Friday, March 6, 2009

Tiamat



Sherrard Bostwick, Tiamat, 2009
The Tiamat story of love, creation, chaos, control,
betrayal, death, destruction, creation 
A drawing in pencil, pastel, pen and ink for 2,191 Days and Counting
Powerhouse Arena 
March 5- March 22, 2009
37 Main Street DUMBO Brooklyn, NY 

All proceeds will be donated to the Iraq Veterans Against the War (IVAW) Winter Soldier Project inspired by the courageous Vietnam veterans who came forward in 1971 to testify at the original
Winter Soldier investigation. IVAW is collecting soldiers’ firsthand accounts of both wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. All veterans are invited to give testimony, regardless of their politics. The project will provide them with legal and mental health support. 

Monday, January 26, 2009

Forming

A drawing begins with a small mark. There is no certainty where the mark will lead. One only sees what is forming many, many marks later. The forming is a sort of blind faith in acting in the face of uncertainty. In the beginning, one just hopes that if each mark is made with care, the result will be sound.

Somehow these small actions, repeated with care, reverberate into wholeness. The oscillation of many careful gestures seem to be able to tame fear, brokenness, and destruction, the way a cat relaxes when stroked.

This entry is in memory of two lives lived with such care. Pete Lindsey and John Lisher taught me to take great care in even the smallest gesture. Care in the food we share, in all our interactions, in our surroundings, in everything we do, in every time we place something anywhere, in friendships, in community, in what we remember, in how we see the world.  The courage and love of their care set a goodness in motion that continues to wash over us. Ocean waves precisely place each grain of sand on the beach. Snow flakes fall in just the right places. The smiles John exchanged on the Santa Cruz Mall or in Artisans Gallery continue to spread throughout the world. The joy Pete shared in each warming hour of growing light that takes us slowly from winter to the long days of summer, in every beat of a humming bird's wing, and in the sparkles that dance over glassy seas continues to grow. The things John and Pete did carefully have marked us with their enduring goodness forever. Thank you gentlemen. 


Friday, January 9, 2009

Cofanetto


A cofanetto is a small casket that was used as a vanity case for the toilet articles and personal treasures of Venetian Renaissance women. The cofanetto with the scrigno, a strong box used to store money, were kept locked in a woman’s bedchamber. Both boxes were embellished with fashionable allegories of the period evocative of beauty.

Recently, I saw a cofanetto in an exhibition of Venetian art influenced by Islamic tradition at the Metropolitan Museum of Art. Like in the late sixteenth century Venice, Islamic influence is changing Europe and North America today. In the West we struggle with the acceptance of hijab and similar female practices of gender, beauty and modesty. The feminine and beautiful are so often entrenched cultural strongholds, sites of power and domination. A cofanetto capable of holding dissimilar views from many traditions intrigued me. By the appreciating of many traditions, can a woman escape the expectations and limitations of one? Who was the woman that opened the box in the privacy of her room, long before it was encased in a museum? What items did she keep inside to prepare herself for the outside world? How did she see herself and her world?

My wondering made me ask, if I could answer these questions even for myself about my own experiences, sensibility and time. What is needed to prepare to go outside? And how is the ambiguous boundary between inside and outside drawn? I invite you to open this cofanetto. The box and the hand-drawn animation you will discover within is a journey between in and out, cultural, psychological, political, as well as physical.

When I try to apprehend inside and out, I begin with my body. Simone de Beauvoir writes in Second Sex. “For, the body being the instrument of our grasp upon the world, the world is bound to seem a very different thing when apprehended in one manner or another.” As both a daughter and a mother, looking in, is like pulling out threads that weave together all life. How does one separate the site of our beginnings from our mothers’ bodies or our bodies from the conception of our children? At what minute do children become separate, become themselves? Sometimes in the flow of life all that defines me, as a figure separated from the ground, is the knot of fear and resistance to life’s changes in my stomach.

If I try to empty myself of all the images of women that I have seen, I can’t make sense of the void. If the frames were empty like the ones on this cofanetto, who would I be? I have tried on many images, and mostly what I know of myself is the way they don’t fit. Mirrors, too, say little of whom one is, reflecting just a hint of oneself as the other.

Was there a clearer truth before we had eyes to see, when we were connected in the womb, inside of another? I imagine or can faintly remember the warmth of pulsing light and color. A place not quite remembered or perhaps conjured from our emptiness, where time returns us. Like a window without a wall, I cannot tell if I am looking in or looking out of this place. The traces of our searching for what is inside and our efforts to reach beyond ourselves are all we know of it. Beauty is then the fearlessness of our search, both fierce and graceful, to be ourselves and to forget ourselves.

Thursday, October 23, 2008

The Flora Dora Girls Weekly Sewing Circle

The Flora Dora Girls Weekly Sewing Circle
 by Louis LaRusso II
Co-directed by Taylor Keith & Lillian Ribeiro

Featuring
Mary Lois Adshead, Kathi Carlson, Wendy Eaton, Eileen Gaughan, Angela Kariotis, 
Susan Mirwis, Ellen O’ Neill, Florence Pape, Chelsea Lee Richardson, Margo Singaliese, and 
Trish Szymanski

Sunday, October 19, 2008
Two Readings @ Five and Eight o'clock 

The Flora Dora Girls Weekly Sewing Circle (‘Flora Dora Girls’, Louis LaRusso II’s pet name for his mom, Mary, and her fistful of friends), is Louis LaRusso II’s loving tribute to the strength and solidarity of the hard-working, passionate, and funny women who labored in the sweatshops together in the working-class city of Hoboken circa 1965. They come together for a weekly sewing circle, the one place where they didn’t have to be ‘ladies’. They sew, gossip, laugh, cry, fight, curse, ask big questions, tell great stories and bond – like a fist! This is Louis LaRusso II’s last hurrah to his extended family of Hoboken women who were way ahead of their times. Louis LaRusso II loved these women - all of them - and The Flora Dora Girls Weekly Sewing Circle will provoke heart and soul as well as lots of laughter.

Louis LaRusso II, Hoboken’s theatrical chronicler, wrote about family and working-class life lovingly and humorously depicting the Hoboken experience in 26 plays including the Tony-nominated Lamppost Reunion, perhaps his best-known "Hoboken Play."

Monday, September 15, 2008

10 Big Questions





Seeking Answers to 10 Big Questions
from The Flora Dora Girls Weekly Sewing Circle by Louis LaRusso II

1. What is on your mind these days? 

2. What is worth fighting for?

3. What are the most important relationships in your life?

4. What would you like to be able to forgive?

5. How would you like to look?

6. Are men worth it?

7. What are you reading?

8.  Who has hurt you?

9. What do you always really, really like? 

10. Who do you miss?

Tuesday, August 19, 2008

Experimental Philosophy and Joshua Knobe

Joshua Knobe suggests in What is Experimental Philosophy that philosophical arguments are often structured on "claims about people's intuitions." These claims, although not measured empirically, become the foundation of general theories. Experimental philosophy tests these claims with empirical methods. As an artist, especially as an artist with a practice in performance and community arts, I wonder what is experimental art? Does experimental philosophy offer some insight into foundational art claims that can be reconsidered and methods to do so? 

The first question Knobe asks is from Saul Kripke's story of the "man who discovered the incompleteness of arithmetic." The question is one of identity. If a man takes the credit for another's work, assigning his name to it, does the name then refer to the one that steals or to the one that did the work? The answer to this question varied depending on the part of the world it was asked. The difference in responses could be differences in valuing the work over ownership and individual fame. If the work is valued, the performer is linked to the action regardless of the mistaken name. If the name and fame is valued over the work, the one credited "owns" the work. The credit can be taken because the work is seen as product, something that can be exchanged for fame and power, not a process that cannot be separated from its performer and a process that empowers its performer and those understanding and continuing the work.  The question Knobe asks is one of unethical ownership. The answers cause me to rethink creative production in a society based on ownership. How is ownership shaping and limiting our creative responses to global concerns?

The second question is one of intent. If one aims solely for one result, regardless of the known disregarded cost or benefit of other additional outcomes, does one receive the credit for the benefit and/ or the blame for the damage of the additional outcomes? As an artist concerned with my addition to human material over-production, the answer to this question is pertinent. The answers seem to reveal that when judging others we blame them for the bad results, while not giving them credit for good results. This seems the opposite of our self-judgment where we are eager to take credit for good results, and reluctant to take responsibility for the bad. Still more interesting is that negative results challenge us to "learn", change behavior, and grow while positive results inflate our egos and encourage less awareness and less caution in future actions.  The trail of changes left in our wake, intentional and unintentional, still make the same difference. Perhaps the answers to this question suggest we should focus less on our goodness and more on these changes. Justifying our goodness may be just what is blinding us to witnessing what is happening. 

The last question has to do with free will. In stories where the characters had absolutely no free will, are they still morally responsible? Most answered yes. In a time when the news media reveals moral failings hourly and art production is full of fantasies of freedom from moral restrain, why do we cling to our free will and its partner moral choice? Does free will somehow equate being? If we are predetermined do we exist? Do we fear free will without morality? If I do not question or create as an expression of free will in an undetermined exploration of the world, questions one and two do not matter. In my experience those things I can least question, are the questions that challenge my most defended positions, positions that have fallen out of sync with my experience. I am not willing to yield my belief in free will or my ability to attempt moral choices, but Knobe's questions show me my resistance and a need to ask why. 




Tuesday, June 24, 2008

Newness Undefined for New York

To Claudia LaRocco
NYC Futurism 
Dear Claudia,
You evoke the memory of Futurism together with PERFOMA Director RoseLee Goldberg’s challenge to provoke the future. How should we greet “the confounds of logic”, the corruption of certainty, the monstrous mounds of information, the flatness of too much choice, the violent assault of unremitting, dulling images and incessant noise? The weighty debris of progress is isolating and immobilizing us.

New York is movement. New Yorkers don’t wait around for luck. New York is a city that loves work. We love to argue about who works the hardest. We kibitz about effort that beats the odds. Our future is in not fearing our industry. Yet, our work has become entangled with the production of too much stuff. We are bloated with over-consumption. We need less things and a new industry of connections.

Goldberg and Marinetti call us to continue to perform in the face of the unknown. To caress and revive what has been given up. Bricolage. To divorce words from sentences, work from things, actions from disciplines. To shed weary grammar that taps energy. To resist the signifier. To violate boundaries. To cross tongues. To reassemble. To scream so loudly, into the winds of change, that determined, rigid thought cracks, and pure sound pierces the heart with the kindness of unforeseen results.

Goldberg and Marinetti call us to be light, alert, engaged, to perform and to continue with eagerness and energy. Our action is what feeds the continuous renewal of the City.