Subject
Re: Response to blog entry about VN on surface tension
From
Date
Body
I don't understand here why Matt Harris speaks all the time
about "thin ice" while in fact it is obvious reference to
walking on water in Bible. It is well known that tension
film exists on ordinary water and small insects "running
on water" do use this tension film.
Best to all -
Sergei Soloviev
>
http://www.newcallgallery.org.nz/2008/11/11-11-08-frater-opacity-matt-harris.html
>
> FRATER / OPACITYThe Russian novelist Vladimir Nabokov once dismissed
his
> reviewers for mistakenly assuming that 'seeing through things' was his
> professional function, as if the prescribed role of the novelist was
to
> probe hidden meanings or to delve into the historicity of his subject.
For
> Nabokov (at least, for this incarnation of Nabokov – he had many
faces)
> someone approaching a work of art with these intentions is distracted,
> even hazardously distracted, from its real and immediate significance.
“A
> thin veneer of immediate reality,” he writes in Transparent Things, “…
is
> spread over natural and artificial things, and whoever wishes to
remain in
> the now, with the now, on the now should please not break its tension
> film. Otherwise the inexperienced miracle worker will find himself no
> longer walking on water but descending upright among staring fish.”
His
> point is, I guess, that if you stop and stare at any one spot for too
> long, you’ll crack the surface of the ice and fall through. Things
pretty
> much are what they are, and when you start reading into them too much
they
> lose their immediate meaning. Or to put it another way, someone who
> over-analyses can be in as precarious a position as a complete
dim-wit. I
> mean, I might be able to read all sorts of brilliant things into a dog
> turd on the pavement, but if I step in it my foot’s still going to
stink.
> Sometimes it’s better to look once and keep moving on, sliding over
the
> surface, than it is to stop and plunge right into something. At least
if
> you want to stay dry and keep your feet clean. Anyway, I think
Nabokov’s
> principle is a good thing to keep in mind when looking at art
sometimes,
> especially if it’s the kind of work that an artist like Richard Frater
> makes. Frater’s objects are a lot like a sheet of ice in some ways -
> they’re pretty ‘thin’. And I don’t mean ‘thin’ in a pejorative sense;
I
> don’t think they lack conceptual substance. I mean they’re transparent
–
> they work in the opposite direction to the sorts of art that Nabokov's
> reviewers expected. Looking back over Frater’s recent work this is
pretty
> obvious: a fridge made of paper, several empty aluminium frames,
various
> curls of hose-piping…and you don’t get much thinner (or more
transparent)
> than his brick incident which had all of it’s materials removed. These
> works don’t ask you to spend too much time studying their detail. They
> don’t have a lot. And when they do they tend to frame something beyond
the
> work itself. Empty space. Gallery space. Snow. Water. For the most
part,
> you're more likely to start looking past the pieces into the area
> surrounding them. To stop and look too closely at the works, as though
> they might be laden with all manner of political and cultural ideas,
might
> tempt you away from their immediate significance, the materiality of
their
> present. They’re purely incidental. I kind of agree with something Sam
> Rountree Williams said about Frater’s work. Talking about one of his
rug
> pieces, R.W. wrote that the work “is both useless and
non-informational,
> and must be thought of as much more than an aesthetic phenomenon: it
is
> question of the work’s role within a greater immanent system.” Well, I
> don’t know much about immanent systems or aesthetic phenomena, but I
do
> agree that if you look at Frater’s work for information and utility
(as
> Nabokov’s reviewers did his novels) you’re probably looking for the
wrong
> things. You might be about to drop through the ic> glide through the works, appreciate their dimensions, take in the
gesture
> as a whole. Matt Harris, November 2008.
Search archive with Google:
http://www.google.com/advanced_search?q=site:listserv.ucsb.edu&HL=en
Contact the Editors: mailto:nabokv-l@utk.edu,nabokv-l@holycross.edu
Visit Zembla: http://www.libraries.psu.edu/nabokov/zembla.htm
View Nabokv-L policies: http://web.utk.edu/~sblackwe/EDNote.htm
Visit "Nabokov Online Journal:" http://www.nabokovonline.com
Manage subscription options: http://listserv.ucsb.edu/
about "thin ice" while in fact it is obvious reference to
walking on water in Bible. It is well known that tension
film exists on ordinary water and small insects "running
on water" do use this tension film.
Best to all -
Sergei Soloviev
>
http://www.newcallgallery.org.nz/2008/11/11-11-08-frater-opacity-matt-harris.html
>
> FRATER / OPACITYThe Russian novelist Vladimir Nabokov once dismissed
his
> reviewers for mistakenly assuming that 'seeing through things' was his
> professional function, as if the prescribed role of the novelist was
to
> probe hidden meanings or to delve into the historicity of his subject.
For
> Nabokov (at least, for this incarnation of Nabokov – he had many
faces)
> someone approaching a work of art with these intentions is distracted,
> even hazardously distracted, from its real and immediate significance.
“A
> thin veneer of immediate reality,” he writes in Transparent Things, “…
is
> spread over natural and artificial things, and whoever wishes to
remain in
> the now, with the now, on the now should please not break its tension
> film. Otherwise the inexperienced miracle worker will find himself no
> longer walking on water but descending upright among staring fish.”
His
> point is, I guess, that if you stop and stare at any one spot for too
> long, you’ll crack the surface of the ice and fall through. Things
pretty
> much are what they are, and when you start reading into them too much
they
> lose their immediate meaning. Or to put it another way, someone who
> over-analyses can be in as precarious a position as a complete
dim-wit. I
> mean, I might be able to read all sorts of brilliant things into a dog
> turd on the pavement, but if I step in it my foot’s still going to
stink.
> Sometimes it’s better to look once and keep moving on, sliding over
the
> surface, than it is to stop and plunge right into something. At least
if
> you want to stay dry and keep your feet clean. Anyway, I think
Nabokov’s
> principle is a good thing to keep in mind when looking at art
sometimes,
> especially if it’s the kind of work that an artist like Richard Frater
> makes. Frater’s objects are a lot like a sheet of ice in some ways -
> they’re pretty ‘thin’. And I don’t mean ‘thin’ in a pejorative sense;
I
> don’t think they lack conceptual substance. I mean they’re transparent
–
> they work in the opposite direction to the sorts of art that Nabokov's
> reviewers expected. Looking back over Frater’s recent work this is
pretty
> obvious: a fridge made of paper, several empty aluminium frames,
various
> curls of hose-piping…and you don’t get much thinner (or more
transparent)
> than his brick incident which had all of it’s materials removed. These
> works don’t ask you to spend too much time studying their detail. They
> don’t have a lot. And when they do they tend to frame something beyond
the
> work itself. Empty space. Gallery space. Snow. Water. For the most
part,
> you're more likely to start looking past the pieces into the area
> surrounding them. To stop and look too closely at the works, as though
> they might be laden with all manner of political and cultural ideas,
might
> tempt you away from their immediate significance, the materiality of
their
> present. They’re purely incidental. I kind of agree with something Sam
> Rountree Williams said about Frater’s work. Talking about one of his
rug
> pieces, R.W. wrote that the work “is both useless and
non-informational,
> and must be thought of as much more than an aesthetic phenomenon: it
is
> question of the work’s role within a greater immanent system.” Well, I
> don’t know much about immanent systems or aesthetic phenomena, but I
do
> agree that if you look at Frater’s work for information and utility
(as
> Nabokov’s reviewers did his novels) you’re probably looking for the
wrong
> things. You might be about to drop through the ic> glide through the works, appreciate their dimensions, take in the
gesture
> as a whole. Matt Harris, November 2008.
Search archive with Google:
http://www.google.com/advanced_search?q=site:listserv.ucsb.edu&HL=en
Contact the Editors: mailto:nabokv-l@utk.edu,nabokv-l@holycross.edu
Visit Zembla: http://www.libraries.psu.edu/nabokov/zembla.htm
View Nabokv-L policies: http://web.utk.edu/~sblackwe/EDNote.htm
Visit "Nabokov Online Journal:" http://www.nabokovonline.com
Manage subscription options: http://listserv.ucsb.edu/