Visited a beautiful art exhibition in a newly-restored Palazzo in Catania this morning. The brochure advertises classics of 20th and 21st century art. My favourites were a few sculptures by Giacometti and Hans Arp; also, some intriguing modern experiments from about 1916, just as Pearse's volunteers were striking out for Irish freedom.
The small scale of some of the drawings and paintings are a reminder of how poor many of these artists were, before they became famous or before modern art became a commodity like platinum or gold. Some of the techniques are intriguingly simple, like Rothko's rectangles of colour, or Mondrian's abstractions. What these pieces underline is the capacity of artists to follow an idea to its limit, and spend a lifetime, maybe, exploring it in the medium. That, and perhaps some theorising about what they are doing, although some of these artists were anything but theoretically minded. There is also a feeling of envy when you look at these things, what separates you from them is not an idea of difficulty or repulsion, but the knowledge that you could not afford to spend the time to develop the potential of a few ideas to their realisation.
One of the privilieges of modern art is the fact that such fantastic spaces have been reserved for these works. Typically, you get a bank and a city council to fund these handsome buildings where a few pieces of 'junk' get dozens of square metres to themselves. This is where the alliance between money and art is really profitable: it gives art space to be. Without the context of open, usually white, space, an appreciation of these pieces would not be possible. Andy Warhol was right when he said that wealth gives you the opportunity to possess space, empty space, that is. Clutter, on the other hand, often goes hand in hand with poverty.
I am trying to figure out if there are any lessons here for literary or verbal art. One of the qualities of modern art presented in new galleries is the great economy of expression: you stand for as long as you like looking at three rectangles on a blue background by Rothko. Literary expression,on the other hand, is much more cluttered: blockbuster novels, a poet's ninth collection, a yard of shelf space devoted to so-and-so's fantasy genre, and so on. If we apply Warhol's principle to literature, then modern literature is poor because there's too much of it, it suffers from clutter. Also, there's a beautiful anonymity about a form by Hans Arp. Most of us just get the form to look at. We are not distracted by Hans Arp the person, with his biography, his life, his tabloid encounters (if any). I guess the writer who comes closest to this condition is Samuel Beckett, who kept the biographers away for as long as he could.
If verbal art were seriously interested in emulating the clean, open spaces of the modern art gallery, first of all there would be much less of it (Beckett again). It would also come to us shorn of any distractions. I'm thinking of a radio play as one possible medium for this, plus the shorter forms in poetry and prose, all of this anchored by a miminal presence of the author. (To be continued, perhaps.)