Convergence is happening again. I’ve just read the Judith Barry interview in the December issue of Art Monthly Magazine, discussing …Cairo Stories with Omar Kholeif. I’m filled with questions about the personal/universal, which is a conversation I’ve just been having with Elena Thomas here on the blogs. Now these questions are in relation to my own beliefs in abstraction. Here is the kernel of the question, does specificity prevent or enhance the universal and likewise does abstraction prevent or enhance the universal? I have made the choice to work in abstraction because I believe strongly in the function of abstraction to convey the universal but I’m not sure if others see abstraction in this way.
Through conceptualism we’ve learned to ‘read’ the meaning behind the specific object, in effect abstracting that meaning in our minds as a ‘concept’ which carries the full weight of function, implication, order, process, application, significance and the idea of that object; turning the specific into the universal via a process of abstraction (mental though it may be). In …Cairo Stories, Barry has used actors to portray the women telling their stories, sometimes the woman behind the story was photographed and presented in the piece but not always and Barry discusses the various reasons for this in her interview. The representation of these women by actors raises questions for me, not least of which is why I am bothered by the removal of ‘the actual'(the woman telling her story) by an ‘abstraction’ (an actor portraying the woman telling the story). To be clear, I absolutely understand and accept the reasons Barry gave for why the use of actors was employed, I have no argument with her reasons at all. Simply put, the context dictated the outcome. My questions reside more in the function of the work. Does the removal of the person (the personal) give way to a universal rendering of the story? The story is still the personal story of the woman who has been replaced by an actor. But is it, because Barry gave the actors freedom to change the language of the story if they felt it was in keeping with their ‘character’ – the person has become character (the universal ?). Has the truth of these women’s lives been turned into apocrypha? Why am I even remotely bothered by this?! Well perhaps this is one reason, in Barry’s effort to present truth trying to overcome stereotype and hegemony she has presented stories which have the potential to become apocryphal and therefore not believed.
In every instance here, the actual has been translated into an abstraction in some form or other and it makes me question my own steadfast beliefs in abstraction, even though it should be reinforcing them because it is a reinforcement of how I see abstraction. Perhaps I have an even more steadfast belief in the truth.