The line between artist and tyrant – Joshua Yang and Justin Loke
Drawing is basically mark-making. However, this basis is one that drawing has to share with the other form of mark-making, also known to us as writing. As we are about to proceed on a piece of writing on drawing, we are also thinking about how difficult – not to mention, futile – it would be for one to produce a drawing on writing, and how often such ideas and projects are like naïve, chimerical failures of an attempted jailbreak
[1]. Whilst they share a common root, text and image are never on equal terms. Their relation is skewed and lopsided. Similar to what Schopenhauer had written, the world, or human existence, is composed both of pleasure and of suffering, but to deem suffering as comparable to pleasure is to agree that eating and being eaten are the same.
In image production, its narratives that we recognised as visual language, text, if not speech – the henchman of language – is often the final word validating and classifying the reticent images of our world. In short, the image depends on words as a medium to clarify interpretations.
In the English language, one who does painting is known as a painter, one who writes is a writer, and one who sculpts is a sculptor. But we seldom find it comfortable to call someone who draws a ‘drawer’. Probably because the term is more often reserved for the ‘boxlike compartment in furniture that can be pulled out and pushed in’; one who draws an order for the payment of money; or alternatively, the other name of underpants. An artist, architect, interior designer or a draftsman does imply drawing, but never precisely the activity. For the term ‘draw’ or the activity never gives us clear, direct reference to any specific undertaking (a painter can still, very literally, mean one who applies paints to objects). There are just too many occupations and situations that require us to draw, or at least make markings.
We are hence concerned with a series of work where drawings are treated as the finality, and not just the means. However, this series of work need not necessarily include or exclude art works; they are merely looked at from the perspective of drawing or mark-making. In what follows, a series of examples may assist in clarifying the above point. This point will then be followed by another point and the examples serve as a connecting line between points
[2].
When approached by a tourist asking for directions, the best way to overcome the language barrier between us is to either draw a map or to make gestures – which are a kind of indexical drawings in the air.
And in hawker centres and coffee shops, the twisted fork and spoon, and painted bottoms of glass mugs are primitive markings akin to the sign of ownership or property we see on some open fields which reads ‘State Land/ No Dumping/No Trespassing’. A piece of drawing as a piece of art is very much defined by its opposite: drawings of solely practical ends etc.
For example, a drawing which was made in order to tell the carpenter the dimensions of a temporary wall made of plywood and whitewashed for the purpose of an exhibition would not be considered art but the drawing framed and hung on that wall would.
Nevertheless, as what Montaigne had advised us on adopting fine postures by looking at those with unpleasant ones. One should pay some attention to drawings that are not necessary art, or aspire to be art, in order to understand drawing in its totality…
We would normally associate drawings with expressiveness, as a form of expression from a supposed talent or ‘genius’, the line as an avenue for this ‘chosen one’ to pour out his/her ‘inner soul’. Otherwise, in platitudes communicated through the clichés of representation, drawings or artworks are the representation of my thoughts, my cultural background, my identity, my gender, my sexuality, my spirituality, my exoticness, my memories, my desires, my opinions, my conversations with trees… (yawn!!) In summary, drawings as representation are vehicles for personal introspective micro-indulgence. Lastly, on the supposedly radical but actually dated realm, drawings are the gestures, the overtly theatrical actions, a dramatic coordination of so many bodies and so many minds, the ephemeral performance.
But what about those territorial aspects of drawing? The possessive and exclusive, violent and bloodthirsty, roots of this activity that these days are introduced to tame, and add grace to, the infants; and seem as the pinnacle of innumerable civilisations.
[3] Does this seemingly negative and malicious image refer to all drawings? In a way, yes, because the ink applied the by the most innocent hand somehow unavoidably claims and marks out its place on the piece of paper, just as blood spilled on foreign soil marks out a conquered province. Even as an art form, drawing is condemned to impose, just as the painter is often ‘condemned to please.’
[4]Like the Kings, tyrants, conquerors, or whatever you call it, who sacrifice lives and limbs in order to shift the lines on a map, sacrificing lives and limbs in order to infringe
[5] (The tyrant is a two dimensional cartographer). Does this not remind us of the doings of Adolf Hitler? An artist turned dictator, his parallel obsessions with war and art, his emphasis on war machines and cultural monuments, his needs for tanks and architectures. In addition, it reminds us of a paragraph from Yukio Mishima’s The Temple of the Golden Pavilion.
[6] This common nature is where the difference between the inks for drawing and the blood needed to exchange for territories weakens. Even, one of the best anti-war novels All Quiet on the Western Front, by Erich Maria Remarque, requires the two basic elements of war and art to complete the tragedy – the blending of the two seemingly opposing flavours is crucial to stir the kind of sentiments that we love to hate.
But no! No, no, no! Artists are not tyrants who wasted lives or ambitious conquerors, but peace-loving, sensitive, soft, benign beings. They are the so-called masters of innovation, the challenger of traditions and rules – the next da Vinci to be (yawn). The embodiments and personifications of the beauty of my foot… They should be the morally healthy creative romantics – the cream of the cultural crops (that is at least how we think they should be here) – the avant-gardes who enjoys the brain-numbing 12 o’clock sun of this clinic garden. They are the ready-made libertines who walk the beaten tracks of manufactured transgression shone, all year round, with the blessed rays of Apollo.
However, artists are always trying to impose their ideas onto other minds, force feeding their opinions, their points of view, practicing an eternal insult to the taste of others.
The similarity between art and tyranny is obvious from the common practice of art. Art is never democratic, which is why it is usually a solitary project, or collaboration that seldom last. It does not entertain compromises because the very act of compromising then diminishes the singular vision of the project. Even if the project requires a team effort, the hierarchy remains feudalistic. Even for a film director who works with a team of thousands of crews, casts and cameramen, the hierarchy is clear. Voting never takes place on the set. We only see a tussle of different levels of positions. Of course, maybe the producer with his financial power could influence the decision. So, cash does represent democracy.
There is non-negotiable stubbornness that drives one to expand his empire, to accept his opinions, to make his voice louder, the loudest to be heard, to impose his ways on others. The only comparable stubbornness of a tyrant is the unrelenting temper of a child. Stubborn is the will of the child that kicks up a fuss when refused a toy and rolls on the floor of a shopping centre while the parents try to pry the child’s fingers from that toy.
There is a certain stubbornness found in the child who only draws cars and nothing else. The child will not colour them, the child only draws with pencils, and the child will not try to use another medium. But this child prefers routines to randomness and the teacher who is aware of the child’s preference plays on this fondness of routine and repetition and forces the child to produce black and white drawings of cars done in pencils within ten minutes. The line is drawn between these ten minutes and the next ten minutes, the child produces and produces something which the child enjoys over and over again, exerting a childish stubbornness on paper but subjected to the tyranny of the teacher who curbs his infantile tyranny. A form of tyranny the child, the society, and the education system actually yearn for.
Having said all this we urge you, seemingly passive, reader, to come to terms with your own tyranny, your own desire to impose your ideas upon others. Your interpretation to what we try to impose with lines of words - conflicts once again. In truth every one of us has their noble idea of an artist, idling or working quietly – or perhaps to the sound of lovemaking in the room upstairs – in a rented studio with paint-stained rags lying on the bare cement floor, sheets of empty canvas stretched across pieces of wood.
Honestly speaking, who wants to work? Who wants a nine to five job, Mondays to Fridays, stuck in an air-conditioned office when one could be pursuing one’s own – romantically inspired – endeavours? These endeavours include spending time with your spouse. However, some of us may be comfortable with that nine-to-five job which pays the bills and puts food on the table. But to give all that up would mean having to rely on the meagre sum of sponsorship allowed for, budgeted for, apportioned for by your sponsor, to whom we apply yearly or every time we gather enough works to exhibit. Admit it, dear reader, you would rather tell that sponsor to hang every one of its members – just as you would hang paintings – and go it on your own than to squirm and beg at their feet for one measly portion, a crumb from their table of abundance, and because of that crumb, you are obliged to print their logo on every piece of poster and invite and publication related to your exhibition or show or project. To hell with all that! Do it the tyrant’s way! You need to prove to all that you are an industry in yourself; an industry worth investing in. More than that, you need to gather enough mass, as a snowball, to build your own gravity, until you become a life-sustaining planet with your own atmosphere. Then, things will start to gravitate and crash into you and you become a collapsed star; a black hole which nothing, not even light can escape. But if all else fails, you can still switch to the sex industry. In a way a whore tyrannises desire.
The purpose of a scarecrow is to frighten birds from the field where it is planted, but the most terrifying painting is there to attract visitors.
[7][1] The prisoner, who attempts to escape from jail, even if he succeeds, only expands the size of his cell. From the physical concrete walls of the cell, he is now out in the open where the entire world is his jail. Even if he succeeds in transforming his face, his name, he will not escape from the fact that he is now a fugitive, running away from the prison that has already gone inside him. As the saying goes, ‘You can take the jailbird out of jail, but you can’t take the jail out of the jailbird.’
[2] In this essay we shall discuss typically the line which separates. However, it has not escaped our attention that a line may be seen to connect two points as much as it divides two sides. Popular and common phrases come to mind: ‘Where do you draw the line?’ ‘It’s a fine line between…’ ‘The line is blurred…’
[3] Being civilised often requires one to regulate noise, coordinate body movement as well.
[4] Georges Bataille, The Cruel Practice of Art, 1949, p.1.
[5] Can the king who expands his empire be compared to the prisoner who escapes from jail? The prisoner breaks down the walls but in doing so, the prison is now in him. On the other hand, the king while conquering other lands erects walls to keep the barbarian hordes from plundering his empire. In a way, he is also imprisoning himself within those self-erected walls. Both desire impunity, but one requires breaking down walls whilst the other requires building walls. In a way, one is Napoleon and the other is Dostoevsky’s Raskonikov in Crime and Punishment.
[6] ‘As can easily be imagined, a youth like myself came to entertain two opposing forms of power wishes. In history I enjoyed the descriptions of tyrants. I saw myself as a stuttering, taciturn tyrant; my retainers would hang on every expression that passed over my face and would live both day and night in fear and trembling of me. There is no need to justify my cruelty in clear, smooth words. My taciturnity alone was sufficient to justify every manner of cruelty. On the one hand, I enjoyed how one by one I would wreck punishment on my teachers and schoolmates who daily tormented me; on the other hand, I fancied myself as the great artist, endowed with the clearest vision – a veritable sovereign of the inner world. My outer appearance was poor, but in this way my inner world became richer than anyone else’s. Was it not natural that a young boy who suffered from an indelible drawback like mine should have come to think that he was a secretly chosen being? I felt as though somewhere in this world a mission awaited me of which I myself still knew nothing.’ Yukio Mishima in The Temple of the Golden Pavilion, 1956, p. 6.
[7] Bataille, op. cit.