September 11, 2005
Dear Mr. Williams,
For the first time in quite a while your editorial input, specifically your essay on pg.4 struck a chord deep within me. I believe it is due to the fact that I (like many other artists, including you) am deeply concerned with symbolism, iconography, and language (both spoken and visual). In fact sometimes my fascination with the aforementioned subjects has bordered on obsessive, crossing the line from practical observation into and unhealthy pre-occupation.
I gather that what you are interested in and in fact are addressing is the oral tradition. In the art world the issues you raise have been explored by Magritte and his contemporary Duchamp, and many others; perhaps most notable in recent history is the work of Andy Warhol. But many if not all of these explorations of the visual language have their roots in the works of Roland Barthes and his studies in the dynamic field of Semiotics. I should rephrase this a bit. The endeavor to visually explore language and the nature of its uses by artists can be tidied up into a nice little envelope. That envelope is not Barthes himself or even his literature, but rather it is the concepts proposed in his work, which in essence exist even if they had not been scrutinized by Barthes. Also of note is the deconstruction of language as proposed by Jacques Derrida. (Both of these philosophers were recently introduced to me by a rather enlightening college professor of mine, and to those interested in learning more about visual language much can be gleaned from studying their work). Its been my observation that with few exceptions the spoken word (if it has any profound cultural significance) will inevitably become the written word or the visual representation. The folk tale begets the poem, the song turns into the sonnet which becomes a painting, and the myths of our ancestors are recorded in thick leather-bound volumes or sculpted by the artisan. Furthermore, at some point in the transition, a certain liberty is taken with the subject matter. This is what you have termed artistic license. Is this not then the true nature of all artistic endeavor, to build on that which already exists and to embellish it in the process?
To create that which is our unique expression of our unique worldview is in essence a confession of what we value in the cultures that have become before us. And this is no simple task. Faulkner had this to say about his art: We have never got and probably will never get, anywhere with music or the plastic forms. We need to talk, to tell, since oratory is our heritage. We seem to try in the simple furious breathing (or writing) span of the individual to draw a savage indictment of the contemporary scene or to escape from it into a make-believe region of swords and magnolias and mockingbirds which perhaps never existed anywhere. Both of the courses are rooted in sentiment; perhaps the ones who write savagely and bitterly of the incest in clay-floored cabins are the most sentimental. Anyway, each course is a matter of violent partisanship, in which the writer unconsciously writes into every line and phrase his violent despairs and rages and frustrations or his violent prophesies of still more violent hopes. That cold intellect which can write with calm and complete detachment and gusto of its contemporary scene is not among us; I do not believe there lives the Southern writer who can say without lying that writing is any fun to him. Perhaps we do not want it to be.
Isnt it true that art is difficult and at times even painful to create? This is not to say that painting or sculpting is technically difficult (though at times this is true). The hard part is accurately expressing ones personal vision to the point where one is comfortable wearing it like an old pair of jeans. This was touched upon by Michael Hussar in your excellent feature on his personal approach to painting. Faulkner basically says that this is as it should be. True and honest art should break the creators heart, or at least crack it a bit regardless of what the audience thinks.
In 1989 an animated film about a cute adolescent mermaid was put forth before an audience comprised mostly of small children and their parents. This film like many of its kind was a huge success. I noticed that many people took this story to be a new interpretation of a classic fairy tale. In fact the plot of this 1989 film is entirely new and original story. The only folk tale Ive found which closely resembles it is a 17th century fable about a French priest who falls in love with a mermaid. Indeed the mermaid is enamored by the priest as well. However the problem is that the priest will only marry her if she converts to Catholicism at which point by acceptance of the body of Christ she will be transformed into a human and thereby able to marry the priest and inhabit his world. But the mermaid refuses to believe in the priests god and is condemned to a life of sorrow and grief over her lost love. To me this is an incredible tale that involves religion, magic, mythical creatures and unrequited love. It has the potential of being made into an amazing animated film. But it probably wouldnt sell to todays audience. Indeed in 1989 most people agreed that the hit film as produced by the worlds premier animated feature mogul was the definitive version of the story of the mermaid. Why? What is it culturally that changes and influences artistic interpretation? I have no answer.
I think Vikings look cool with horns on their helmets. And so what if William Tell never existed? Youve become comfortable with these inconsistencies by placing them in the context of psychological and poetic anarchy. Fine, if that works for you. I agree with much of where you are coming from. But Ive noticed that much of your artwork seems to be exploring the concept of anarchy and perhaps this has caused you to have a kind of tunnel vision when it comes to how youve chosen to analyze things. My intent is not to argue with you or to insult your worldview. However, I also believe that the nature of these folk tales is neither anarchy nor order. Theyre just natural.
You hit it right on the head in the end of your article with the elephant illustration. In fact it almost sounds as though through your essay youve worked out the answers to your own questions. As Philip Dick wrote, It is obvious, then, what role language plays in human life: It is the cardinal instrument by which the individual worldviews are linked so that a shared, for all intents and purposes common reality is constructed. What is actually subjective becomes objective-agreed on. I concur.
Thank you for addressing this topic in your column. I do have just a few requests. Could you please do an article on Mucha or Lempicka and their work? Also it seems that for a while now youve covered a lot of artists that weve all heard enough about, there must be some new talent out their. Sick your dogs on the new art thieves. Please. Thanks for your time and for continuing to swim upstream with your magazine.
Sincerely,
Aaron Mendonca
