So, I’ve had a great idea for an exhibition. It’s only at the early stages, but this is the broad outline. It’s quite conceptual, containing a lot of allegory – things like a reductionist scientific investigation into something destroys a sense of the sacred, or a quantum approach like Schrodinger’s cat – observing something destroys it, etc.
There will be 50 pieces, representing the approximate number of plant species that become extinct each day as a result of human technological activity.
Each piece will be based on a plant species that some culture somewhere holds as sacred.
The microscopic pollen of each plant will form the main fabric of the exhibition. Pollen being the mobile part of the mechanism that enables flowering plants to reproduce (hence preventing extinction, continuing the sanctity of life), equivalent to our sperms.
Each piece will be 30 cms x 30 cms, reflecting the scale of things – the size of a pollen grain relative to the piece will be approximately the size of the piece relative to an average arts centre.
Each piece will be a square of glass. Mounted at the centre of the square of glass will be a “cover slip” (used for mounting biological samples ready for a light microscope), prepared with a dozen or so pollen grains, and mounted for posterity using the standard transparent resin method.
The glass will be mounted against a background, and framed with a simple frame.
The frame and background will be a uniform colour, and the pieces will be mounted in a gallery space of the same colour.
Thus, the visual aspect of the exhibition can only actually be seen by breaking the pieces and mounting them on a microscope. I think the multiple layers of allegory are clear!
The only question I haven’t answered satisfactorily to myself yet is the colour. I would prefer black, representing the darkness of our ignorance about the world, but I guess one could argue equally well for white, or any other colour.
If it’s such a great idea, why am I not going to do it? Surely, this kind of thing is the perfect way to get “sacred” into contemporary galleries?
The fundamental answer is: “It’s just not me, it’s just not what I’m trying to do.”. Sure, it gives the viewer a little tickle at the back right of their brain, thinking that the art work is invisible unless destroyed (rather like the beautifully folded and tied love letters exhibited by a wonderful artist whose name escapes me). But that’s very different to the events I stage which push people into considering the meanings of ancient myths, their cultural heritage, their place within their community, and within the cosmos as a whole.
In comparison, this would just be a cheap trick for the sake of some column inches in a local paper.
One of my family once told me that although they love painting, they don’t do it because they can’t think of anything to paint. I have the opposite problem, the problem of what not to paint. I’m full of ideas all the time … some good, some bad, some indifferent. I’ve only got 40 years left, that’s about 2000 days of creative time (at current rates) … probably less.
To actually achieve what I want to achieve, I have to be very, very picky about what I actually do. I could waste weeks of time heading down a dead-end for the sake of some good publicity, or for a witty visual joke for the sake of an entry on my CV. But ultimately, that would mean another exciting, inspiring, wonderful event that I would not be doing … Not simply ‘not doing this year … or next year …’, but bluntly, not doing, ever.
Death is a harsh task-master, we are all her slaves whether we realise it or not.
