Where the conversation Melusine and I have is a conversation taking place in an informal setting, the first part, Chapter 8, moves between conversation and dialogue, with me aiming for the later and Melusine pushing for the former; a case of me wrestling with the tool and my own tendency to preachiness via the Socratic dialogue in an attempt to reach a state of having a “real conversation” by the end of Chapter 10. [Sample Chapter 7]
This is an interesting point - so does the "preachiness" then approach proselytizing? and if so, is there a point of 'conversion'? this as well has connections to images - think of the Catholic notion of conversion either to Catholicism or even more from ‘human’ to saint. in recent times Julian Schnabel did a series in the 90's I think called The Conversion of St Paolo Malfi .
My response:
Interesting comment, one I am sure I will think about more. For now, I think the shift (preaching to proselytizing) happens when the conversation moves from dialogue in the Socratic sense to a “real conversation” where it is neither about instructing (preaching) nor converting (proselytizing) but about talking, listening and questioning. In other words, the two, preaching and proselytizing, are not part of “real conversation” and the conversion happens when they end and the questioning for the sake of questioning (playing for the sake of playing) begins. Dialogue is playing the game to win (adult play). Conversation is playing for the sake of playing (child’s play).
I looked up the PR for Schnabel’s show of those paintings at Pace as I could not recall them. Interesting that he began the series to address the conversion of St. Paul (what a piece of propaganda if you want to convert the masses!) but it ended up being his response through images to the death of a friend. I’ve not looked closely at JS’s ‘religious figures’ paintings that came before, so no basis for discussing from that context. But in this a big conversion, a death, happened that resonated personally with the artist. But, in my opinion, the conversion happened not to the friend who died but to the artist.
This is all in my opinion, but I would say the human to saint conversion is something that happens not to the person upon death but to the image of the person that remains with those who loved him upon his death … in other words sainthood is bestowed not upon the person but the image of the person by the spectator/friend. This may be the reason the Catholic Church’s process of canonization is lengthy and generally happens no sooner than five years after the person’s death - reason given being that the time allows for a more objective look at the person’s life.
This is why I say that moment of conversion happens not to the person depicted but to the spectator/friend and is (possibly) the reverse of what happens in the dialogue/conversation conversion - the questioning of the image stops. I found Fancisco Clemente’s comment in the press release of “an illusionistic surface, precious and unflawed if seen from afar, puritanical and raw if seen close up;” sums this up well. We can now only see this person from ‘afar’ - precious and unflawed - idealized (idolized) though we once saw him close up - raw and in all his particularities (individualized) and, if we take into consideration the Catholic Church’s five year policy we might once more be able to see the individual close up. With this contrast - life and death - one is growing up and playing the game by the rules and the other is remaining child-like and playing to play.
A comment received:
"Re conversion, what about Melusine’s recent demise in light of your comments re death’s transfiguration?"
My response:
Ok, her death is not addressed in this draft of this chapter or the Personas section for a number of reasons; because in the time the conversation occurs she is not dead and more so because her death and its impact will be addressed earlier, in the Playing section at the beginning of the ‘written component’ aka ‘written exegesis’ aka ‘written dissertation’ where all the personas are discussed more fully.
From my posting:
'But in this a big conversion, a death, happened that resonated personally with the artist. But, in my opinion, the conversion happened not to the friend who died but to the artist.’
Taken this way this would mean it is not Melusine who was transfigured by her death but rather I (Petra, Franzi, and anyone else in her orbit) who was/ was not transfigured.
On the other hand, as I wrote in another posting [Life, Death and the Persona]:
'A persona is an artistic creation. As such a persona, as a concept and not an object, cannot live or die anymore than a thought or an idea. Personas, once created, can only be. From the point a persona is the persona can be moved or made by the creator in any direction. A persona is not bound or constrained by the boundary of life/death because a persona is not a person but a concept. However, what we tend to forget or choose to ignore is how often a person becomes a persona and our quickness to confuse the two.’
The question is then raised how those in her orbit are or are not transfigured by her death and in turn the impact this has on the painting, writing and all the relationships in between.
From the same post, last paragraph:
In the book Shock and Awe Simon Reynolds in the afterward writes on the shock he received at learning of the sudden death of David Bowie in January 2016. But the author said after the initial shock of the death he came to the realization and was comforted by the fact that David Bowie had not died, David Robert Jones had. Like the character “Roman Brady’ on the American soap opera Days of Our Lives, ‘David Bowie’ has the potential to come back in various forms, personified by various artists, for as long as we want him to. With the death of Melusine Van der Weyden I see the same potential.
This could mean that the typical transfiguration/conversion I mentioned, the image being sanctified by ’those left behind’ may or may not happen or at least she might not become a saint to all who experienced her (who does?) but something else could, as a persona she is ’still alive in her death’ (but she isn’t a zombie!) …
Yes, work still to be done!
Question: Did you ever have a tool of any kind that you really liked and when it broke you re-purposed it and found in its new purpose you like it just as much if not better than before?
Not to say the original tool isn’t missed and might even be irreplaceable, but re-purposed it now can do things which were not possible before. I think of some brushes I’ve had that through use changed and how what I could do with them in a painting was impacted by this …