I'm sitting in this gallery, an arbiter. My presence here says something to you: it says, this is worth protecting and I am a guard. Please don't touch the canvas, there is something there you could ruin. There is a meaning and these lines are important, why else would they so accurately repeat what's been said, what's so ostensibly worth saying? "Men With Brushes" and also the converse. They bump and they brush by, they have places to be and very important things to say about the responsibility of the artist to representation, to truth.
I demand the converse, the counterpoint. Advocate, please do. I want it in ways that make you angry, in ways that make you roll your eyes and just really be full of disbelief that I could even ask you t do something like that when it's so like transparently obvious that they are all of history. Representation is all of history, nothing figurative there. Ambiguous, editorialized, interpreted certainly. But never interpretive. You say there is no need for the interpreted. I say you say there is no need for the interpretive and before you even say it here I am, interpreting. We are both interpreting constantly, literally without cease. Sans cessation.

No comments: