
My friend emails me this picture. She's found it on a site of 'found things' - original provenance unknown.
She knows I love libraries the way young girls are said to love horses: giddily, mystically, reverentially. She knows I'll love this picture, and I do.
The books nestle like birds in a dovecote, a dovecote built high as the sky, and there is the sky - what? - oh - the simplest blue at the tippy-top, where the shell of the building has been split away like the top of a soft-boiled egg tapped with spoon and summarily uplifted - and the sun washes down upon the branches - the what? - the leafy branches of the trees - birch? - which receive it, the golden light, with the speechless wisdom of every book ever written.
Who are those figures up by the crown molding? Rulers? Thinkers? Saints?
Why are those chairs tipped over, those books lying on the ground? Are these signs of the violence of humans or the violence of nature? Or perhaps only the stately violence of time.
What countries appear on that globe? What are their names, where are their boundaries drawn?
And who lights the glass globes mounted by the stacks? And by what means do they illuminate? Bulb, kerosene, whale oil? Firefly.
I call my friend, hot and bothered: Is this real or did someone make it? Did this - happen - or is it staged, a theater set or an art installation? I feel a push to know, to have settled this matter of which.
It's real, she decides. I think, she adds.
(This is very like her. This is the only answer she would ever give; always, always this friend would rather err on the side of believing than doubting. I knew this when I called, when I put the question to her. I knew but asked anyway.)
As soon as she answers, I think I understand it's not real. I look more closely: are those red-and-blue birds perched on two of the branches? Whoever heard of such red-and-blue birds? Whoever heard of a building this damaged, in this state of serious disrepair for at least as long as it takes a tree to grow to towering height, preserving its contents relatively intact: the glass unsmashed, the balconies unsagging, the gold trim still agleam? Wherever existed such strange beauty?
But this line of reasoning does not help, for the answer to the last question is: in life.
Oh gift, oh gratitude. If you know, don't tell me. It isn't that I crave blindness. Only that in a certain light - the light of cast-off ceilings, the light of rain-spattered words - all that is, is. Oh democracy. The real and the made-up: those fine, those stalwart citizens of our waking dreams. Red and blue. Book and tree. Globe and globe. What does it matter in the end.
With mixed feelings, I add this update: the image was found at lorinix.net. I have been illuminated, and go off to mourn, lightly...
14 comments:
I have heard of such red-and-blue birds.
http://www.wallpaper-downloads.info/key/Blue?g2_itemId=2121
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Bluebird
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Bluebird
And now, so have you.
Also:
From Tony Kushner's adaptation of The Illusion.
"What in this world is real and not seeming? Love, which seems the realest thing, is really nothing at all; A simple gray rock is a thousand times more tangible than love is; And the earth is such a rock, and love only a breeze that dreams over its surface, weightless and traceless. And yet love's more mineral, more dense, more veined with gold and corrupted with lead, more bitter and more weighty than the earth's profoundest matter. Love is a sea of desire stretched between shores -- only the shores are real, but how much more compelling is the sea. Love is the world's infinite mutability; lies, hatred, murder even are all knit up in it; it is the inevitable blossoming of its opposites, a magnificent rose smelling faintly of blood. A dream which makes the world seem... an illusion. The art of illusion is the art of love, and the art of love is the blood-red heart of the world. At times I think there's nothing else."
In the end there will only be truth, not your dreams and fantasies. Not the person you wish to appear as, but the person you were.
I think you (anonymous) are underestimating the power of our imaginations and also how humans explore who we are in the world. Kids do it through playing and imaginative games, which evolves into trying selves on as teenagers. Those selves are real and may not evolve into a true adult self or might.....They are different parts of who we are and who we might become. We are trying them on for size.
I am reminded of King Lear (Nothing comes from Nothing) and he was dead wrong. Everything comes from nothing, because humans have the power to imagine and write and paint and CREATE. King Lear himself came from nothing, too (someone's imagination) and yet he exists. He is real, even if only for the length of the performance......
I do not understand what you mean by "the person you appear as but the person you were"
I (anonymous) do not underestimate the power of imagination. I think perhaps you are mistaking it for the power of denial.
Not a word is spoken about the imagination of the artist who created the original work, which was then appropriated here, apparently without permission.
O. I disagree. The entry is a testament to the imagination of the artist and a real grappling with the nature of authenticity through a honest exploration of the details of the photograph and what is conjured by it, through it.
I disagree. Ms. Cohen speaks only about herself and her friend and their dreamy, somewhat precious response to what they wish to believe is a real photo.
No credit to Lori, whose work is badly diminished by the tiny confines of a copy of a copy of a web photo.
This may be too simple to consider (and if so, forgive me) but I can't help wondering: why the anonymity, anonymous? I've been reading this blog for a while now and have never posted anything until now. Here's why I write today: Your strange comment --"Not the person you wish to appear as but the person you were" -- implies that you know, or knew, Ms. Cohen. If this is the case, what might it mean that your approach to her now, in the context of a discussion on authenticity, is so veiled? Given your belief that "truth" is all that matters in the end this seems especially perplexing.
It is indeed a marvelous event when one artist's work serves as inspiration for another. How lucky that Lori Nix's work came to Leah Hager Cohen cloaked in mystery & question marks. This beautiful piece of prose is the result of a magical organic intersection between two gifted artists, without either knowing of the other. And now they do - how wonderful! As an artist I can only hope that my work could resonant so profoundly.
Indeed?
What has Lori been brought by this experience?
(Not the same "Anonymous" as Mr. Barely-Cloaked-Nastiness Anonymous)
Hoo, boy. I have so enjoyed that for so long, this blog has been free to be what it is, and has been unsullied by some of the unpleasantness that smears itself throughout the blog-o-sphere. However, Anonymous really does seem to have a weird bone to pick. Mr. Anonymous, do you not have something better to do? The rest of us who are reading Leah's writing are doing so because we enjoy it, and not because we want to use her page as a venue in which to make veiled and personal negative commentary.
Anyway, how is Lori Nix served? She is credited - Leah credits her images - and a link is provided, through which I discovered the work of an artist I had never heard of, and whom I quite enjoy. That's how.
Tucker's observation is accurate: it is not such a thing of authenticity (nor, I would say, bravery) to make personal attacks under the handle "Anonymous." Nor does it serve the world. Nor does it serve artistry or inspiration.
What beauty might you put out into the world now, instead of this stuff?
- Neopteryx
When Lori started putting her work online, I suggested that she watermark the works or she might lose control of them.
To understand it another way, imagine if Lori quoted from one of Ms. Cohen's books in an exhibition, but did not ask permission or attribute the work?
Placing a link is not the same as credit and it certainly is not the same as obtaining the artist's permission.
Obviously that was not possible at the start because of the inherent mystery of where the image came from. However, once Ms. Cohen knew the correct thing would have been place a clear image credit with the artist's name near the work.
I am sorry for my "barely cloaked" nastiness. I should have been more clear about my aggravation in the first place. I feel that as an artist Ms. Cohen should be more sensitive to the attribution of work and I feel it undermines her entire point.
That said, reading back, my posts are rather more harsh than they need to be and for that I apologize.
(Again, not Mr. Grumpypants Anonymous) -
Mr. Anonymous, I certainly appreciate your apologies for your tone, and your explanations regarding your concerns about giving clear credit where credit is due. I may still not agree with your angle, in this case, but that's not really the point.
The point for me is that your first 2 1/2 postings had nothing to do with concern about Lori Nix's work, but were instead weirdly personal-sounding attacks on Leah Cohen. Veering it mid-stream and claiming you were merely defending artistic ownership does not undo the initial words that you wrote (all written by "Anonymous," but they share the same...handwriting).
It is easily possible to kindly and clearly express a concern that an artist's work is not being fully credited or attributed. One does not need to first say (three weeks before this posting), "You may redress the past to suit your current narrative and let yourself off the hook with a clever summation, but it does not change the facts.
When we forget who we were, we can not know who we are." OR "In the end there will only be truth, not your dreams and fantasies. Not the person you wish to appear as, but the person you were."
See?
That's ICKY and CREEPY.
It's like bird droppings on my chocolate croissant.
I love reading Leah's ponderings. They move me, they make me think, they make me smile, and sometimes they make me cry. Your comments just give me a really bad taste in my mouth.
Again - call me an idealist, but I think this is not an appropriate venue for personal nastiness.
Luckily, it's spring. An opportunity for new beginnings.
- Neopteryx
www.miragebookmark.ch
"We present an amazing picture gallery for the most interesting bookstores of the world
Another amazing picture gallery for the most interesting libraries of the world"
Post a Comment