|
Auckland School of Fine Arts.1972.
& Exhibited in the Ozone Theatre, during
the Arts Festival in Mildura, Australia. 1975.
An assembled installation with
2 x 25-gallon tanks, one of copper and one rubber.
The copper is filled to the brim with water
and has the inscription; ars est celare artem.
The rubber tank, fed by a dripping hose, is
inscribed with the words; amor sceleratus habendi.
One light bulb suspends just above the surface
of the water in the copper. The tanks are
just far enough apart to disallow any disturbance
of the still water, by the dripping. The procedure
was, to a large degree, intuitive.
Criticism of Pendente Lite….
By Roger Peters.
………………………………………………..
(The hanging of ….
and ….)
To bring out as many levels of the work as I
got onto I will approach it with renewed innocence
(though lumpin throat).
1. The sound of dripping
water draws the observer – participant.
2. Upon entering the room
the light bulb and tank of water take the Attention.
3. The inscription on the
bottom of the tank is read and though the pun
is enjoyed and the obvious reference to art
not missed the inscription has no meaning without
translation.
4. Attention is drawn to
the floating light bulb and the writing which
proves to be a mere technical nuance thereon.
The sense of mystery, for the moment assumes
the guise of a trick and hence any deeper readings
are foiled.
5. Moves to the drip tank
and again is frustrated by the inscription.
6. Attempts to find meaning
in other aspects of the work:-
a). in the relative heights
of the tanks… no apparent reason other
than formal.
b). the position of the tanks in the room…
seems to relate to the sources of power and
water.
c). the manner in which the hose is attached….both
this and b). could become annoying.
d). attempts to see an analogic connection between
light bulb and drips again frustrated
because even though the
water forms a line as does the light flex the
analogy is too simplistic.
Comment:- this frustration comes from the desire
to come to terms with the mystery engendered
by the inscriptions and the total effect of
the piece ie. the feeling generated that there
must be a relationship between the two (point
a).
The piece is obviously not involved with aesthetics
though at the moment this is the level at which
it maintains itself. More information is needed
if say the inscriptions are not to be translated
then the piece preserves its mystery but must
also become meaningless as the inscriptions
would be meaningless.
The translation is asked for and supplied ….
Lightening strikes and the dam bursts.
Points 4 – 6 are no longer problems…
the idea has surfaced.
The light bulb puts light on a notion that is
as difficult to register As it is profound.
The water drips obscure a notion that is as
obvious as the implications
are portentous.
One is not certain of the
nature of the eel that eludes the grasp, but
When with extreme exertion it is grasped it
delivers a toxic blow with its fanged jaw.
Critical comment : If puns
and adages are to be used and more especially
are to be a central feature of a work the feeling
is that their source of illumination should
come from within the work. In this case the
need for translation was not
resolved until it was provided by an external
source; I feel here that the idea and its implications
were paramount in the creators mind… the
need for a sense of mystery is taken…
the criticism is that the mystery becomes a
mystery and
hence as a finite piece the work remains closed…
this is not to be confused with the idea of
the work which basically provides a dialectic
between the desire and its recapitulation.
Aside : Given the translation
I felt the work functioned in the same manner
as the I Ching …providing a mythical base
against which to cast your imperfect soul…
I was truly bared.
|
)
)
)
)
)
)