| |
There are many contradictions inherent in engaging such questions in an art context. By displaying private and
intimate communications in a public setting and inviting scrutiny and comparison by presenting love letters as a
group (potentially robbing them of their uniqueness), one runs the risk of alienating the recipients (and/or viewers),
rather than creating intimacy. The projects I create aim to nurture dialog around these contradictions rather than
resolve them.
Within this framework, further issues arise: How are the elemental bonds between myself and those in my
life affected when something as intimate as a love letter is made public through the art world? How are the
connections changed when the letters are exhibited as one of many, rather than standing alone? How do people
respond to getting a love letter as part of an art project? Does it make the love letter more or less meaningful?
Change the meaning or have no impact? How can a love letter be shared publicly without being depleted of
substance?
Is it alienating and isolating rather than comforting? It is instructive to contemplate the motivations behind such an
act. Does exhibiting letters I write to others act as a means of elevating myself? Of manipulating how others might
think of me? Does it have to do with who I want to be or rather how I want to be seen by others? Perhaps the
motivation is an expression of a more profound question of how I am in the world.
I wonder how deeply I can share intimacy and with how many people; whether in trying to communicate that to
viewers they might differently consider love themselves.
This line of questioning ultimately leads us into the terrain of obligation as a tool of social reinforcements. I
feel that debt and obligation are intrinsic to the love letter as gift, and beyond that, debt and obligation are a basic
necessary glue for the bonds between individuals and between populations, between artist, viewer, curator and
collector. This fundamental character of deep human connection prompts one to ask, what are the specific
expectations that one creates with a love letter? Does the love expressed make the recipient feel they must
respond, either in kind (that is, with a letter) or through some other favor when the sender is in need?
Creating an obligation is one mode of building relationships, and by extension community and society.
Obligation has a particular quality, as distinguished from social bonds built through coercion, and in some
underlying ways it encompasses both. The Love Letters highlight different types of interpersonal obligation:
expected (such as with familial or romantic relationships), ‘freely’ chosen (such as with friends and viewers), and
gratitude (such as the bond created as a result of altruistic acts).
Unless the relationship is strictly tit-for-tat, obligations between family members or romantic partners have
complex histories and counter-obligations attached. It is less clear whether a generous gesture is ‘repayment’ or a
new ‘gift’.
Commitment over time is what builds up these layers of complexity. Indeed, mature, close friendships take on this
emotional timbre much more than what I described as ‘freely’ chosen relationships. These relationships (where
exchanges of obligation are assumed and expected) depend upon the willingness to become obligated, to freely,
eagerly go into debt. This is an important, yet frequently overlooked, aspect of love. The Love Letters
acknowledge my debt to the recipients, at the same time that they might impose a new debt or obligation on the
beloved. However, the viewer/reader is left to draw her or his own conclusions about whether a recipient perceived
an obligation, or whether the recipient’s reaction was intended as a type of payment, and ultimately, how such
‘debts’ and ‘payments’ impact the quality of a given relationship.
(more)
|
|
