INSTRUMENT MATTERS. AN ESSAY BY MICK COUNIHAN. This essay was originally published accompanying an exhibition of drawings by Neilson held at Australian Galleries, Glenmore Road, Sydney, May-June, 2012
1:56pm Fri. June 15th
In February 2010, some 20,000 Melburnians rallied in defense of live music. Their main target was a liquor-licensing regime which, with the objective of reducing drunken street violence, was enforcing such strict conditions on licensed venues playing live music that the viability of many smaller ones was at risk. The point of the Save Live Australian Music (SLAM) campaign was thus both to query the implicit linkage of music and violence and to support the live scene of pubs and small clubs which has long been a feature of Melbourne cultural life. The event itself was fun, the crowd larger than anticipated, the cause worthy. It was only later that I developed some misgivings.
Someone sent me a photo of myself at the rally holding a placard that I barely registered at the time. It said, ‘MUSIC DOES NOT CAUSE VIOLENCE’. Well… yes and no. Even granted the context of the SLAM campaign, there is something rather disturbing about this slogan. Is it claiming that music does not cause violence because it cannot, of its nature, ‘cause’ anything? Or that music can only generate positive, pastoral effects (like the good-humoured fellowship of the 2010 demonstration) but not nasty and negative ones (such as violence)? Or that music does not cause violence here and now though it might have done so at other times or elsewhere? In short, like other truisms of this sort (‘guns don’t kill people, people do’), the slogan proposes a truth so partial that it amounts to a lie.
The musical instruments depicted by Peter Neilson certainly seem peaceful enough. Some are in recovery mode, catching breath after long hours of practice, perhaps contemplating career options. Some lean casually against walls, some seem a bit underdressed, some (the clarinet) look spruced up for a night on the town. But however at pause the instruments represented here may appear to be, we know that they, like all objects, carry a weight and exert a force in the world, that they ‘bend space around themselves’ as Bruno Latour would say, (at the simplest level think of how instruments shape the posture of those playing them). That is, they resist being merely instrumental. And, like other social actors they invariably participate in all sorts of shady deals, dubious liaisons, Faustian pacts. (Exactly what is in that violin case?)
In the weeks after I was asked to write these notes I came across the following:
• (newspaper opinion piece) Classical Music as a Weapon. Discusses the use of classical music to influence behaviour in public spaces. Examples: Schubert piano trio played over tinny PA to drive the homeless from the New York Port Authority bus terminus; a school in Derby, UK, forces disobedient students to listen to an hour of classical music. Behaviour improved by 50 percent.
• (travel book about the tropics) ‘Bells, long credited with special powers, have been sounded to seed rain clouds, quieten volcanoes, drive off demons, purify pestilential towns and ensure good harvests.’ The Sicilian Vespers massacre was named after the peal of bells that triggered it while bells also cued the slaughter of French Huguenots on St Bartholomew’s day 1572.
• (Peter Guralnick’s Searching for Robert Johnson) Tommy Johnson was an influential delta blues player, 15 years older than the unrelated Robert. According to his brother, Tommy described how ‘he sold hisself to the devil’,
‘If you want to learn how to play anything you want play and to learn how to make songs yourself, you take your guitar and you go to where a crossroad is…. be sure to get there just a little ‘fore 12:00 that night…. A big black man will walk up there and take your guitar and he’ll tune it. And then he’ll play a piece and hand it back to you. That’s the way I learned to play anything I want.’
The Walter Hill film, Crossroads, an entertaining reprise of such stories, ends with both a reference to the tales of fiddling contests in which young contenders challenge the Devil and a musical allusion to another instrumentalist whose genius was ascribed to diabolical assistance, Niccolò Paganini.
• (a spy novel) A CIA operative queries a Hungarian revolutionary in Budapest 1956,
‘I understand about the radio and knife,’ Ebby told him…. ‘But why the violin?’
‘Not possible to make war without a violin,’ Zoltan explained seriously. ‘Gypsy violinists led Magyars into battle against goddam Mongols … ’
• (a website) A rembetika musician recalling Greece between the wars,
‘You have no idea of the general outcry that the bouzouki created at that time. It was an instrument played by criminals, by people sentenced to die. Today, anyone can touch its strings without further thinking. Me, when I hold one, it’s a sacred thing. For it has survived the worst ordeals. That was the reason the police were against it and against me also. They were afraid of the contagion. Such was the power of the bouzouki.’
Many of the instruments represented in Peter’s pictures spent extended periods during their long and complex biographies when they were condemned for their baleful moral influence, their aesthetic failings and their disreputable company. And rightly so. Jazz famously consorted with gangsters in Storyville, Kansas City, Owney Madden’s Cotton Club and the like. Some commentators even ascribe the decline of Chicago jazz to the jailing of its patron and protector, Al Capone in 1931. Music has provided a soundtrack for every mafia from the Calabrian ’Ndrangheta to Mexican narcotraficantes. And there are a host of more modest and more evocative stories: Mississippi bluesman and mandolinist, Charlie McCoy, playing Italian songs in mafia restaurants; slide-player Kokomo Arnold becoming a bootlegger; Jimmie Rodgers’ trick of paying a first instalment on a new guitar then hocking it for cash and leaving town; the small town sheriff who arrested peddlers and guitar players on sight; inked guitar strings used to imprint prison tattoos.
‘The sexual nature of the tango has often been noted,’ wrote Jorge Luis Borges, ‘but not so its violence.’ If we were to pursue the multiple associations and ominous complicities between musical instruments, their performers and their milieus we could follow Borges to the Arrabales, the urban fringe barrios of Buenos Aires in his youth, with their taverns and brothels and strutting, dandified street louts and, especially, the bandit gauchos and duelling knife fighters whose ethos, ‘the utter shamelessness, the pure joy of courage’, he found embodied in the early tangos. Borges stridently defended this tango, the dance of male violence, against new imported influences (such as the concertina) that he accused of making the tango more sentimental and effeminate. In this new, respectable tango, he railed, ‘there is a trivial vulgarity, a taste of infamy that the tango of the knife and the brothel never suspected.’
Near the end of his life, Borges came to renounce his earlier investment in the ‘bloody mythology’ of daggers and guitars, but, shorn of any such romanticism, some of the contrasts he made are echoed in Annie Proulx’s Accordion Crimes. The accordion, in its many versions and like the fiddle, has been central to family festivities and communal celebrations in Europe and it accompanied its owners as they dispersed in migration and exile around the globe. This novel, surely one of the richest accounts we have of the life of a musical instrument, tracks a small green button accordion from its construction in a Sicilian village to its travels across the relentlessly grim landscape of the immigrants’ new world. The accordion becomes many things and forms many relationships; it is stolen, lovingly repaired, exchanged as a gift, used as a hiding place, treated as junk. It is desired, denounced (‘the instrument of unsuccessful men, of poor immigrants and failures’) and spurned in favour of newer and more fashionable instruments. It is an emblem both of the maintenance of ethnic cultures and of their erosion. It is linked to many strange and obscure deaths. In the end it loses its most distinctive quality, its voice,
‘From a distance the voice of the instrument sounded hoarse and crying, reminding listeners of the brutalities of love, of various hungers. The notes fell, biting and sharp; it seemed the tooth that bit was hollowed with pain.’
A last example: Dock Boggs, a miner turned moonshiner in the mountains of West Virginia, a white man who played banjo like a blues guitar and recorded a few sides in the late 1920s just as the recording industry was splitting old time music (and to a degree, its instruments) along a racial divide: hillbilly for whites, blues for blacks. Greil Marcus (The Invisible Republic: Bob Dylan’s Basement Tapes), in a powerful chapter on the violence in Bogg’s life and music, writes,
‘One could speak of Boggs accompanying himself on his banjo, but that’s not how it feels. The banjo creates a tremendous internal drive in Country Blues, carrying the storyteller, not forward to his certain appointment, but elsewhere. Small notes, blues notes, weighted down with a kind of nihilistic autonomy, a refusal to recognise any maker, any master…’
The SLAM slogan attributes an implausible innocence to music. Its apparent antithesis, the slogan on Woody Guthrie’s guitar, ‘This machine kills fascists’, projects an impossible potency. Peter Neilson makes no such hyperbolic claims. He says, ‘Look closely. Listen well. Handle with care’.
Associate, School of Media and Communication, RMIT University, and perhaps more importantly, one time folk-music columnist in the 1960s pop music paper Go Set.
2:30pm Sun. June 26th
And having read Adorno's position that art's impulse is to objectivate the fleeting, not the permanent may well run through the whole of its history;
And, bowing low before Benjamin's final reading of Paul Klee's painting Angelus Novus as the 'angel of history' blown backwards into the future by a storm form Paradise while the chain of events we call progress is seen by our angel as one single catastrophe which piles up wreckage and hurls it at the angel's feet;
And after musing on the 'missing link' that so intrigued Greenberg into his old age, between Picasso's Rose Period and Braque's Fauvist period and the 'unimaginable, solely intuitive leap into Cubism (my own take being that conversations between Picasso and Gertrude Stein in 1905 during her daily sittings over three months for his famous portrait of her, was Picasso's introduction to her ideas the art's new role in the twentieth century was to express a 'continuous present' which led directly tothe Cubist re-viewing of the visual suject: instantly, from all sides, all at once - a 'continuous present').
And after disagreeing with John Updike's savaging of the sainted, satanic Pollack's Blue Poles: Number 11, 1952, 'with its unhappy discovery of orange paint', as a regression of style, painted years after Pollack had moved on from his 'drip-paint' style, and Updike's rejoicing in its banishment to an empire outpost in Australia 'whence it will come but rarely' to trouble those populating the centre of the universe,it was but a small step through the labyrinth of my library to re-read Sherman E. Lee's history of China's Southern Sung landscape style (1127-1277AD),painted by practitioner's of the 'Sponaneous mode" with its extremely bold 'flung ink' techniques revealing 'abrupt and arbirary personality' , and a'pictorial parallel to the mystic's enlightenment, as well as to the individual's revolt against the times of troubles that were the last days of the Dynasty';
And after reading the film critic Parker Tyler's early review of Pollack's art, written in March 1950, explaining that Pollack's 'labyrinths' were visual metaphors which 'even the most unprepared spectator would immediately grasp', inferring that it existed as a widely recognised visual metaphor before it was adopted by Pollack and that film noir was lasgely responsible for the labyrinth's dissemination thoughout post-WW2 visual culture;
Then, and only then, do I clear my mind of theories and worthy ideas, take up my brush and canvas, which stare back at me across eight hundred years of raging history, and and in the gathering silence listen to Aragon the Young and Rimbaud the Even Younger, for directions, seeking a way through the 'calculated confusion', on the unmarked map tp Nowhere Known.
At last, painting is out of the spotlight, old, and tired of carrying the avant-garde can for every philosophical statement imaginable and pleased to hand that part of life over to the re-producables', allowing itself to be itself at its core: tough, individual, elite; and perhaps for the first time able to say something about what's going on in the spotlight. Painting continues outrunning history - one fleeting step ahead.
This statement by Peter Neilson was first published in the invitation to his July 2006 exhibition of paintings and drawings by Australian Galleries, at Dank Street Gallery, Waterloo, Sydney Australia. ...
7:45pm Mon. May 2nd
Contest the whole, because, as Adorno writes, 'the whole is false'.
And. again, as Adorno writes: "...the value of a thought is measured by its distance from the continuity of the familiar".
And again:"...Advice to intellectuals: let no-one represent you".
...and again: "In the age of the individual's liquidation, the question of individuality must be raised anew. While the individual, like all individualistic processes of production, has fallen behind the state of technology and become historically obsolete, he becomes the custodian of truth, as the condemned against the victor. For the individual alone preserves, in however distorted a form, a trace of that which legitimizes all technification and yet to which the latter blinds itself. Because unbridled progress exhibits no immediate identity with that of mankind, its antithesis can give true progress, shelter.
A pencil and rubber are more use to thought than a battalion of assistants".
Peter Neilson, May,2011 ...
8:17pm Sun. May 1st
...and when it's all been
said and done
It's in our always failing
That it hasn't all been
said and done.
Peter Neilson 2011 ...
11:12am Thu. April 16th
ESSAY BY REX BUTLER, SENIOR LECTURER, DEPARTMENT OF ENGLISH, MEDIA STUDIES AND ART HISTORY, UNIVERSITY OF QUEENSLAND
4:37pm Sat. January 5th
The following is an essay which appeared in a folio of Peter Neilson's artwork published for the 2007 Sydney exhibition of Neilson's work at Australian Galleries,15 Roylston Street, PADDINGTON,NSW.
In a typical Peter Neilson painting, there is a series of rooms or spaces, in each of which a different scene or scenario takes place. A man smokes a cigar alone in a bar. A woman in a red evening dress prowls down some stairs. A busker plays a guitar in a railway underpass. The various scenes are linked magically, illogically, across great jumps of scale and perspective. A door opening at the back of one space reveals a much larger interior space. The glass of a picture frame reflects a world that exists nowhere in reality. Curtains part on a stage to reveal the immense night sky. Connecting these spaces are strangely tilted staircases, beams of torchlight cutting through the dark, pencils that point suggestively and confetti that hangs in the air. Through their recessed depths, birds and miniturised helicopters fly. And the whole space of the painting is bathed in a deep aquamarine light, which stains everything it touches.
Of course, the inescapable reference in all this is film noir: lights shining on rain-slicked streets, neon signs,raking shadows,men and women sitting in evening dress in seedy bars, mysterious assignations in hotel lobbies. It is a dream-like haunted world that Neilson constructs, full of half-remembered ghosts and spectres. They are almost (the barfly, the spy the femme fatale) the undead stereotypes of our culture - and Neilson paints them with just enough detail to animate but nor individualise them. We look at his pictures as if separated from them by time and space: the figures in them appear shrunken as though seen from far away and waver and flicker as though about to disappear. They are plainly unreal, existing only within the strict limits of Neilson's artistic universe, like fish swimming in an aquarium.
This was perhaps the great lesson Neilson learnt during his 20-year long absence from painting.If we compare Neilson's works from 1987 to those of his first acclaimed show as a 23 year old in 1967, the only thing that distinguishes them is the addition of a frame. When Neilson speaks of the way that after his first exhibition, he worried about whether he was"using photograghy as a scapegoat for his inability to draw", we would say that this is not just an individual concern but a general cultural attitude towards the continued possibility of figurative painting. And Neilson in response to this, whether conciously or not, came to the same conclusion as arguably the greatest of twentieth-cetury figurative painters, Edward Hopper, which is that it is necessary to add an imaginary frame around or inside the work. It is to admit that what we see in a figurative painting is not real but merely a representation standing in for the real. The frame, in cutting out, or excerpting what we see from reality, precisely allows us to fantasize about it:in a paradoxical way, it is not so much what is outside as what is inside the 'frame' that is seen as though it is missing.
Like Hopper, with Neilson we would note not only the generally cinematic feel of his compositions, but more particularly the series of camera-like framings that run throughout his work. Just like Hopper often viewed his figures through windows(whether actual or implied), so in Neilson we have a whole series of doorways, picture frames and television screens that distinguish the various tableaux played out in his pictures. In this, Neilson doubtless means to emphasise the unreal or even phantasmagorical nature of what he stages. It is their framing more than any actual content that gives them the effect of a kind of dream or fantasy. And yet, somewhat surprisingly, the titles of Neilson's paintings often hint at a kind of social 'reality', or even the possibility of a 'political' reading of the work: 'History rising... to claim us all'(2000),'The dissenter'(2003), Wheels in motion, hearts on fire(the battle outside's still raging)(2004-5). What is going on here? In fact if we look closely at Neilson's paintings, at the back of there fantasmic settings we often have the invocation of some kind of reality. Through their rear windows or outside their balconies, we see a distant city on fire or being blown up by a squadron of helicopters choppering in, a harshly-lit pair of cleaners removing the previous day's rubbish so that a new day can begin again...
Neilson is not doing anything so obvious as contrasting dream and reality here, criticising the irresposibility of day dreams in urging us to pay more attention to life. He very well knows that, if we were to seek to make direct contact with reality like this, we would end up seeing it in the same unreal phantasmic terms as he depicts in his paintings. Rather, in a brilliant kind of 'mousetrap', he is pointing to the fact that it is exactly in dreams that we encounter what must be excluded to allow the dream-like nature of reality. Just as the truth in theatre is not to be revealed immediately but only in the form of a play within a play, so Neilson is saying that the real is not directly to be represented but only by means of the frame within the frame. The real is not outside of the frame but is,on the contrary, indicated by a certain doubling or splitting of the frame. It is that which, in being framed by the painting, ends up framing it. ...
"The art of Peter Neilson is very much a product of urban Melbourne radicalism. He was born in East Melbourne in 1944 and grew up in the inner - Melbourne suburb of Essendon where he formed a life long affiliation with the local football club" - Dr Sasha Grishin 2002