I promised B. that I would send her some writing about my work. Given that I often develop ideas of lack, it amused me to think that failing to deliver on my promise could be the sincerest of explanations. B. wasn’t impressed, her third phone call finished with a stark “I want your text next Tuesday!” It was Saturday, I still had a few days left and I used them to read Speech Bubbles by Philippe Parreno. I thought that it may inspire me. It didn’t work.
On Saturday evening, there was a party at T’s. I didn’t go. I spent the evening with a sheet on which I had traced a column for what I like, another for what I do not like. An exercise to free up one or two ideas to put into the text for B. In the “I like” column, there were: Films by both Eric Rohmer and Igmar Bergman, Le bal des célibataires by Pierre Bourdieu, all Virginia Woolf’s books, Graham Green. In the column, “I do not like”, I had: the latest Woody Allen and a text by Sophie Calle of which I could not remember the title. When I started drawing little animals on the left hand corner of the page, I realised that this dogmatic methodology wouldn’t do.
I often write in orange exercise books. When all the pages are filled, I put them into my desk. In a book from last year, I had written: “My work is made of poor images, images that doubt. They are banal; a counterpoint to images that are sure, exceptional, mapped onto a stable world. They are infiltrated by concern for meaning and for persona. The dramatized Monday-ness irradiates the concept of the banal. It consumes it.”
On Sunday morning, I drank coffee with S. I wanted her to write the text for me. She said that she didn’t know what to write. I tried to help her by explaining that my work was about theatralisation. “Dramatizing, in my work, does not mean sublimation or transcendence. Dramatizing is used to animate the signifier, to transform the inaccessible real into fiction, to transform the language. I like playing with the idea of speech as socially codified expression, frustrated and ruptured dialogues. My images defy time, they are a nostalgic imposture like a resistance to the present.”
S. suggested an interview.
N°1 question: “What do you think of the idea that what is clearly enunciated is clearly understood, and of Christine Angot’s concept that an idea, once written is caught?
I answered with a sentence by Flaubert: “One does not write what one wants”. I added: In creation, something always escapes.
On Monday evening, I sent to B. the sole question and the sole response of my interview with S.