Post 15: A serious object?

-

I was in the mood to write a little something and luckily a spill occurred and this wet floor sign appeared.

I sat for a bit, looking at the sign, thinking the usual questions of what draws me to an object (why do I always feel a little skeptical of myself when referring to something as an object?) such as this one? Why write about something I am drawn to? Do I want to write about everything I am drawn to? Is there a subset of “things I am drawn to” that I want to write about? Do I enjoy writing about things that seem like they don’t necessarily deserve to be written about--things that may be self-explanatory, and that make writing about them seem like an extraneous effort?


One way this wet floor sign stands out to me is in being one of the few objects in this coffee place that names itself. That has already written itself. (I also see “whole milk,” “half and half,” “simple syrup,” “water.”) Actually, the wet floor sign doesn’t name itself like these other items do, but names the scenario it participates in (CAUTION Wet Floor). It may be one of the only sentences in here. I view the sign as having a one to one relationship with this scenario that it plays a role in. As in, it’s a single answer to a single question (i.e. What has happened?). Wet floor signs only ever come out after something has happened. They put a stop to the happening, acting like an ending punctuation mark to what has taken place. This one looks conclusive and confident. Though, at the same time, relatively and goofily unimportant in what it’s being conclusive about. As it always references a past event, it becomes continuously less necessary (and more foolish?) the longer it sits. It could be said that it becomes more like a punctuation mark without a sentence to precede it, but somehow I feel that to say this is to introduce a flourish that is outside the bounds of what is happening here...


Questions come from the sign both playing such a small, singular role, and seeming to take itself very seriously in doing so. It’s straightforward, and spelled out, but so minor. The conclusiveness of its message feels like it runs up against its overall…negligibility as an object. 


I don’t know what a serious object is, but I’m wondering what level of seriousness this one has. Where does it fall between being respected and being laughable? 


Does writing about an object give it a certain amount of seriousness that it doesn't have on its own?

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Post 31: The negation of a painting

-
Image
Peaceful photo of an almond that looks like a piece of wood. I’d quickly say that what I want to create is the negation of a painting, but would much more slowly (so slow as to effectively round down to never) reach an articulation of the status of or qualifications to the constitution of such a thing. More than that, I’d say working toward a negation is centrally about proceeding in a certain direction (not a forward one) than about trying to create a negative substance in the end.  The problem (that I face in confronting the idea of making a painting) is that “forward” is supposedly a known direction. Maybe not even supposedly. It just is. And when I think of a painting (something properly and recognizably known as one [which I guess is what is taken for granted when you refer to any term]), I imagine it existing out in front of me (“in front of” implying forward).* Which is not to say that making a painting is a straight-line pursuit, but just that I can’t help but think of a pa...
Read more

Post 38: A few things from The Pond Froze Over at Procession Gallery

-
Image
One wall of The Pond Froze Over The other day, I dashed into what was a radiant and sensitive show up at Procession Gallery, The Pond Froze Over . I stepped through the space with the slightness and waver of a pencil’s line--just in the way that the space’s atmosphere compelled me to; you could not step boldly through the room for you would drown out the sound of the works--quivering as they were as though (or perhaps they actually were) balancing on a singular spot of softness. Early in my arrival, in the midst of getting my bearings, I happened to turn around and face the outside that I came from, and there happened to be someone out there, on the other side of the street, tagging, with black spray paint, a few objects that were leaning against the brick side wall of a building. This filled me with glee. It fulfilled the strange rareness of witnessing someone mark-make while being surrounded by mark-making in the past tense--unwitnessed marks already having been made. These few thoug...
Read more

Post 35: Writing about painting can't be done / writing about some paintings in Wet Diagram

-
Image
It’s interesting that writing about painting sets up a relationship between writing and painting. That to write about a painting is to connect this verb (writing) with this object of the preposition (painting). If writing and painting are two separate domains (are they? aren’t they?), then to write about painting is to draw a line from one domain to the other. Like this: At least, that’s what writing feels like. Line drawing. Though, what does a line mean? As this diagram shows, writing about painting (if that was the title of the diagram) situates painting in space. Writing grounds painting--creates what seems to be an accessible path to it--by putting it in connection to another thing (in this case, to itself: to words). There’s a trickiness here--to the pursuit of writing about painting--because in this diagram, in this conception I have of the project that is writing about painting, writing is both the thing painting is in relationship to, and the act that creates the relationsh...
Read more