny.
Baldessari’s work is full of paradox. It liberates, irritates, inspires and disarms and has been an enormous influence on a whole generation of younger artists. Like looking through a kaleidoscope, he presents us with what is familiar with an unfamiliar twist so that we are forced to think about things in a slightly different way. We are continually confronted by images that ask ‘is this art?’ and if so does such a definition matter as long as the work prods us and makes us look at the world afresh. Baldessari’s own disarming answer, given in an early painting that escaped the Cremation Project, is God Nose.
John Baldessari, God Nose, Oil on Canvas, 68 x 57 (172.7 x 144.8 cm), 1965, Private Collection.
Image copyright John
Baldessari
Posted by Elatia Harris at 01:01 AM | Permalink






















Comments
Sue, again, I'm glad you're here. What an interesting post. These are two artists who have flummoxed me, and I begin to understand...
Posted by: Elatia Harris | Nov 16, 2009 1:04:25 AM
I had trouble with Baldessari when I went to that exhibition. I knew the art was there, but it just didn't get through somehow. I did amuse myself standing in the camera projector so I could be seen standing next to an image of myself, but no-one else saw me.
I had more fun at the Pop Life exhibition across the hall.
Posted by: Sagredo | Nov 16, 2009 3:46:55 AM
As is often the case these days, the decoding of art is more interesting than the work itself, although Calle's elusive magic stirs one uneasily with material almost too personal to reveal. Terrific essay, thanks very much.
Posted by: Randolyn Zinn | Nov 16, 2009 2:56:00 PM
Know what you mean, Randolyn. I have seen in these very pages some criticism that was fascinating, about artists to whom I've given little attention -- and not for lack of time, but from real disaffinity. Morgan and Asad come to mind! Sue Hubbard is also very gifted at focusing a reader -- this reader! -- on what truly repays attention about artists who are not easy to draw a bead on. She has written many good art columns for The Independent, and we are lucky to have her.
Posted by: Elatia Harris | Nov 16, 2009 3:49:41 PM
I guess I'm compulsive! But it helps if someone tries to get a conversation going...
Posted by: Elatia Harris | Nov 16, 2009 4:03:42 PM
no help from me. I suppose what these two do is interesting, and I appreciate that they are doing anything, but I am not drawn in to Baldessari, and only bemused by Calle.
I love her mother though. Looking down on her though she does.
Posted by: Carlos | Nov 16, 2009 5:35:25 PM
Thank you so much for joining in the debate. I do not see any criticism I write as being, in any way, a correct view. Just, I hope, an informed one, which will lead people to look at art works afresh and maybe challenge their own first readings and preconceptions.
Sue Hubbard
Posted by: Sue Hubbard | Nov 16, 2009 6:29:59 PM
I know Dawkins likes Calle.
Maybe that will warm things up?
Posted by: Dave Ranning | Nov 16, 2009 8:09:09 PM
Sue and Carlos, I don't think there is a correct way to look at art, either. But there is a way to make yourself hospitable to the experience of it, and that way can take some doing, especially when it's almost instinctive to greet art you don't get with a bit of defensive derision. Which only increases the distance.
I hope I don't go on much about it chez 3QD, but for many years I was a painter, and I think I have a painter's preference for the visual "statement" that needs no exegesis. I just want to be knocked down by art, the way one is by great portraiture without knowing a thing about the sitter beyond what can plainly be seen. But because I don't know how to start to be interested in lots of post-studio or conceptual art, I mustn't assume it's iffy stuff adroitly pimped by the personality-hyping industry. And that's exactly what I tend to assume. So it's an area where I like being wrong, and am happy when someone with no axe to grind will start me off on some other track.
Posted by: Elatia Harris | Nov 16, 2009 8:18:59 PM
Dave, does she have the approval of Harris and Dennett as well?
Carlos, WHO is her mother?
Posted by: Elatia Harris | Nov 16, 2009 8:33:38 PM
Oh sorry. It's her joke. Sorta. She has a giraffe head (and neck) mounted in her studio, named after her mother, looking down at her. From a Frieze interview. I get the feeling the interviewer is still trying to get a handle on what just happened.
Posted by: Carlos | Nov 16, 2009 9:19:54 PM
Sue, I'm wondering about the dancer photograph at the top of your essay...part of Calle's exhibition?
Posted by: Randolyn Zinn | Nov 17, 2009 11:46:13 AM
Great to hear about London arts. That's the second time this month. Thanks for the tip!
Posted by: Daniel Rourke | Nov 17, 2009 12:58:40 PM
Yes the dancer is part of the Calle exhibition.
I am really enjoying getting comments from so many new and interesting people.
Thank you.
Posted by: Sue Hubbard | Nov 17, 2009 2:21:37 PM
Post a comment