Showing posts with label Art Writing and Collaboration. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Art Writing and Collaboration. Show all posts

Wednesday, June 24, 2015

Hazard, Viper, Defiance: The Films of John Cohen

Finding Nearly Forgotten Music 



John Cohen's photo of Roscoe Holcomb.

“Can I add something to your mix?” asks John Cohen after I tell him that I’m attending the Big Sky Documentary Film Festival in Missoula, Montana, to write about it. At the time, I was new in town, having just moved there from London, England, and was finding my footing by writing about the place.
“Yes, please,” I reply. After all, this is the man who introduced the great banjo player Roscoe Holcomb to the world, photographed Bob Dylan before anyone else, and was the stills photographer for Robert Frank and Alfred Leslie’s iconic 1959 film Pull My Daisy. Of course I want his feedback.
“What is documentary?” he says, fixing me with a razor-sharp look.
“I think it’s changing at the moment. In flux,” I answer, thinking about the award-winning Canadian interactive documentary Highrise and the other i-docs I’ve recently sat through, headphones clamped over my ears, clicking around screens to unveil stories with no beginning, middle, or end.
“That film tonight,” he says, referring to Alex Gibney’s Going Clear: Scientology and the Prison of Belief, based on the book by Lawrence Wright, “is just so different from my films. It is so objective,” he adds. “I don’t trust objectivity.”
When Cohen was living in New York City in the 1960s, along with Jack Kerouac, the Maysles brothers, and Robert Frank, the idea of authorship and objectivity was being explored and expanded. Cinéma vérité had established limits because it didn’t conceal the presence of a camera, and yet it was understood that trying to erase the director’s presence resulted in another series of formal problems. True objectivity is an elusive beast.
“I want to feel the filmmaker in the film,” Cohen says.
“Yes,” I say and fall silent.

John Cohen holds up one of the many photos he took of Bob Dylan.

The work of John Cohen is all about experience and has nothing to do with the mess of facts available on our iPhones. But now that we’re firmly in the age of information, documentaries have become more concerned with delivering “content” than with sharing a human response to a subject. And with the rise of i-docs, choice is what it’s all about, allowing viewers to select preprogrammed narratives at the touch of a button. We are all authors now, as we navigate the brave new world of interactive documentaries.
Cohen points to the bluegrass-tinged string trio Scrapyard Lullaby performing on a makeshift stage and says, “I’m going to be playing with them on Sunday night.”
It takes me a second to remember that Cohen is 82 and, with Mike Seeger and Tom Paley, a founding member of the New Lost City Ramblers. Formed in 1958, the Ramblers ignited the old-time music revival by bringing the rural vernacular music of the South to audiences whose knowledge of folk music didn’t stretch beyond the Kingston Trio. Not only did they bring the music of the people back to the people, they also managed to get near-forgotten performers to play live around the country, sharing the stage with the likes of Clarence “Tom” Ashley, the Stanley Brothers, Maybelle Carter, Elizabeth Cotten, Dock Boggs, and Roscoe Holcomb.
The New Lost City Ramblers were very much on the scene when Bob Dylan arrived in Greenwich Village from Minnesota. Cohen told me of a clip he’d found of Dylan, which he’d filmed on a rooftop in 1962. He was testing the camera that he and Robert Frank had just bought from the Maysles brothers in order to make his first film, The High Lonesome Sound(1963). The sound recorder was broken, so the clip was silent. Over two minutes of raw footage, Dylan seems to channel Charlie Chaplin as he playfully tries on a variety of hats plucked from his guitar case.
Recall any photo you’ve seen of Dylan from the ’60s, whether he’s smoking or not, walking down a street or sitting in a loft, and there’s a good chance it came from the camera of John Cohen. Unsurprisingly, Dylan has a huge amount of respect for Cohen and the New Lost City Ramblers. In his Chronicles, he writes: “Everything about them appealed to me…. All their songs vibrated with some dizzy, portentous truth. I’d stay with The Ramblers for days…. For me, they had originality in spades, were men of mystery on all counts. I couldn’t listen to them enough.”
* * *
My first exchange with Cohen reverberated long after that opening-night party at Big Sky. It turned out to be the first of many rushed conversations over several days, between screenings of his films and over cups of coffee in the lobby of the Wilma Theatre, or sitting by the stage at the Top Hat in Missoula.
The High Lonesome Sound has become a touchstone for musical and cinematic authenticity—the cinematic equivalent of Alan Lomax’s and Harry Smith’s field recordings. Cohen makes it clear from the beginning that for the subjects of his film, which was shot in eastern Kentucky, “Music is the celebration of the hard life…. The home music and the church singing are a way of holding on to the old dignity. Music is not an escape. It gives a way of making life possible to go on.”
The film’s images possess and haunt the viewer. A miner, smoking a cigarette, crouches into a wagon as it delivers him underground. What looks like fog rolling across lush, ancient forest turns out to be coal smoke. Children play in wheelbarrows and dogs scamper in the background as men, smeared in soot, wander home from the mines. Girls in pretty dresses skip through the grass. In the Holiness Church of God, men and women cry out and feel the Holy Spirit as it absolves them, comforts them, and releases them from life’s pain. Flannery O’Connor’s hardscrabble world is momentarily given life.
The music that Cohen captures—whether the singers in church or Roscoe Holcomb on his porch or the Shepherd family around their dinner table—is the connective tissue that links the mines, church, and people in this part of America, which in 1963 already looks and feels very forgotten. Towns with names like Hazard, Lynch, Viper, and Defiance, and a lane called Lonesome Mountain Road, all make an appearance, the names themselves pointing to a past and present as far removed from Greenwich Village as possible.
Holcomb, who had never been filmed or recorded until he met Cohen, talks of his music as being spiritual—not in the sense of a New Age seeker, but rather of touching something beyond the realm of the seen or the everyday. His banjo playing, he explains, “is a gift, and I believe God gave it to me. And I believe it enough to where I’m going to let him take it.”
His face is serious and thin, marked by lines etched in a pattern of worry, work, and sorrow. It’s the countenance of William S. Burroughs drained of self-consciousness. Holcomb’s penetrating voice tells of a hard life and a deep soul. One of the finest banjo players to have ever lived, he speaks like a philosopher and sings from a place that seems almost untouchable. The songs themselves are old, and yet in their purity and simplicity they come across as timeless.
According to Cohen, the scene shot in the Holiness Church of God in Delphia, Kentucky, almost never happened. In fact, a lot almost never happened in this film. Cohen went to the church every Sunday for five weeks, asking if he could film a service. And every Sunday, he was told no. On the last day, he went to the church and told the congregation he was leaving. “Oh, c’mon in,” they said. “You’re one of us now.” He filmed using only available light, and the scenes have a powerful intimacy, as if we were right there with the preacher and the men and women speaking in tongues, receiving the Holy Spirit, convulsing with passion for Christ. They don’t seem to be aware that they’re being filmed, such is Cohen’s sensitivity and his ability to be present while remaining unobtrusive. The hand of the director is there, but it is unseen. It works like magic. To answer his earlier question to me, “This is documentary.”
Seven years after The High Lonesome Sound, Cohen made The End of an Old Song (1970), about unaccompanied ballad singers in North Carolina. One of the greatest of these was Dillard Chandler, from the town of Sodom. The film opens with Chandler in his spartan cabin, saying he isn’t too lonely because every now and then he goes to town and takes a woman out and maybe keeps her for a day or two. Chandler tells us, “My address is Route 3,” and then adds that he has no mailbox and no use for mail. This is a land where people have no bank accounts. It is impossible to imagine, in our hyperconnected age, such acute physical isolation—and yet, for all our connectivity, many of us also live alienated lives.
In one extraordinary scene, Chandler goes out to find a companion for the night. He meets a dark-haired woman in a bar. We can’t hear their conversation, but in a voice-over he tells us, “All my good times are past and over.” Then he stares at the jukebox, which has been playing Merle Haggard and George Hamilton IV. “Is this the future?” he seems to ask. When the woman he’s been talking to slips away to sit with another man, Chandler’s face is that of a character from one of the ancient ballads he sings with such longing. This is a document of life being lived as art.
Cohen tells me a story about being the “good little filmmaker”: After he finished The End of an Old Song, he went to North Carolina to show it to the people who were in it. The film started, and Cohen noticed that Chandler wasn’t in the audience. He became worried that he was portraying Chandler in a bad light to his community. But when Chandler talks in the film of getting a girl for a night or two, men in the audience began shouting out, “Dillard, you tell it like it is!” This is also documentary.
To wrap up the festival’s weekend retrospective of his work, Cohen took to the stage with Scrapyard Lullaby. They played “Jenny Jenkins,” “The Girl and the Snake,” and “The Coo-Coo Bird,” among other traditional tunes. He told me he was going to sing a song he had written in Missoula 40 years ago, when he was playing with the New Lost City Ramblers. He had been here for some kind of “cultural event” (spoken in the tone of someone who is not in favor of manufactured culture) and was taken to see a church on a nearby reservation. He said he couldn’t sing the song here all those years ago, but felt that Missoula was probably ready for it now. “I liked the Indians, but I hated that church,” he told me.
Cohen sang the song a cappella. It tells the story of how the church had been painted with holy scenes. Someone realized that the figures in the paintings were white—not a native face to be seen. So a painter was brought in to add some Indians: They were portrayed as those writhing in the flames of hell. All these years later, Cohen’s anger is still palpable. Yet this anger somehow never dominates his work. It simmers quietly, giving his work its urgency and potency, even as his films and songs convey a respect for the ability to weather injustice and heartbreak.
At the very end of the last evening, someone asked Cohen to name his favorite creative act.
“Inhaling and exhaling,” he replied without missing a beat.
To me, that fleet-footed response captures what John Cohen’s work is all about: not just being alive, but being alive to all the possibilities around him. What more is there?

John Cohen's photo of Jack Eliot and Woody Guthrie in 1961.




Thursday, July 17, 2014

Review of Mirror at Frith Street Gallery

Portraiture in the 

Age of the Selfie: 

Mirror at Frith Street Gallery

Margaux Williamson, I thought I saw the whole universe (Scarlett Johansson in Versace), oil on canvas, 30 x 40 in.
Margaux Williamson, I thought I saw the whole universe (Scarlett Johansson in Versace), oil on canvas, 30 x 40 in.
Frith Street Gallery is a large, airy space: polished concrete floors, rough concrete pillars, white walls and lots of natural light. I walk around the summer show and wonder how to make sense of what I am seeing. It is a group show called Mirror. Ostensibly it is about portraiture and yet it is about so much more. It is portraiture in the age of the selfie: portraits of the vernacular, of the ordinary and of the extra-ordinary. It is not portraiture commissioned by wealthy patrons to big themselves up. These are portraits from the inside, from the point of view of the people who make them. The four artists in this show, Fiona Banner, Mohamed Bourouissa, Victor Man and Margaux Williamson, ricochet off each other. There is a dialogue of sorts – a very 21st century dialogue – of texts and ideas echoing and conflating with old-fashioned conversations.
The first piece you see upon entering is Fiona Banner’s eponymous work, Mirror(2007). This very short film plays on a monitor so small you need to get up close. You find yourself peering at the actress Samantha Morton who is reading what appears to be a poem:

Nails shell pink…
Thin papery arches exposed …
Arse moon white…
Dusty hair …
Magnolia hips …
Hand, darkest full stop …
Tulip face …
Eyes like jewels, a comma above each.

The words are Banner’s from a written life drawing of Morton. It is poetry as striptease. The language with its originality, playfulness and awareness of formal elements (notice the full stops and the commas) is a recurring language in Banner’s work. Morton hadn’t read the text before stepping onto the podium. Her delivery is simultaneously halting and moving. She is not only baring herself, she is baring herself as someone who has been seen, uncovered and remade into words. Like so much of Banner’s work, the layers can be peeled and unpeeled and still there is more to be revealed. The final twist in this tale is that Banner and Morton had agreed not to film the performance. However, an email appeared from someone who said they were setting up their camera to film something else and managed to capture some of Morton’s reading. This snippet feels illicit and fragile – it is a portrait we feel we should not be allowed to see but the voyeur in us is utterly seduced.
Just beyond this, are four small works on paper by the Romanian-born Victor Man. These are simple pencil drawings of women’s heads, two of which are double-sided. Taking one off the wall to look at its reverse, I am reminded of Victorian letters in which the correspondents wrote upside down between existing lines so as to save on postage. There is economy to these portraits in scale and in execution. The other piece by Man in the show is Pagan Space (2010) an oil painting of an exploded pagan idol. The falseness of idolatry is exposed as the artist removes all solidity, except that of the oil on canvas itself. The colours here, in line with the sombre palette of this show, are muted and earthy. Molecules or globules float upwards with echoes of talismans in the background. Victor Man’s work displays a deceptive elegance which is shot through every piece in this exhibition.
Perhaps unsurprisingly for a show about portraiture, paintings share equal space with photography and conceptual work. The other painter in the show is Margaux Williamson. Her fresh and almost naïve canvases belie a profound simplicity. In I thought I saw the whole universe (Scarlett Johansson in Versace), we are confronted with the actress’s sequined torso refigured as a monochrome night sky. An eerie incandescence emanates from within this painting. The idea of our world being overseen by a night sky populated by both celebrities and celestial bodies is both very profound and very much of the moment. Pop culture here becomes an homage to painting. It is a very beautiful object, which does not rely on irony or artifice to create its many levels of meaning. There is both depth and superficiality in Williamson’s work. She is an artist with the ability to uncannily defamiliarise the ordinary, making it extra-ordinary.
Williamson’s four other works in Mirror similarly employ titles that are like very short short stories. In They blamed the devil for everything, a hand awkwardly strains, caresses, touches a neck. What act of voodoo are we about to witness? Or perhaps it has already happened. Her titles function as a way into her subjects from another perspective to that of the visual. She is stalking her subject like prey and pinning it down from the inside with words and from the outside with paint.
The literary quality of Williamson’s work riffs nicely with Fiona Banner’s. In Banner’s installation Life Drawing Drawings we are taunted by a Perspex display case stuffed with jumbled up dummy books, each one with hand-drawn reproductions of the covers and spines (spines!) of life drawing manuals. This piece is all about desire. The desire to get at these books and touch them, the desire of artists to capture the human body, to reproduce our flesh and make it last forever. I see a connection here with Williamson’s I thought I saw the whole universe – in their exploration of time and desire and intimacy.
The only colour in this generally muted show comes from Banner’s The Vanity Press, a neon ISBN number, hand-modelled by the artist. The number – and therefore the piece itself – is registered as a publication, cleverly conflating and separating the idea of an actual object with the object itself. What else is a portrait other than an attempt at embodying something (a person’s face, a typeface) through its representation?
The fourth artist in Mirror is the Algerian-born Mohamed Bourouissa. His small photo series, Les Voleurs (The Thieves), 2014, has been pasted directly onto the wall like ellipses in a very sad fresco of disenfranchisement. The artist has documented the faces of people who have been caught shoplifting across Brooklyn. These are anti-portraits of those who have been frozen in a desperate, defining act. Their expressions are angry, resigned, sad, hungry, zoned-out and bleached out with flash. Most are photographed holding the objects they have been caught with red-handed: beer and soda are prevalent along with unidentified packaged goods. This is the other side of the consumer society. The one we try not to see. Yet here are the faces confronting us with their need. One is particular haunting: an elderly African American woman, hunched, looks up at us as if not understanding how she got where she is and how we are where we are.Why? she seems to ask us. And we have no answer for her.
This is what art needs to do. To ask questions even if answers elude us. This show is an elegant and witty take on our chaotic, digital world in an age where documenting it is often confused with living it. The curator, Ann Marie Peña, has created a small and intelligent microcosm which explores questions of longing, belonging and the act of making portraits in the age of the selfie. The echoes from these artists who have come at the subject from four very different angles converge to create a visionary ensemble. You can hear the echo in that large, airy room long after you leave. The conversation continues without you.
Mirror continues at the Frith Street Gallery until August 16. See the gallery website for more information.

Tuesday, July 15, 2014

Interview with Margaux Williamson

talking to all the smartest people in the world

A chat with Margaux Williamson at Frith Street Gallery, London, by Joanna Pocock.


One of the last things Margaux Williamson asks before we go our separate ways is whether she should wear heels tonight.
“Not super high heels,” she corrects herself. “Boots with a bit of a heel. Or should I wear my Keds?” she asks looking down at her orange-clad feet.
“Boots,” I reply.
“And a dress?”
“Yes, go for the dress. It’s a big night for you,” I say as if she is someone I have known for years.
I have come to Frith Street Gallery to interview Margaux Williamson about her work. She has a talent for throwing questions back at you and going round in verbal and mental circles that lead to unexpected places. This is less of an interview and more of a ping-pong match played with several balls at once. My notebook, in which I have been scribbling our exchange, is full of sentences that trail off only to lead to a completely different idea.
I start by asking her about how she crosses so many boundaries. The artist otherwise known as Margaux in Sheila Heti’s ‘novel from life’, “How Should A Person Be?” makes films, performs, writes film reviews and manifestos, but mostly nowadays she paints. This crossing of genres is integral to her trajectory as an artist: she spent a decade painting solidly, concentratedly. These paintings “became windows offering more space, a way out.” After these ten years of painting solidly, she felt she got somewhere “with her hands and in her mind”. This freed her up to experiment with other media and allowed her to make more sense and reposition herself. After her return to painting she “felt so much smarter”. She began answering an important question: How do you get the limitless depth of painting while allowing it to be a concrete object. Tying together these two opposing forces became for Williamson a “challenge and a pleasure”.
This distinction between her hands and her mind is one she makes frequently. I interpret her hands as a metonymy for her craft and her instinct. Williamson’s  are those of an artist who can take the most mundane object – a banana, a sofa, a door, a tree, a painting we have seen dozens of times – and defamiliarize it.


This deftness is apparent in one of the works on show here, I thought I saw the whole universe (Scarlett Johansson in Versace), in which the actress’s sequined torso is refigured in oil on canvas as the night sky. This piece is both Blake’s world in a grain of sand and Doctor Seuss’s Horton Hears a Who. We stand in front of it together and gaze at the black and white, star-like surface, the thin arms, the incandescence that emanates from within the paint itself. Williamson tells me that making this one was like “finding an equation”. By tethering her ideas to the real world, she can go deeper, she says. The idea of our world being overseen by a night sky, populated by both celebrities and celestial bodies is somehow very perceptive and very much of the moment. And most importantly, it is a very beautiful object, which does not rely on irony or artifice to create its many levels of meaning. Williamson says of her paintings that they are “honest, straight up, so simple and direct.” I would add the qualifier, “deceptively”. Accessing simplicity is one of the most difficult things to pull off.

Williamson’s recent show at the Mulherin + Polard gallery in New York consisted of a suite of forty-six paintings shown under the title I Could See Everything, with an accompanying book. These pieces range from small intimate canvases less than a foot square to large, wall-sized pieces. Her palette tends towards earthy tones and ochres as if she is commanding the ingredients under our very feet. Five works from the New York show are in London for the Frith Street Gallery summer show. I ask her how she and the show’s curator Ann Marie Peña extricated them from such a seamless body of work. Williamson trusted Peña to choose the pieces. She approached this recontextualisation as a way of looking at her paintings afresh.
Williamson’s work is accessible. She is keen to be inclusive. “Art is about communication,” she tells me. “You don’t need to be in art, or academia or the commercial world to get it. It’s not about dumbing down; it’s about talking to all the smartest people in the world.” It’s funny she should use that analogy as I feel her work is a constant dialogue between herself, her audience and all the painters whose work she draws from.
“It’s like you are having a great conversation with Edouard Manet, Gerhardt Richter, Leon Golub, Philip Guston…. But unlike so many artists you are open about crediting them. I like this.”
“That’s such a nice thing to say,” she smiles.


One of her paintings, sadly not in the London show, We painted the women and children first (Gerhard Richter’s painting Dead) is a version of the well-known Richter work: a head, horizontal, a black slash across its white throat. Williamson’s however is less like a painted photograph and more like a painted painting. And with the addition of her title she repositions it – as a woman and feminist living in the world now. It is not a critique of the great German artist, but a riposte. He may have painted women, like so many other painters through the centuries, but what about saving them? There is a limit to art, Williamson seems to be saying. The use of the plural pronoun doesn’t let Williamson off the hook either. If there is culpability, she is the first to hold up her hand. There is an honesty at work here, which Williamson sums up by saying she doesn’t mind being “so open that she gets dirty.”
As a writer, I can’t help but comment on the titles of her paintings. They are like short stories, I tell her. It is as if the titles and the paintings function like twin spotlights illuminating the same subject only from different angles.
“You’ve given me goose bumps,” she laughs.
The titles from the works in this show only illustrate my point:
I made that same drawing too
They blamed the devil for everything
Study (living room)
 I could see everything
I thought I saw the whole universe (Scarlett Johansson in Versace)

     
Another piece that isn’t in this show has the intriguing title: We loved the world and the things in the world. It is a portrait of a young woman crying. The woman looks like Williamson but it might not be. I find it moving that the title is written in the past tense. The loss has already been felt. The world has gone. Is it about climate change, species disappearing or perhaps a woman simply getting older and losing parts of herself? Williamson says she wrote many of her titles in the past tense without being aware of it until well after the fact. “My intuition is smarter than other bits. But I’ve learned to combine them,” she says. “Art is equal parts intuition, craft and conceptual.”
I ask Williamson about how her paintings might function like sentences in a longer narrative.
“Not really a narrative,” she says. “I am more of a map-maker.”
Her paintings are dots on a map. They are not linear as in a conventional story, but exist simultaneously in space and time and yet are utterly distinct places, exactly like destinations on a map.
“My paintings are so helpful, they are like little arrows,” she says thoughtfully. And I know what she means. They point towards a life, a space, a place outside of themselves whilst simultaneously existing as immovable objects and documents of her hand and mind in the moment she made them.
She needs to get ready for the private view. We say goodbye and I walk around the gallery making notes. After a few minutes, Williamson reappears in her boots and a black dress.
“That dress is perfect,” I say.
Williamson smiles.
“It’s shiny like Scarlett’s,” I tell her. “You are wearing one of your paintings.”
She laughs and turns away to get ready for the night ahead. She is an artist who wears her work well.
Margaux Williamson is one of four artists, along with Fiona Banner, Mohamed Bourouissa and Victor Man, in Mirror, the Frith Street Gallery’s summer show in London.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Joanna Pocock is a Canadian writer living in London. She contributes film, literature and art reviews to various online magazines and writes fiction. This is her second piece for 3:AM. 

Thursday, December 05, 2013

My Interview with Author Susana Medina in 3:AM Magazine

debunking the anxiety of influence

Joanna Pocock and Susana Medina in conversation.


Joanna Pocock‘s sagacious review of Susana Medina‘s Red Tales appeared recently in Litro. Here’s a conversation between the two writers about Medina’s recently published collection of short stories.

Joanna Pocock: I see elements of Virginia Woolf (particularly Orlando), Anaïs Nin, Jean Rhys, Marguerite Duras, and Borges in your work. People have also compared you to JG Ballard. Do you see any of these influences? Do you think of your writing as being part of a linear collective of writers?

Susana Medina: Not so much a linear collective of writers, but a cluster of different literary traditions as well as other fields. We are all clusters of everything we’ve encountered and within these clusters there are points or areas of density because there’s something there that concerns us on some level or other. What I see are affinities, friends. Through the work of others you’re mapping your own DNA. I have read most of the writers you mention though I haven’t read Anaïs Nin, although, of course, I know of her work. And of Rhys I’d love to read more because I’ve read so little of her.

JP: Tell me more about your processes and influences when it comes to your writing.

SM:  As far as I’m concerned every book has its own process. The process for Red Tales was to first gather a large collection of weird experiences to draw from. It was a way of entering different realities and having fun. I was drawn to extreme people at the time and some of my characters are partly an extension of what I imagined these people could have done or said. So, I would say my main influence was life. A large part of the work consisted in substantial daydreaming. To listen, to look at things and details and follow the logic of the landscape; to look at puddles, at ashtrays, at interesting objects.
Deep memory is a polyphony of voices. If you’re talking about literary influences, everything you read might end up in your work whether you’re aware of it or not. At the same time the reader brings their own readings into the reading of a new work and might identify echoes the writer never interacted directly with. When you read an author, let’s say author X, you might be reading so many other authors indirectly, and all these authors were in turn reading other authors that you as a reader might too have read. So, you, as a reader, find these echoes there that perhaps author X never intended. It’s all really promiscuous and confusing; an orgy of voices making up a unique voice. Reading might be one of the most promiscuous activities as you get to be intimate with all these voices replayed in your head with your own voice.

JP: I particularly sensed traces of Virginia Woolf’s Orlando, with her gender-neutral hero/heroine who time-travels as a male and female character.

SM: I suppose you’re talking mainly about ‘The Space of the Tangible Hallucination’.  It’s interesting: you see elements of Orlando that would never have occurred to me. Orlando is a work I really enjoyed and I first read it in English, then in a Spanish translation by Borges. It’s so remote in my mind. It’s a great work, I’m glad you mention it. The film is good too. I wonder whether the elements you see are more related to the translation than to the original. Rosie Marteu, the translator, might have brought in all these other voices. There are always blind spots when it comes to seeing your own work objectively. Of course, some of the concerns voiced in Orlando were also my concerns. Maybe forgetting is as good as remembering when it comes to writing. At the time of writing Red Tales I was really interested in gender issues; androgyny as a way of bypassing gender, and I was attracted to androgynous people. If there was something I wanted to be as an adolescent it was to be androgynous, biologically speaking, which was impossible. I think this came via Patti Smith and David Bowie. And so I became interested in androgyny as a way of being in the world; as politics.

JP: That is really interesting. In some ways you are taking Woolf’s work further. She was interested in looking at the limits of our gender; in seeing what was open or closed to men and women. Whereas you are coming at gender more as something to be transcended: that we can go beyond male/female into an androgyny or even another gender altogether. As a young woman I wanted to be a man and I shopped in the boys’ department of stores. I lived in boys’ clothes until I was in my mid-twenties.

SM: It’s lucky to be able to pass off as whatever gender; it opens up new realms.

JP: We’ve gone off track. Tell me more about your influences and how they shape your work.

SM: A writer is always a great reader and when you look for echoes, there might be hundreds and hundreds, but then there’s the presence of psyches that somewhere echo your own. I find so many writers inspiring. Marguerite Duras is a good friend, I’ve re-read her work several times; I should think the authors that matter in the end are the ones you re-read. Duras is the writing master of desire; Red Tales was very much about the chaos of desire. In this respect, the work of Kathy Acker was an eye-opener for me. She might have been into Anaïs Nin, which I then surreptitiously and unknowingly inherited. The Angela Carter of The Bloody Chamber was a revelation. Deborah Levy is also fascinating on desire; I came across her work a long time ago and she’s remained a favourite. At the time I was really into female visual artists. In ‘Kafka and his Precursors’ Borges said: “The fact is that every writer creates his own precursors”. Borges was, as usual, so clever. It’s true.

JP: And there is much Borges in your book. I thought of him immediately when I read the ‘Note’ that opens your collection. As for Anaïs Nin, I suppose it was the unquenchable desires in the book that reminded me of her and also the epistolary format you use in ‘The Farewell Letter.’ She was a mistress of letter-writing and diaries.

SM: ‘Note’, the introductory note at the beginning of Red Tales, which was written recently as opposed to most of the rest of the book, was a homage of sorts to Borges’s antics. He used to write prefaces to all his books speaking about all these other writers, a hilarious and playful modesty that was another way of his of creating a labyrinth. I spent many years writing about Borges’s stories so he’s more than welcome to turn up whenever he wants. In ‘Note’ I wrote about the book’s avatars and tried to place my work because I felt some readers might not know where I was coming from. After I’d written it I thought that I could have also mentioned Beckett, Julio Cortázar – who I think was a much better reader of Virginia Woolf than I have been – and of course, Marguerite Duras (I probably didn’t because I had already mentioned them elsewhere);  and Calvino, for the spirit of adventure and narrative swiftness, and Lynch; and Walt Whitman because he was the poet who turned me into a writer. In the end I would have liked to have mentioned all these writers whose work gave me so much. It’s like having a party; you want to invite all your best friends. In relation to the tradition of the fragment, I was really interested in the truisms of Jenny Holzer and Barbara Kruger. I’m not sure I’d read Antonin Artaud’s Les Cahiers de Rodez at the time, where he deals with the unsayable, but this book is a very interesting example of the fragment conveying inner chaos.

JP: Funnily enough Artaud’s first published work was a collection of letters between himself and Jacques Rivière, the editor of the French literary magazine La Nouvelle Revue Française. Artaud had sent him some stories, which Rivière never published. Instead he wrote to Artaud asking him to explain his work and a wonderful correspondence eventually turned into a book. Writers and editors should do more of this!

SM: Definitely, though editors seem so overworked these days. The blogosphere might be a good place for that kind of exchange.

JP: Tell me more about your fascination with the fragment.

SM: The point of departure for my first novel, an anti-novel, was the most minimalist Beckett; it was largely made out of fragments. So I started tuning into writers who had turned the fragment into a genre. I felt the fragment was more capable of conveying interiority; of grasping the timelessness of interiority. Blanchot’s The Writing of Disaster was right at the inception of Red Tales. I was discovering so many writers of fragments, like Pessoa, a poet of extreme interiority, and the Handke diaries and the Handke of Wings of Desire; and Iain Sinclair.  There should be a section in bookshops called ‘Fragment’. Red Tales was a continuation of my insistence on the fragment, but also a reconciliation with narrative.

JP: When discussing the fragment one must not forget the Queen of fragments: Sappho herself. There is a wonderful translation of her work by the Canadian poet Anne Carson. It’s a must-read for all lovers of the fragment.
Back to Red Tales. Before I’d read it I’d seen Steward Home’s comparison of you and JG Ballard. Do you see this in your work? I personally wouldn’t have thought of it, but I can see it now.

SM: Ballard’s work fascinates me and I often speak and post about it; so many people associate me with Ballard. I hadn’t read Ballard when I wrote Red Tales, which doesn’t preclude it from being Ballardian because there are elements there; like sexuality displaced into weird situations, objects or architecture, which are there in my work. Let’s say we’re both interested in the psychopathology of everyday life; in psychoanalysis and surrealism. Also, in many of his stories Ballard happens to describe the landscape of my childhood: sand dunes and modern architecture. And that’s why I became so interested in his work and he’s such a good friend.

JP: How important is character to you? I was wondering as I read these stories whether you start with a character and extrapolate from there. Or whether the ideas for your stories come more from situations, or even abstract ideas.

SM: I thought character wasn’t that important but the characters are obviously there in my work and they contain the kernels of images that lead to abstract ideas. Red Tales was fundamentally about the image; entering ideas through the image. I wanted to push the story into a different direction. I had this idea of interweaving fragments and narrative; of poetry and narrative and the image coming to the forefront. I was fascinated by art and installations and even saw writing as a cheaper way of building these spaces. It was also very much about processing experiences.
As a child I loved this TV series, which wasn’t shown in the UK: Pippi Longstocking (dreamt up by Swedish author Astrid Lindgren). She was a proto-punk girl so strong she could lift her own horse. She was eccentric and fun; she was definitively a formative experience. The tradition of the picaresque, which is a very Spanish tradition, is also something that I’m very pleased to have inherited.

JP: Yes, we had that series in Canada, where I grew up and I also had the books, which I adored. I just read it to my daughter who is five and was amazed at its anarchy. I hadn’t remembered it being so extreme: such a call to arms! It’s wonderful. From Pippi Longstocking back to Red Tales.

SM: There are a few puns and jokes that are untranslatable, and that is just the way it is. Going back to androgyny, when I wrote about Pink Panther as the symbol for the next millennium, in Spanish it’s called La Pantera Rosa, so, it’s a feminine name and that is lost in the English translation. Pink Panther is a male character who happens to be pink and who in Latin languages has a feminine name. So, for me it was a symbol of androgyny itself.

JP: That’s interesting. I didn’t know that. In some ways the untranslatability of this image/icon is a metaphor for some of what is in the stories themselves.

SM: Yes, it’s interesting. We’ll have to make sure a lot of people read this exchange.

JP: I forgot to say in my last email to you that I see some of Slavenca Drakulić in your work. Have you read The Taste of a Man? It is a remarkable book about unquenchable passions and love as a consuming, elemental force. There is nothing ‘safe’ about the sex in this book, which was something I also noted in your stories. Drakulić was accused of being a ‘witch’ – I am not making this up – by the government in her native Croatia and moved to Sweden for some time. Her book As If I Am Not There about the rape of women during the Bosnian war is almost too harrowing to read. She also writes non-fiction. You would love her!

SM: This is the first time I’ve heard of her; would love to read her. You seem very strong on female writers, are there any writers who you feel have shaped your work?
JP: Oh goodness. My turn is it? Well, as this exchange is about your book Red Tales, I will keep my answer brief. Growing up in the seventies in the Canadian suburbs I felt a lot of anger about the treatment of the women I saw around me. I once asked my English Professor – the incredibly named Milton Wilson – who taught Renaissance English at the University of Toronto, what sort of work I could do once I got my degree. He looked at me as if I was insane and said that after I graduated I would of course get my ‘MRS’. It took me a few moments to understand what he was saying: I would end up getting married anyway and becoming an MRS, so frankly it didn’t matter what I studied. I was furious. But in the early eighties you just had to take this stuff. So, I naturally gravitated towards writers who were as angry as I was.
Virginia Woolf was paramount to me as she managed to channel her anger into the most challenging and formally inventive art. Charlotte Brontë and many of the Victorians, such as Mrs Gaskell and Elizabeth Barrett Browning were also very important to me as women and writers. One cannot really call George Sand a ‘Victorian’ but she was someone I looked to as a model for how to live and write; Colette as well. As you say, the writers one loves become friends. All these women informed not simply my writing but the decisions I made as a woman travelling through a world I felt was antagonistic towards me and my desires. I looked to them as role models. George Sand was a cross-dressing bisexual, never wanted to marry and when she did have a child she abandoned it. Elizabeth Barrett Browning didn’t have a child until she was forty-three, and Mrs Gaskell championed the rights of prostitutes. And of course there was George Eliot living in sin with a married man. These were the women I looked to for advice. We think we are so ‘modern’ and forward-looking but the Victorians did it all!
And, yes, Kathy Acker was someone I admired greatly. I once saw her read with William Burroughs at the University of Toronto. It was amazing such a conservative and misogynistic institution could have scheduled such an event. It was truly an evening to remember. I almost felt there was a sense of the baton being passed from the elderly Burroughs to the spiky young female writer before my very eyes. She is missed.

SM: Yes, anger.  We’ll have to do a more general exchange about how centuries of sexism has affected women’s concerns when it comes to writing and the arts.  I was really angry when I came across The Vida Count, as there’s still a glaring problem when it comes to women writers being reviewed and fairly represented.

JP: I have really enjoyed this exchange. Thank you, Susana. May there be many more such exchanges between writers.

ABOUT THE AUTHORS

Joanna Pocock has a Masters in Creative Writing from Bath Spa University. She has been shortlisted for the 2013 Bath short story award, the 2012 Mslexia short story competition and the Lightship International first novel award. In 2010 she won joint first place in the Segora short story competition, which she went on to judge in 2011. Some of her stories have appeared in Riptide and Cooldog. Her story ‘The Road to Napanee’ will be published in Love on the Road, an anthology of short stories, which will be appearing in November 2013. ‘The Woman in the Cupboard’ will be appearing in an anthology of new writing published by Hearst Magazines. She teaches creative writing at Central St. Martins and also works as a freelance copy-editor for a variety of publishers.

Susana Medina is the author of Red Tales (bilingual edition, 2012, co-translated with Rosie Marteau) and Philosophical Toys (Dalkey Archive Press, 2014) – offspring of which are the praised short films Buñuel’s Philosophical Toys and Leather-bound Stories (co-directed with Derek Ogbourne). Her other books are the poetry and aphorisms collection Souvenirs del Accidente (2004) and BorgeslandA voyage through the infinite, imaginary places, labyrinths, Buenos Aires and other psychogeographies and figments of space (2006). She has been awarded The Max Aub International Short Story Prize and is the recipient of a writing grant from the Arts Council of England, for her novel Spinning Days of Night.  Her story ‘Oestrogen’, translated by Rosie Marteau, will be featured in Best European Fiction, 2014, Dalkey Archive. Medina has published a number of essays on literature, art, cinema and photography, and curated various well-received international art shows in abandoned spaces.

For the real virtual piece go to: 

Why I Write: Article for Good Housekeeping



Joanna Pocock, one of our writers from the Bath Short Story Award asks the question, 'Why do I write?'

I didn’t ask myself this question when I picked up a pen and scribbled my first poem at the age of eight. As a child I wrote because it was fun and it passed the time. I was the youngest of seven children, but there was a five-year age gap between myself and the sister above me, so I was often alone. The characters in the stories I created kept me company. Now however, I write in order to make sense of the world. I write because it is the only way for me to know what I think about anything. My own thoughts surprise me when I unscramble them onto the page. After reading something I have written, I often say to myself, 'Oh, so that’s what I think.' The writing gives shape to the idea.
For me there is little difference between writing fiction and non-fiction. Both require discipline, the moulding of a story, strong characters and both need a solid formal framework. Every fiction contains reality and every piece of non-fiction contains elements of pure fiction. This is unavoidable because writers like to tell stories, and not one writer I know (myself included) would ever let something as boring as the truth get in the way of a good story.
I don’t try and change the world through writing. Journalism does a better job of this. So, I try and entertain my readers rather than lecture them, although some issues burn so deeply within, that they can’t help but come out. Feminism for instance probably shines through every word I have ever written. If it weren’t for the women before me demanding equality and emancipation, I would be peeling potatoes and darning socks right now (I do both of these things, but thankfully not exclusively).
I write also because I like a challenge. Being a writer is not easy: there is little to no money in it, and it requires time, a lot of it. The average novel takes seven years to write, and those seven years are guaranteed to be lonely. One has to be content eating lots of potatoes and wearing darned socks (see above). The thing with being a writer is that everything works against you, so you need to be stubborn. You need to be one of those people who opens the door you have been told to keep closed. You have to be curious and willing to make mistakes that can land you in trouble. To be a writer you need to feel you have no alternative. Writing for me is like holding an ice cube onto a bruised forehead: it heals the hurt with a new kind of pain, but ultimately it gets rid of that darned pounding in your skull.

Joanna Pocock has a Masters in Creative Writing from Bath Spa University. She teaches creative writing at Central St Martin’s and works as a freelance book editor.


to see the article in full go to:
http://www.goodhousekeeping.co.uk/news/bath-short-story-award-why-do-i-write-by-joanna-pocock 

Thursday, October 03, 2013

Response to work by Melanie Manchot, Published in Querformat, 2012



Melanie Manchot, a London-based artist approached me in 2012 to write a response to the subject of kissing. A subject she has put at the centre of some of her films and photographs. 
The following text was published alongside a piece of her writing and photographs from her L.A. Pictures, 2000 series (http://www.melaniemanchot.net/category/l-a-pictures/). It can be found in Querformat, issue number 5, 2012.

A Look at Kissing from L’Age D’Or (Luis Bunuel, 1930)

Still from Luis Bunuel's
L'Age D'Or
I
Two scorpions fight in the sand. Or are they kissing? A rat is killed by the sting (or is it the kiss) of the scorpion. A man grinds a beetle into dust with his shoe. We are more powerful than insects, or so we like to think. We are the only animals who know how to kiss. We are civilized.

II
A group of bourgeois revelers is roused by the noise of animals screeching in the distance. The revelers run mob-like towards the sound. A young man and woman are kissing passionately on the ground. The mob tear the woman away from the man. Was she being attacked? Raped? But her face is marked with pleasure. They were kissing.

III
It is the day of the grand party on the Roman Estate of the Marquis of X. The men kiss the hands of the women. Formal kisses. Do they even count? They are not the kisses of the scorpion. Or are they? Perhaps their sting is their emptiness?

IV
The Bourgeois young man whose foot had crushed the beetle arrives at the party and arouses his aristocratic illicit lover by slapping a woman’s face. The lovers don’t kiss upon first meeting but scurry into the bushes of the Marquis's garden. They tussle and grope. Still no kiss. She takes his hand into her mouth. He takes hers. Mad birdsong fills the air. The orchestra begins to play on the terrace of the villa. Still no kiss. The first notes of Wagner startle the lovers from their attempt at a first kiss. Their heads bump. He lifts her and she falls to the ground. Kissing is as absurd as slapstick. Finally their lips meet. He is distracted from her lips by the solid, sandaled foot of a marble statue. Their kissing stops.

V
Then it gets rougher. Music from the nearby orchestra swells and the lovers are interrupted again. The man is called to the phone by the Marquis’s butler. The woman is left alone by the statue. She kisses, licks and suckles the statue’s toes like a hungry baby at the breast. The music heaves.

VI
Children have been murdered somewhere. The young man is responsible. He is an assassin, a villain, a murderer.

VII
The conductor holds his head in his hands. The orchestra puts their instruments down. Is it a migraine or is it the consciousness of this terrible act of murder? The woman is now kissing the afflicted conductor. Drums pound in the distance. The young man’s head is throbbing. There is no escape from the drums. His kisses did not save him. Nor did they save her. Sex like death is ever-present and inevitable and must be consummated.

VIII
A Holy Man emerges from a re-enactment of de Sade’s 120 Days of Sodom. He is followed by gout-ridden gentlemen, fat from indulgence and apathy and greed. The Holy Man returns to the scene of the orgy and rescues a bleeding young woman who has been used in their carnal torments. She is saved perhaps, until we hear her scream. No one is saved.

















For Melanie Manchot's film Kiss, 2009 go to: http://www.melaniemanchot.net/category/kiss/