Monday — 01.29.01 — Paige Sarlin with Peter Lasch as Discussant
Comments Off on Monday — 01.29.01 — Paige Sarlin with Peter Lasch as Discussant===========================
Some remnants:
In an effort to add some fragments from previous
meetings. We are adding short descriptions that
were sent out as emails. Before March 2001, the meetings
were shared mainly through a mailing list we maintained.
Eventhough the remnants of correspondences
from 1999-2001 are fragmentary and incomplete,
they give an idea of the kinds of meetings which
were taking place and some of the different questions
and modes involved.
===========================
Monday.1/29 – Paige Sarlin with Peter Lasch as Discussant
CONTENTS:
1. About This Monday (text selected by Paige)
2. Recap from Journalisms (Ed)
______________________________________________
1. About This Monday
Hope many of you can attend tonight’s presentation at 8pm.
The two artists presenting today will be Paige Sarlin and Peter Lasch. Paige’s presentation will focus on a recent body of work (see note below + attached reading). Peter’s invite was informal and less planned (as he generally works on Mondays), so he may just serve as tonight’s discussant or provocateur. Looking forward to what should be an interesting evening. – Rene
Please read the note from Paige which follows:
I am presenting my work tonight at 16 Beaver’s regular monday night reading group— tis extremely short notice for some of you and for others tis just a reminder—-
I have attached a text of Roland Barthes which offers a nice entry into this current body of work— as well as providing a somewhat thin segue from last week’s conversation about Sade and Klossowoski————–
Hope to See you there—
Starts at 8pm……..
Best,
Paige
______________________________________________
2. Recap from Journalisms (Ed)
Ed – 1/29 Reading Group Recap
——————————————————————-
“Journalisms:” or “Our Correspondent:” or “?”
The title and mission of this collective project
is a work in progress. But the general idea is
that we cannot be in all places at all times.
So those who would like to can write a “report”
or “editorial” or “correspondence” to share
experiences for the benefit of others.
——————————————————————-
16 Beaver Reading Group:
Monday’s meeting yielded a strong turnout and dialogue sparked by several weeks of dynamic, even scandalous discussions. Extra special thanks to Paige Sarlin and Peter Lasch for their presentations and to John Menick for navigating the group through Barthes’ and Klossowski’s selections on Fourier and Sade.
In summary: Over the past few weeks, an investigation of utopia that began with David Harvey’s essay “Spaces of Hope,” moved through Barthes’ analysis of Fourier and his notion of pleasure, and a comparative study of Fourier and Sade by Klossowski. During our discussions we explored many applications of these readings, from our individualized experiences to contemporary art to politics. From the dense texts, we gleaned differing things including Fourier’s literary (and sexual) subversion and use of parody. One of our many compelling questions follows: Why is Sade so easily integrated into mainstream culture and not Fourier? In addition, there are ties between the group’s repeated investigations of non-oppositional practices and polemics; and the issues of utopia, pleasure and desecration. Someone suggested, in the spirit of the dialogue, we exchange our dry toast for sticky buns and wear tight leather…
For Monday’s reading and to pick up a thread from recent discussions, Paige forwarded Barthes’ essay ” A Lover’s Disclosure;” Barthes’ uses of pun and poetic language reverberate with Paige’s manipulation of visual metaphor, sign language syntax and fractured narrative. Her “painting tropes” are echoed in Barthes’ many figures of speech. One participant commented on the geometry of the work, evident in the repeated, (though slightly altered), circular daisies. As circles turn in space they form ellipses, thus altering their geometry and the time component for navigating the space. This reinforces a quality of time-lapse and fractured narrative. Autobiographical elements in the works catalyzed a discussion of autobiography (in general), pleasure and self-indulgence. Do self-indulgent qualities of painting affect its relevance? Can autobiographical reference invert to adress universal concerns? Initiating this direction, John queried: Why Paint? He alluded to Rodchenko’s rejection of painting as parasitical and his proclamation that painting is dead. Peter L. suggested painting’s efficacy (or lack thereof) depends on its distribution and circulation. To elucidate this point, he compared Grosz to Heartfield: the more explicit nature of Heartfield’s pamphlet-like visual aesthetic left his works exempt from entartete kunst exhibitions, while Grosz’s work (despite it’s strong, satirical content) was included. Here, the less literal, more metaphorical works were absorbed. Peter W. suggested other media [in this case Jazz’s contribution to Civil Rights] held inherent properties that allow for greater distribution and subversion than painting, whose attributes are easily caught up in issues of property, ownership and advertising. And what of the pleasure of painting from Fourier’s point-of-view?…
Since many of us know of Paige’s political activism, and collaborative interventions, our discussion of her paintings was infused with a series of broader questions, pertaining to contemporary art in general and the line that blurs between art and politics. How can art be an effective political tool? Can art draw connections between people? What is the difference between agitation and propaganda? What of making art for a purely aesthetic experience? Michael R. observed that Paige’s paintings of “Loves Me…Loves Me Not…” evinced a feeling of hope. This provoked more questions regarding hope, innocence and corruption in today’s climate of information, dissection and scrutiny. In a way, Monday’s presentation was a microcosm of the crossroads at the Reading Group, where varied philosophies, politics, occupations and media mix.
Thanks again to Paige for providing the catalyst.
Following his “Formal Conversation and Chance Debate: A Game for All Ages” presented in July of last year, where participants changed their spoken [pronoun] identity according to the roll of a six-sided die, Peter L.’ s presentation this Monday consisted of an open-call for an “imaginary conversation.” He invited each of us to invent or reinvent a prefix, so it’s meaning becomes changed or so it modifies adjacent words differently (forgive my paraphrasing). Please forward questions and ideas to 16 Beaver Group for on-line play.
Monday was a spirited conversation; thanks again to all who participated.
Edward