Excerpt #4
Later that night, during another thunderstorm (have missed those as well), I’m journaling about the day, trying to keep track of this experience (I love the idea of journaling, but am hugely inconsistent and often lapse into worries and complaints instead of cataloguing the important events, realizations, and gifts of the day) and it occurs to me that despite my explanation of what I’d like to accomplish at CA (Creative Alliance) to Carl that afternoon, I have no idea who the person is that’s going to do those things, or how. That’s part of why I’m attracted to it—that great big chunk of unknown that lies ahead—but it’s also a little overwhelming to go on a three year exploration of self. My definition of an artist, of myself as ‘artist,’ is going to be different from the next person’s, from Carl’s, Ed’s, Caroline’s, and each of the other residents. There is no set path, no rules, no guidelines. In order not to be part of the mainstream, 9-5, 2-week vacation world, I’d always classified myself as an artist, but never really looked at what that meant. I simply thought of it as an indication that I led a deeper life—I observed everything and everyone closely, I felt intensely, I suffered the separation between daily living and the timeless pleasure of the creative act and the random way they occurred (e.g. never when you wanted them to). I knew of other dimensions and spaces in the mind and heart and I exposed them as regularly and honestly as I could, and I believed this validated me as real, more than human, somehow a little divine, but in writing this evening, I discover that ‘real’ is just as ambiguous as ‘artist,’ and divinity, of course, belongs to everyone, not just the writer, painter, musician, dancer, etc.
So what was I really? Now, focusing on the term and the implied life attached (‘artistic life’) to it, I am suddenly lost and empty.
And then, a second later the flash: that is the artistic life, allowing oneself to be lost and empty. To not impose a direction or try to fill the space on anything that will squeeze out what is trying to enter and reveal itself, what can only come to me and no one else to translate to myself and the rest of the world. To be ready for whatever comes, from wherever it comes, and be the medium through which it’s realized. For me that means—through words.
Getting out of bed I open my front door and pull off the cap to the blue dry erase pen attached to the board. On the dull gray surface I write: "I dwell in possibility -- Emily Dickinson."
#
The next morning I find the following on my door:
Chris--
Part of our Saturday conversation--about the possibility of a visual poem--and your choice of Dickinson for your note board, sent me back to a more literal visual 'translation' project that got sidelined a couple of years ago. So--based on an earlier plan of "Split The Lark's" 1st stanza, I built up this colorscape of the stanza's structure. While it's certainly architectural, Miss Emily might be amused by its Lego-town aspect (?).
Hope you're settling in despite the tricky weather.
Carl Jones
It's written in gel pen and printed in capital letters. No cursive except for the signature, which has wide, round loops for the ‘a’ and ‘o’. The first name and surname run together, with a long dramatic line after the 's.' I’m wondering why he needed to write his full name. It reminds me of the signatures of cartoonists scrawled in the corner of their pictures. The effect is very exaggerated and spidery. There’s very much an ego there, I think.
My reaction to the note is twofold: I'm pleased to have the dialogue continue in another form, or rather forms--the note and the drawing—to be challenged to think and see in a new way, but I'm also feeling a little creeped out knowing he was outside my door late last night (I went to bed after one a.m.) reading the quote, then stayed up creating this drawing, writing me a note, and bringing it back to my door at what--three a.m.? It seems oddly intimate and presumptuous. But then, I'm an oddly cautious person about my space.
The attached drawing is a lot to take in and, though I stare at it, I can't apply it to the poem. Carl has created a system of 3-D blocks and arches to convey the rhythmic structure and patterns of the stanza--the repetitions, the alliteration, as well as Emily’s unique dashes and capitalizations:
Split the Lark--and you'll find the Music--
Bulb after Bulb, in Silver rolled--
Scantily dealt to the Summer Morning
Saved for your Ear when Lutes be old.
The blocks are standing on end in rows, like little towers of varying heights; the top of one has been split so it looks like an extra half of a sandwich on top of a stack of sandwiches. Some blocks are red, some gold, some green. There are two archways--one vertical, colored orange, that bisects the first four rows of blocks; the other is horizontal, colored bright blue, and takes up its own row. The rest of the blocks remain white with black shading on their sides to indicate there's a source of light somewhere creating shadows.
Below the 3-D drawing is a one-dimensional aerial view with some squares colored black, others just have diagonal lines--some have two, some one, some three. I suppose one can make a case for it somewhat resembling staff paper for music with notes filled in. Other than that, as I said, I can't connect it to the poem. It's not really what I had in mind when I thought of creating visual poems. I was thinking in more traditional symbols, i.e. creating a piece that includes a picture of a bird (nothing so obvious as one actually split open with musical notes pouring out, I assure you), which perhaps seems too elementary, but I've always been rather straightforward about things like this. I'm not trying to confuse anyone or turn them away or make them feel stupid for not 'getting' what I'm trying to say. I've always hated work that doesn't invite the viewer/reader to enter. That's the ego of the artist shutting you down and out, pure and simple, which is (to me) bullshit. It's reasonable to challenge people to think, but art shouldn't be in code. I appreciate his effort, but I get the feeling Carl is one of those artists that does talk in code, and I'm disappointed. I hope my first impression is wrong. That will make him cool and a little sterile (which would be in keeping with his spare paintings, studio, and food), while I'm more intuitive, messy, and emotional. If this is the case, we'll have a hard time understanding each other.
Carl's note aside, my head is spinning with ideas and projects. Last night I got out of bed at least three times to write down fragments of lines that might end up being a poem. Eventually I’ll have to be more organized about how I spend my time and where I focus, but I’m going to spend the rest of this year staying open and just following the flow. I have a bad habit of imposing or forcing my work into what shapes I'd like it to be, when I'd like it to be, rather just letting it happen when it wants to be.
All the drawing requires of me to process it exhausts me. It's too early in the morning. It’s a good tired, though; it has a kind of steady, low-grade energy to it that is more enjoyable and easier to manage than the semi-manic phases that can come over me sometimes. You know the ones. Where you can write twenty pages every day for a few days and then wake up a deflated balloon and not write for weeks. Productive, but draining. These phases were probably somewhat self-imposed because I always had to squeeze my writing in after work and on the weekends, usually the weekends. I’m compelled to set a goal of two pages a day, but find it hard to keep that promise to myself and my writing every day, especially after a long day at work, so the weekend often becomes the place where I play catch up.
I leave the note for now. I don’t know how to respond to the drawing--I want to acknowledge the effort and try to offer some understanding of it from my point of view--but I don't really have time, because my father, sister, and brother-in-law are meeting me at the U-Haul rental store in an hour.
