Congrats on the praise! As you know, I like your work.
I'm not enthusiastic about this review, though. Let me focus on your statement that students were "dismissive." Why? Well, maybe because the story told here, and evidently by the curators runs along these lines:
sensitive/brilliant/different [gay] child
society doesn't understand
young man rebels, is "radical"
young man does great things
society learns
[dark version] young man dies
It's a great story, a very familiar story, in fact the storyline of lots of Disney stuff.
But the story is pretty much independent of art. The great things, in the quotes you give and the outline you tell, are sort of gestured toward (this is "political," this is "radical," so of course he was great?) but not artistically specified. The closest we have is some sort of coherence across media, but what constitutes that coherence?
Rephrased, had Derek been absolutely without talent, just a gay kid trying to make his way in the world, you could pretty much tell the same story.
"Same sex couple in bed" does not automatically make great art. It certainly might be a provocation under certain circumstances, Scotland not that long ago, perhaps, and we might be sympathetic to the provocation, but lots of things are provoking without being art. And the circumstances have changed, so now it's not very provocative, and the kids don't care.
In short, you've situated this work within a transitory politics, which has become worthy but ho hum, not even radical, but you have not really told us much about how the political situation, or the HIV diagnosis, drove a specific artistic statement. So if I were an art student I would say some version of "tell me something I don't know." It might be there, but you've not really said it.
Anyway, delayed flights, I am probably grumpy. Keep up the good work.
Well, I thought your opening about coherence was promising, and some of the colors were interesting, and you seem to have accessibility on your mind . . . you're noodling something. And gardening is a bit odd in this context, maybe something there. My guess is you just got distracted by the rather orthodox story that was, after all, being said.
Just playing with these bits: you could imagine a child's love of gardens - with flowers - colors -- accessible, indeed pre-verbal, and so pre-political . . . and one would get reading that is the inversion of art = politics. Maybe that's what he really wanted, a kind of freedom denied him? There's pathos . . . .again, I'm just playing. I've not actually seen the art. But it's a more interesting story, at least. :)
When I hit my thousandth paid subscriber I’ll make you an offer to be my editor. All good stuff. To be honest I don’t think my initial thesis was quite right and I was keen to get it off my todo list while making it as coherent as possible.
Derek Jarmen is a fabulous person when I saw him at third eye centre in Glasgow. His work is breathing taking... and great artists for his film work. Appreciate your article posted. Keep it up...
Neil,
Congrats on the praise! As you know, I like your work.
I'm not enthusiastic about this review, though. Let me focus on your statement that students were "dismissive." Why? Well, maybe because the story told here, and evidently by the curators runs along these lines:
sensitive/brilliant/different [gay] child
society doesn't understand
young man rebels, is "radical"
young man does great things
society learns
[dark version] young man dies
It's a great story, a very familiar story, in fact the storyline of lots of Disney stuff.
But the story is pretty much independent of art. The great things, in the quotes you give and the outline you tell, are sort of gestured toward (this is "political," this is "radical," so of course he was great?) but not artistically specified. The closest we have is some sort of coherence across media, but what constitutes that coherence?
Rephrased, had Derek been absolutely without talent, just a gay kid trying to make his way in the world, you could pretty much tell the same story.
"Same sex couple in bed" does not automatically make great art. It certainly might be a provocation under certain circumstances, Scotland not that long ago, perhaps, and we might be sympathetic to the provocation, but lots of things are provoking without being art. And the circumstances have changed, so now it's not very provocative, and the kids don't care.
In short, you've situated this work within a transitory politics, which has become worthy but ho hum, not even radical, but you have not really told us much about how the political situation, or the HIV diagnosis, drove a specific artistic statement. So if I were an art student I would say some version of "tell me something I don't know." It might be there, but you've not really said it.
Anyway, delayed flights, I am probably grumpy. Keep up the good work.
Yes I tend to agree with Dean Kissick about a political art world being dull: https://harpers.org/archive/2024/12/the-painted-protest-dean-kissick-contemporary-art/
But I think there is enough wonder in Jarman to keep me interested… whether I conveyed it is another matter!
Thanks for engaging with it and keeping me, ahem, straight.
Well, I thought your opening about coherence was promising, and some of the colors were interesting, and you seem to have accessibility on your mind . . . you're noodling something. And gardening is a bit odd in this context, maybe something there. My guess is you just got distracted by the rather orthodox story that was, after all, being said.
Just playing with these bits: you could imagine a child's love of gardens - with flowers - colors -- accessible, indeed pre-verbal, and so pre-political . . . and one would get reading that is the inversion of art = politics. Maybe that's what he really wanted, a kind of freedom denied him? There's pathos . . . .again, I'm just playing. I've not actually seen the art. But it's a more interesting story, at least. :)
When I hit my thousandth paid subscriber I’ll make you an offer to be my editor. All good stuff. To be honest I don’t think my initial thesis was quite right and I was keen to get it off my todo list while making it as coherent as possible.
I'll take that as a compliment. To be honest, I LOVE editing. I'm a writer, but that's a compulsion. Editing is fun.
Derek Jarmen is a fabulous person when I saw him at third eye centre in Glasgow. His work is breathing taking... and great artists for his film work. Appreciate your article posted. Keep it up...
wow. Have you seen the exhibition? you might be in it
No,I haven't been in it . Do you mean at the Glasgow exhibition?
Yes, at the Hunterian. They have footage of when he came up jn 1989.
Yes I didn't see the footage because there were so many people coming in at once...