This is very good.
There is really no plot, but right through I wanted to keep reading. It’s true
that I did not read it as a novel but rather as an autobiography recollected –
that is, crafted – in tranquillity. There is an enormous amount of skilful,
talented crafting here. There is also a lot going on and any summary will be
partial: a young woman holed up in her late grandmother’s isolated bungalow going
through a nervous breakdown or, at least, a long episode of serious depression
which makes isolation less of a challenge than human contact, less of a
challenge than human intercourse. There is no sex and that is very striking and
when it is alluded to, it appears only in the context of violence or the threat
of violence: being followed, being stalked, being attacked. There is some use
of alcohol to escape and consistent use of the natural world both as a thing to
think the depression and sometimes overcome it. An obvious compare &
contrast book to read beside this one would be Amy Liptrot’s The Outrun (reviewed here on 19 September 2016 ).
The author makes use of
two devices which are played off against the main narrative. Frankie (the
narrator) photographs animals dead in the garden or at the roadside and each of
the ten chapters is titled for the dead animal whose photograph appears somewhere
in the chapter pages: Robin, Rabbit, Rat, Mouse, Rook, Fox, Frog, Hare, Hedgehog,
Badger - the usual cast of roadside fatalities. I have my doubts about this. Modern digital
printing allows for small grey and white images to be inserted into text (usually
as 600 dpi jpg’s), at no extra cost, rather than separated out onto expensive gloss
paper photograph pages. I don’t think these thumbnail snaps work very well, in
this book or in others I have looked at, and it may be that Baume’s
descriptions would have sufficed – or worked better - without the inevitably disappointing
grey-scale photographs themselves. Baume somewhere rightly remarks that making
it bigger does not make it art, but in the case of photographs I don’t think you
can appreciate them as thumbnails. Miniatures almost certainly do not work as
art – that is why museums of miniatures are museums of curiosities rather than
museums of art.
Her second device, very
impressively deployed, is to find an art work – usually a work of conceptual
art – which relates to a theme, a topic she is discussing and to list and
thumbnail- describe the work in a separated paragraph which always begins with a
formulaic phrase on the pattern of Works About Killing Animals, I test myself: …
Some of these works are
well-known like Tracey Emin’s My Bed
(1998) or Richard Long’s A Line Made By
Walking (1967), but most are more obscure. Though Baume at the end of the
book (pages 303- 307) urges us to go to the works ourselves, I suspect she has
actually and accidentally already illustrated the weakness of conceptual art:
that you don’t have to see it, experience it, to respond to it. You just need a
description – you just need the Concept which
it was designed to illustrate. Conceptual
art is basically illustration of an idea, and that is its weakness and banality
as art; its realisation (often elaborate and costly, as well as fugitive) is
pretty much irrelevant. We can all debate the Concept all night with only a nod
to the work which illustrated it. There is really no need for us to confront
the work itself, if indeed it exists to be confronted anywhere. Frankie/Baume effectively says as much herself:
Works
about Time, I test myself: Christian Marclay, The Clock, 2010. A 24-hour film,
a collage of extracts… Each extract represents a minute of the day .. I have
never seen it for real. Right the way through from beginning to end. I don’t
imagine many people have. Nevertheless, I love this piece. I love the idea.
(p 181)
Actually, you don’t
love the piece if you haven’t seen it. And it would almost certainly be a waste
of your time to watch it. When back in 1997 London’s Tate Gallery screened
Gillian Wearing’s Sixty Minutes it
would have caused a log-jam in the gallery if visitors had paused for sixty
minutes to watch it. The gallery correctly assumed that everyone would give it
at most a few minutes, to get the general
idea, and then move on. I only had to sit cross-legged on the floor (no seats
provided) for 17 minutes to outlast any other visitor in that period by at
least ten minutes. What would we say about a commercial cinema film which
could not hold its audience for more than a few minutes at most after which they would all leave because they had got the general idea?
Put differently, Baume
could simply have made up the
majority of pieces to which she refers, and in a work of fiction, who could
object to that? There would have been no loss of idea.
No comments:
Post a Comment