Ouch!! Nothing more painful than a sharp stick in the pretensions! I went to two galleries yesterday, the Sainsbury Wing at the National gallery, and the Serpentine. Such different experiences. My splurge about the cake came about whilst I was drawing, and I wondered what was the difference between what I do and what Asda does, a wondering which may well not be indicative of anything other than a fairly benign madness indulged in whilst I while away the hours, drawing. There seems to be so much more to Asda’s cake than to work like mine. The sheer scale of it, the logistics of manufacture, distribution, advertising, the collaborative (?) nature of the whole venture. And as well, the cakes are silent presences in real lives. I’m wondering if I taste the cake in a manner similar to the way in which I experienced the Italian Altarpieces, or ‘The Mirror of Judgement.’ It is never possible to know enough. I read in the Serpentine Gallery booklet that on 2nd September Michelangelo Pistoletto ‘…will present a manifesto detailing how his work on time, form and everyday life is grounded in his ongoing study of ethics.’ Frightening! Contemporary commerce and contemporary art seem to inhabit a priestly aura in which they are guardians of the truth of transubstantiation. There was for me too much corrugated cardboard in Michelangelo Pistolotto’s installation, and too much ‘courtesy of the artist..’ and gallery names. The cardboard folds multiplied beyond need, as though the work must not waste the gallery. As with the cake, so with the corrugated card, there is a wish for less. Is it that what you SEE is more than what you get? All the time whilst I write this stuff, I feel a sense of irritation, and a resistance to things. Asda and Pistoletto feel like straitjackets, but a straitjacket I know of my own making. Being open to new experiences does not come easy.
Terms like ‘signifier’ can be a little like Pistolotto’s cardboard, and appear pretentious, but there seems to be a connection between myself and Mr Asda in the possibilities for signification through our respective products. The idea that it is art if you say it is art needs qualification. These arguments have been approached previously (who is qualified etc.?) Rather ,everything can be art insofar as its significance transcends its form. And yet a coherent case has to be made (piece by piece); the bald statement is wonderfully provocative but is only a beginning; some kind of priestly class is necessary. I don’t as yet ,and may never, understand Deleuze on attributes and definitions . (and I can’t find a reference to the source). Round and around in circles, I remain puzzled.
