Articulate:
A response to issues of Rape
and Sexual Abuse
Hilary Gilligan & Lorna Healy
Mick Wilson
A Critical Access Project, ArtHouse,
Temple Bar, Dublin. February 16th21st
Jane Kelly in a recent discussion
of the work of Stephen Willats has pointed to a generalised nexus of critical
concerns in respect of community arts, issue-based work and alternative
critical art-practices in general.1
Citing the work of Hal Foster (who in turn cites the 1930s polemics of
Walter Benjamin) Kelly identifies certain key aspects to Willats' methodology.
Importance is attached to the fact that the "ideas framing the work, the
choice of sites, the imagery, are co-ordinated, in negotiation". This dimension
of negotiation is presented as multifaceted and includes "individuals in
the area where the project takes place, the gallery and its curators, the
city and its elected representatives" and also what is loosely described
as "local community involvement" and the "responses of participants". The
project ARTICULATE was initially conceived as a modest intervention into
the larger problematic of issue-based work which sought to consider the
resources of negotiation in relation to the project of a socially engaged
art practice.
Initially artists were invited to
submit expressions of interest and/or proposals in respect of a weekend
residential dialogue and exchange centred on a specific subject area. The
other participants in this exchange would be a small group of non-artists
with diverse and particularised relationships and engagements with the
specific subject area. Thus for the first phase of ARTICULATE the subject
area identified was Rape and Sexual Abuse. The participants in the weekend
long exchange were invited from different agencies and constituencies with
a specific engagement with the topic - Rape Crisis Workers, Survivors,
Law-workers etc. The intense and intimate exchange was facilitated in such
a way as to ensure safe and responsible dialogue. The artists' brief was
to enter into this dialogue as participants with the objective of realising
sometime afterwards, a project which in someway furthered, or was informed
by, the open-ended exchange established by the residential weekend. That
is to say, they were asked to develop not to document the exchange. They
had no brief to represent or to speak for the other participants, but they
were requested to listen and in someway respond to the multiple voices
present. The artists' were not obliged to realise this practical outcome
necessarily as a conventional and discrete artwork. The form of their productive
activity was to be at their discretion.
This process culminated recently
in the presentation of two art works in Arthouse, a centre for Digital
Arts in the trendy Temple Bar area of Dublin. The works were by the artists
Hilary Gilligan and Lorna Healy. Hilary Gilligan's work Articulate Exhibit
B involved a performance embedded in an audio-slide projection installation.
Lorna Healy presented The Dancing Subject, a short video projection with
accompanying audio track featuring the voice of an actor reading a theoretical
text intercut with the sounds of young girls laughing and singing.
In Gilligan's work the viewer sat
and watched a series of slide dissolves in a darkened room while the artist
stood back in a darkened corner of the space, just behind the viewer's
preferred position. The slide images began with representations of hair
which became bound up with the notion of forensic evidence and inspection.
This reading was promoted both by the narrative drift of the accompanying
audio-track but also by the presentation of images of evidence-bags and
a disposable speculum. There were two particular vectors to the narrative.
Firstly, and overidingly, a story was proposed around the construction
of legalistic representations of rape and sexual assault. Secondly, and
imbricated in this first story, there was a story about the crude and abrupt
cutting of the artist's own long hair. This overdetermined and ambiguous
sign of shame / guilt / defiance / refusal / self-negation / self-transformation,
finally resolves into a playful acting out of various roles implicated
in the legal narrative. Thus the artist appears in a series of slide images
goofily playing out the roles of doctor, police officer, barrister and
so forth. The central position occupied by images of the artist in the
work imputes the status of survivor to her and suggests an autobiographical
dimension. The central slide-dissolve presentation is interrupted at several
points by an askew lateral projection of varied images of the speculum.
Upon the conclusion of the slide-sequence and the audio track, the artist
steps forward a little and speaks several short phrases in a contrived
and performative manner. Her intonation is suggestive of poetry or formal
theatre and abruptly terminates with an alarmingly forceful though not
overidingly emotive injunction: "articulate!"
In Healy's work the image of a relatively
neutral green open-space with an ambiguous, distant, and vaguely urban
horizon-line is projected onto the gallery wall. The camera does not change
position or focus. However, there are a number of rhythmically paced edits
(cuts and dissolves) which mark off various phases of activity in this
open space. Two young girls are shown variously running into, through,
and around this space, playing, spinning, singing, laughing, and dancing.
The tone of their activity is in part defined by the snippets of a Spice
Girls' song discernible in their repertoire. At various points their play
converges on the camera which they address directly by blowing raspberries
and laughing. This also interacts with the theoretical text being read
aloud on the audio-track which is derived from a text by Luce Irigaray
and describes the eponymous "dancing subject".
Rather than engage in an explicative
reading or a critical evaluation of these two works, these short descriptions
may serve as points of departure for a consideration of the larger problematic
of issue-based work. However, before pursuing such a direction for discussion
it is necessary to provide some preliminary remarks about the general terms
of this discussion. It might be argued that the ethnographic paradigm as
employed by Hal Foster to describe a general area of practice is perhaps
overly focused on the specifics of a North American art scene. Therefore
it should not be unproblematically generalised to define the broad remit
of socially-engaged practice. The North American cultural debates in respect
of cultural pedagogy and critical practice which underpin Foster's discussion
have foregrounded throughout the 1980s and into the 1990s the paradigm
of identity politics. Issue-based work has recently most often been construed
as a question of constituency, alterity and identity, most often understood
through the nodal terms of race, gender, sexuality, class, and biography.
There is of course a clear historical premis for this manouvre. The universalist
claims of modernism and the autonomous-aesthetic project both concealed
a specific set of interests to do with gender (male) ethnicity (white)
and class (privileged). They also both operated to make illegitimate the
locating of aesthetic practice in relationship with these very same concerns.
(A typical instance of this was the controversy around the 1993 Whitney
Biennial.) It is in dialectical tension with these conditions that the
issue-based arena has been discursively constructed in North America. Foster's
work reproduces this discursive frame hence he draws on the notion of a
revision of the Benjaminian formula Artist As Producer in the positing
of the Artist as Ethnographer. The central terms of this discussion are
"difference" and the "other". The central terms of post-60s oppositional
politics in North America have been those of identity and difference.
It is important to register that
issue-based work can be construed in terms other than alterity. The term
"issue-based" implies a privileging of the discursive and the unresolved
as the supporting structure for art practice. Articulate attempted in its
programme structure to privilege precisely the polyvocal and open-ended
discursive dimension. However, in privileging the artists' take on this
dialogue it did run the risk of producing the "Aesthetic Evangelist" scenario
which proposes the artist as some kind of ideal subject capable of accommodating
and transcending the particularised positions of non-artists.2
In this sense the ethnographic paradigm might be applicable however, this
would involve ignoring the specific programme pursued in the project. There
is a further dilemma thrown up by the particular space of exhibition. Arthouse
and Temple Bar in general are ideologically loaded sites where a boomtime
Irish bourgeoisie is busily reinventing itself as culturally progressive
and vital. That the work is consumed in this context is inevitably problematic
as it contributes to the myth of reinvention. On the other hand, this is
possibly a productive intervention in as much as it attempts to position
the issues of rape and sexual abuse in an arena other than moral panic
and/or sanitising entertainment. It must be underlined here that both works
under discussion employed devices which attempted to interrupt any simple
co-option of the work.
The performative dimension to Gilligan's
work rendered the viewer's encounter with an instance of representation
("here is something to do with rape") reflexive: "here is something to
do with rape, which is to do with me, but also to do with you". The implication
is that responsibility in respect of questions of rape are not simply to
do with victims and offenders but to do with all who participate in the
circulation of representations of rape. The issue of rape is not identified
with an identity or a position but with a multifaceted network of relationships
and discursive exchanges. This does not dissolve the experiential density
of rape into an endless relay of signifiers but it does interrupt the assumption
of an essential truth of rape which can be known from an objective and
unimplicated distance.
In a different but related mode
Lorna Healy's work also implicates the viewer in the questions of rape
and subjectivity. The critical moment of the presentation when the young
actresses address the camera, and (medially) the viewer, by blowing raspberries,
operates to disrupt the safe-distance of viewing. It is a theatricalised
interruption of theatricality. This combined with the modified Iragarayan
text definitively challenges the construction of identity through representations
of rape. The raspberry blowing interrupts the authoritative masculine voice
reading feminist analysis/theory thus:
The dancing or whirling subject
offers a line of enquiry which isn't led by the finished art object / art
fetish ...allowing for a consideration of the performative aspect of art
making ...it also allows for considerations of where and how work is made
public. [Raspberries blown.] ...Within Western art, since the Renaissance,
rapist and rape have become objects of the artistic narrative. [Raspberries
blown] Culture's recurrent representations of brutal victimisation through
sexual violence is not only seen within histories of fine art but also
across a range of representations within literature, the press, pornography,
film, TV, etc. Images are controlled by key institutions i.e. the church,
state, art world, social work, counseling and the legal system. ...We are
what we can talk about. ...The dominant imagery of the entertainment industry
...persists in portraying the victim as narcissistic, taboo, sensational
and/or eroticised. Cape Fear. Pulp Fiction. Last Exit to Brooklyn. Innocence
as sexual commodity. [Laughter].
Clearly, the issue of rape is here
construed again as relational and situated within an economy of representation.
In arguing to problematise Foster's analysis in its wider application outside
his highly localised frame of concerns. I am not proposing to disavow the
wealth of critical insight presented within his analysis. Rather I wish
to challenge the overall drift of his analysis whereby the terms of alterity
are privileged as the defining characteristics of issue-based work (which
is variously in opposition to aestheticism / formalism / uncritical pluralism.)
Martha Rosler and Grant Kester have also drawn on a specifically North
American context to elaborate critical analyses of socially engaged practice
but have done so in a way that does not prioritise the logic of othering
tout court.3
Returning to the specific case of
Articulate there is a good deal to be gained by applying some of Foster's
insights in this instance. He has pointed out that the "deconstructive
ethnographic approach can become a gambit, an insider game that renders"
the art encounter "not more open and public but more hermetic and narcissistic,
a place for initiates only where a contemptuous criticality is rehearsed."
This is clearly a possible criticism in respect of elements of Articulate,
although it might be seen to underestimate the experiential texture of
the actual encounter with the work. An important aspect of that encounter
was the sense that there is a gap in knowledge which cannot be bridged
by appeal to experts, and yet, this gap in knowledge implicates the viewer
in some way. A further factor requiring consideration is that the art world
continues to demand the discrete artwork product and privilege the moment
of exhibition. It is therefore necessary to strategically foreground the
methodological and procedural specificity of a project like Articulate.
Thus the weekend residency and the fact that the enabling organisation
is a voluntary collaboration of artsworkers (Critical Access) who are displacing
their own direct art production in favour of a facilitative role in respect
of the discursive and productive activities of others needed to be underlined.
It is not trivial either that this is also a process of self-education
and self-enabling on the part of the group. Furthermore the manner in which
the Articulate show is discursively followed up will be of central importance
in displacing the model of the Art "Statement" in favour of an emergent
model of ongoing art-dialogue.
Coda:
Finally, it needs to be remarked,
in respect of the issue-based initiative in general, that there is a wide
constituency for whom to challenge their investment in the art object,
the transcendent artist, and the autonomous aesthetic as ideological (with
the inevitable ideological-unmasking), is quite simply redundant. If we
are to engage in issue-based work we must also then be engaged by this
issue and by/with this broad constituency. This matter is of course inflected
by (but not reducible to) the political terms "left" and "right" or the
terms of "identity."
notes
1 Variant, Autumn 1997.
2 See Grant Kester's essay in AfterImage,
Jan. 1995.
3 See Kester, AfterImage Vol. 20.
No. 6; Rosler in Becker (Ed.) The Subversive Imagination, Routledge, 199. |