Article for Winter, 2008,
As curator of “The LACK of desire”, I thought the notions I brought
to viewing the works on this theme set. Nothing was further from the truth (a delusion). The submitted artifacts of Lack
elicited in me other, alternative responses. I realized I, too, was a new viewer to the work, as you will be. My constructs
did not stand, as they shouldn’t.
I submit these humble notes, somewhat indicating my response, in anticipation of yours.
I
yearn to be in Place.
There is an
I also repeatedly visit my mother after my father’s death. I want to share my riches, I believe, to feel some closeness, but wonder if that is it. In any case, she continues to manifest
the hysteria of her floating symptoms of disease and hunger for. Does she miss him? She misses his attention to her symptoms
and this is her loneliness. I end up taking her to more doctors. I find myself as one of her symptoms.
So I look
to images of art, artifacts produced by others that pull me in to the idea of Lack as a palpable entity. Perhaps this is the
drawer. But there is an insidious side to this. As curator I now want to interpret, feed my desire to denude others of
their fantasies, be the interpellator of their frenzy. I will be the arbiter of Lack. I will monitor the safe.
In
the end I want to both be Marnie and Mark.
But this is not Place. Our sense of Lack seems to be directly related to our
developed disjunction with Place through the production of signs. Artifacts are that remnant, but it is the object as sign that
matters; our constant interpretation, our increasing generation of meaning. As an example from the the exhibition, I suggest
two revealers: Jill Magi and Heather Willems. Jill takes the signage of “book” and its entire personal and historic backwash,
and renders the pages out. I feel the possibility, the palpable, unveiled absurdity of the filled page. Heather Willems
approaches from the other end. She fills the page with “I love you” again and again and again, like the ads for sweaters and
boots or the merchandising of religion and green. What we figure is just lust is actually the signage of fetish in overload.
That
is what I see this The Lack of Desire doing: helping to de-fetishize the constructed defective matrix around us. But why do
I feel the need to say “us”? And what do I think is really there? I guess I really just want to gaze with simplicity at
my own fallibility, my silliness, my mortality and with ease accept that Place is just another fetish, seemingly there to take me
from this.