Visual Culture in Britain ISSN: 1471-4787 (Print) 1941-8361 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rvcb20 Mythopoesis or Fiction as Mode of Existence: Three Case Studies from Contemporary Art Simon O’Sullivan To cite this article: Simon O’Sullivan (2017): Mythopoesis or Fiction as Mode of Existence: Three Case Studies from Contemporary Art, Visual Culture in Britain, DOI: 10.1080/14714787.2017.1355746 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14714787.2017.1355746 Published online: 04 Aug 2017. Submit your article to this journal View related articles View Crossmark data Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rvcb20 Download by: [2.106.103.112] Date: 04 August 2017, At: 06:18 Simon O’Sullivan Mythopoesis or Fiction as Mode of Existence: Three Case Studies from Contemporary Art This article explores a trend in some British contemporary art towards ‘fiction- ing’, when this names not only the blurring of the reality/fiction boundary, but also, more generally, the material instantiation – or performance – of fictions within the real. It attends to three practices of this fiction as mode of existence: sequencing and nesting (Mike Nelson); the deployment ‘fabulous images’ and intercessors (Brian Catling); and more occult technologies and an idea of the ‘invented life’ (Bonnie Camplin). The article also attends to the mythopoetic or 7 ‘world-making’aspectofthesepracticesandthewaythiscaninvolverecourseto 1 0 other times, past and future. Mythopoesis also involves a sense of collective 2 st enunciation and, with that, a concomitant disruption of the more dominant gu fictionofthe self. u A 4 Keywords:mythopoesis,fictioning,MikeNelson,BrianCatling,BonnieCamplin 0 8 1 06: Introduction at ] In the following, I briefly explore a trend in some British contemporary art 2 1 towardswhatDavidBurrowsandIcall‘fictioning’.Thisinvolvestheblurring 1 3. ofthereality/fictionboundary,butalso,moregenerally,thematerialinstan- 0 1 6. tiation– orperformance– offictionswithintherealthat thengives them a 10 certaintractiononthelatter.1AnotherwayofsayingthisisthatIaminter- [2. ested in practices that develop fiction as a mode of existence (the term is y b borrowedfromBrunoLatour),especiallywhenthismanifestsinasequencing ed and nesting function (section 2); the deployment of ‘fabulous images’ and d a intercessors(section3);and/ormoreoccultprinciples(orintentions)andthe o nl ideaofan‘inventedlife’(section4).Afurthertermappearsthroughoutmy w o article:‘mythopoesis’.Thisreferstothe‘world-making’aspectoftheseprac- D ticesand,in my usage,totheway thiscan involverecoursetoother times, pastandfuture.Mythopoesisalsoinvolvesasenseofcollectiveenunciation (asinGillesDeleuze’sunderstandingofcallingfortha‘people-yet-to-come’) and,withthat,aconcomitantdisruptionofthemoredominantfictionofthe self. Despite this somewhat abstract introduction, the idea in what follows isalsothatthepracticesthemselvesenactmuchofthetheoreticalworkin so far as they involve different inflections on my theme. It is useful to consider examples of practice in some detail in order to grasp their particular logics, and I have space here for three indicative examples.2 BeforeIbegin,however,Iwanttosayafewwordsaboutawidercontext. What I write attends to a particular scene (very broadly construed) with which I am most familiar and of which, at least to a certain extent, I am VisualCultureinBritain,2017 https://doi.org/10.1080/14714787.2017.1355746 ©2017InformaUKLimited,tradingasTaylor&FrancisGroup 2 fiction as mode of existence part (insofar as the artistic collaboration I am involved in, the group ‘Plastique Fantastique’, is concerned with similar questions and is, indeed, based in London).3 It is this that determines the choices I have made about what practices to look to. It is one of the contentions of my article that a sense of difference from the what-is – the presentation of a different space-time – tends to be produced through scenes (involving bothhumanandnon-humanagents)and,inthis,myarticle’sownsiteof production is important. AsIsuggestedabove,myarticleisalsoindicativeofarenewedinterest infictionevidentacrosscontemporaryart(whenthisnamesanumberof different worlds),4 as well as in the arts and critical humanities more generally.5Fiction isalsoatermthathasincreasingvalenceinourwider culture, as indicated in the ‘new’ terminology used to describe our contemporary political reality: ‘post-fact’ and ‘post-truth’. ‘Reality’ is itself an increasingly relative term on this terrain, with ideas of ‘percep- tion management’ replacing any idea of truth. It is here that I would 7 position the urgency of some of what follows, but also of the wider 1 0 collaboration with Burrows that I mentioned above. Our project is not 2 st exactlyacritiqueofthisnewterrain,butattendstopracticesthatoperate u g on the same level as these more dominant fictions. Ultimately, this kind u A of work might then be seen as having a political and ethical charge – 4 0 albeit quite oblique – alongside an aesthetic one. It contributes towards 8 1 the task of mapping out alternatives to the what-is, giving attention to 6: 0 different perspectives and other modes of existence and, ultimately, at helping to foster the production of other worlds from within this one. ] 2 1 1 3. 0 Sequencing and nesting: Mike Nelson 1 6. 0 Mike Nelson’s work abounds in different references – some obscure, 1 2. others more obvious – to fiction, but also itself operates to fiction the [ by real. In terms of the former, Nelson has provided a list of (and extracts d from) the authors he especially looks to in the ‘catalogue’ (edited by e ad Will Bradley) Forgotten Kingdom.6 The selection includes both William o nl Burroughs and J.G. Ballard alongside a number of other science fiction w o writers.7 In relation to the latter, Nelson builds labyrinthine installations D or ‘sets’ (they have been compared to cinematic spaces) that the audi- ence walks in to, literally entering into a narrative scene.8 The line between fiction and reality is especially blurred because of this perfor- mative dimension – our active participation in the work – but also, crucially, because the sets themselves partly consist of ‘found’ objects. The installations are simply a different arrangement of the what-is. The different ‘props’ Nelson uses also have their own associations that they bring with them – from their previous worlds – adding a further layer to the fiction (Nelson has suggested that he is ‘particularly interested in the resonance of an object that knows why it’s there even if you don’t’).9 S. O’Sullivan 3 Figure1.MikeNelson,The CosmicLegendoftheUroboros Serpent(installationview), 2001.Courtesytheartistand 303Gallery,NewYork; GalleriaFrancoNoero, Turin;Matt’sGallery, London;and neugerriemschneider,Berlin. 7 1 0 2 st u g u A 4 0 8 1 6: 0 at ] 2 1 1 3. 0 1 6. 0 1 2. [ y b d e d a o nl w o D Although he does produce smaller, more sculptural assemblages (out of these found objects), Nelson’s installations are generally site specific, large, complex and ephemeral, often involving a significant built component – especially walls and doors – that then sits inside an already existing (often institutional) space. The ‘reality effect’ (to use a phrase from Roland Barthes)10 of these installations is produced through an almost obsessive attentiontodetail.Indeed,itisthisthatallowsaparticipant’ssuspensionof disbelief.Objectsarecarefullychosento‘fit’theveryparticularnarrativeand affective scene and it is Nelson himself (rather than any assistants) who meticulously puts all this together so that the fiction is all-encompassing 4 fiction as mode of existence andseamless.Thereisaparticular‘feel’commontomuchofNelson’swork thatispartlytodowiththearchiveofliteraryandotherreferences,butthat alsoarisesfromthisattentiontodetailandthefact,again,thatthematerials areallsecond-hand(sourcedfromcharityandthriftshopsandthelike)and arrangedasiftheinhabitantshadjustleftagivenspace,oraneventhadjust happened. Besides this production of singular site-specific installations, there is a further characteristic of Nelson’s work – and especially of some of the pieces from 1999 to 2001 – of what we might call ‘sequencing’. Nelson recycles and reuses objects and set-ups, as well as certain motifs, to produce a continuity of practice across installations. One is reminded of Burroughs taping photographs together in the Beat hotel with Bryon Gysin to produce continuity between hitherto separate ‘episodes’. Different installations, we might say, are variations on a theme, but also – as a group – cumulatively deploy a different kind of space-time to what is typical. Indeed, there is a certain logic of connection and 7 continuity between apparently disparate shows. 1 0 This sequencing also involves what we might call a ‘nesting’ of fic- 2 st tions. This might involve the positioning of one literary fiction within u g another (or the use of more hybrid scripts), but it also involves the u A nesting of these fictions in Nelson’s own personal mythos and other 4 0 narrative constructions (in both these gambits, Nelson’s work especially 8 1 looks to Borges). As I gestured to above, it can also involve the insertion 6: 0 of one kind of space-time within another (a recent example would be I, at Impostor involving the building of an Arabic souk within the British ] 12 Pavilion at the Venice Biennale in 2011). Indeed, these sets of nestings – 1 3. offictionswithinfictions–canproduceaformalcomplexityanddensity 0 1 that parallels the ‘content’. A further example here is Triple Bluff Canyon 6. 0 (2004),whichinvolvedthenestingofRobertSmithson’soriginalPartially 1 2. Buried Woodshed (1970)– itself famously recontextualized by the bullets [ y that lodged in it during police shootings of students at Kent State b d University, and the subsequent addition of commemorative graffiti e d – inside a whole collection of further narratives, including the Gulf war a o nl (with sand replacing the earth of Smithson’s work) and Nelson’s own w mythologization of his studio.11 o D Indeed, alongside the references ‘outside’ the work, there is also this self-referentiality that gives Nelson’s practice one of its most compelling aspects.Thisisperhapsbestexemplifiedbyhisworkforthe2001Turner prizeshow,TheCosmicLegendoftheUroborosSerpent(Figure1),which,in part, ‘stored’ his own previous installation The Coral Reef from Matts Gallery in 1999 (a work which won him the Turner nomination and which was subsequently acquired by the Tate). The Coral Reef was itself alreadyacomplexsequenceofnestedfictions(whichalsoreferencedthe various spaces and non-places of the London East End context in which itwasbuilt).12Nelsonuseshisownartasitsownkindoffoundobjectin this sense: contained, encircled, within the new installation. As the work is repeated, new layers of meaning are added: the fiction becomes den- ser; more difficult but also more compelling. S. O’Sullivan 5 Although offering up a different bloc of space-time, as I have already implied, this nesting of fictions might also be thought of as involving feedbackloopsfromthepresenttothepastandthenbacktothepresent. Nelson uses actual elements from his own past, but there is also a sense that each installation is a restaging of those that have gone before. Especially interesting, however, are the loops that are thrown forwards into a future. Indeed, Nelson has described his ’Futurobjectics’ show at Camden Gallery in 1998 as being involved in setting up the conditions and possibilities for the future of his own practice, the installation here operating as a technique of divination: Futurobjectics, a title that refers to that chapter in [Stanislaw] Lem’s Futurological Congress thatweusedinForgottenKingdom,theonethattalksabout‘futurelinguistics’,whichisthe idea that you can predict the future by mutilating, modifying and combining words. I changed that to Futurobjectics, to take my own references and mesh them together and potentiallypredictthefutureofwhatI’dmake–andstrangelyenoughitdid,itworked.13 7 AlthoughNelsontalksaboutthepredictiveaspectofthisshow,Iwantto 1 0 suggest that it also involved a kind of ‘writing’ of the future of the 2 st practice: laying out a set of propositions or a particular syntax to be u g used later.14 There is a kind of working on the future from the present u A that is enabled because of the ‘closed set’ of Nelson’s practice. Another 4 0 way of saying this is that time, or a very particular kind of time, is not a 8 1 background to Nelson’s work, but specific to it. Might we suggest that 6: 0 Nelson’s practice is ‘hyperstitional’ in this sense? This term, coined by at the Cybernetic Culture Research Unit in the 1990s, names an ‘element of ] 12 effective culture that makes itself real’, but also a ‘fictional quantity 3.1 functional as a time-traveling device’.15 Hyperstition is then a name for 0 1 those complex fictional works that disrupt typical chronology and linear 06. causality.16 1 2. Some of the catalogues of this early sequence of works operate in a [ y similar way. Forgotten Kingdom, which, as I have already mentioned, b d contains ‘found texts’, has also been described by Nelson as a Reader e d for his work: a gathering of different archives together that gestures to a o nl future possibilities. Magazine, containing a selection of images from the w particular sequence from The Coral Reef (2000) to the Tate show, and o D which doubles the experience of these shows (there is no beginning or end to thebook, one isalways in themiddle,with imagesfrom different shows leading on and in to one another), also operates as a sourcebook, and a work that, in its whole ‘look’ fictions the exhibitions themselves.17 Finally, Nelson’s earliest catalogue Extinction Beckons (which tracks his practice from its inception up to The Coral Reef) is presented like a travel book – but also contains a long essay by Jaki Irvine (put together from previous reviews and short essays) that further links the different instal- lations through a fictioning of the artist’s life.18 Extinction Beckons also contains a selection of private view invitations. ThesewereakeyaspectofNelson’spracticeatthistime(pre-Internetasit was)andwereoftenpicturesofNelsonhimselfindifferentlocations(such as in a graffitied bus shelter; ‘Master of Reality’ [2001]) or in Asia with a Buddhistmonk(‘NothingisTrue,EverythingisPermitted’[2001]);orwere 6 fiction as mode of existence of his truck travelling overseas (‘Lionheart’ [1997] and ‘The Amnesiacs’ [1997]).Indeed,thereisasensethattheabsentcharacterofNelson’ssets– drifter, outlaw, and so forth – is himself.19 The line between the reality of Nelson’slifeandthetheatricalset-upbecomesblurred.Althoughthereisa questionhereofthework’s‘post-colonial’perspective(howevermanufac- tured or theatrical this might be), it is certainly the case that an elaborate fictioningisproducedacrossthedifferentaspectsoftheworkthatdestabi- lizesanystraightforwardcritiqueandwhichacertainself-producedmythos ofNelsonhelpssustain(hedid,afterall,traveltotheseplaces).20 As well as this figure of the outsider and loner, there is also the recurring motif of the group or pack, most explicitly in ’The Amnesiacs’ (1997) show, which staged the HQ of a fictional biker gang, butalsoinfutureworksthatreturntothismotif(AMNESIACSHRINEor Double Coop Displacement at Matt’s Gallery in 2006 for example).21 It is this sense of a ‘missing people’ – summoned in to being by certain objects, clothes, logos, symbols, and so forth – that gives the work a 7 more pronounced mythopoetic aspect. Deleuze develops his own idea 1 0 ofsummoninga‘people-yet-to-come’inrelationtowhathecalls(follow- 2 st ing Henri Bergson) ‘fabulation’ and also, with Felix Guattari, in his u g writingson‘minorliterature’.22Elsewhere,healsosuggeststhatdifferent u A kinds of cinema – especially that which involves a blurring of fact and 4 0 fiction – can contribute ‘to the invention of a people’.23 A collective 8 1 utterance can operate to call forth something different in this sense (it is 6: 0 addressed less to us than to what we might become), whilst dislodging at that key fiction of the self-possessed and centred individual subject. The ] 12 question is whether a so-called real collective is more effective at this 1 3. reality engineering – this mythopoesis – than an imagined one? Where 0 1 does the one end and the other begin? 6. 0 Following Deleuze and Guattari, there is also, in Nelson’s work, a 1 2. complex relationship between any fictional collective or pack (that the [ y workbothevidencesandcallsforth)andthesingularandanomalous.In b d AThousandPlateaus,DeleuzeandGuattarisuggestthatafirstprincipleof e d the pack, multiplicity and contagion, is doubled by a second: an alliance a o nl withsomethingmoresingular;theanomalous,understoodasthatwhich w borders the pack.24 Nelson’s loner is just such an anomalous figure. o D Might we also ask, this time following Deleuze’s Difference and Repetition, whether the loner is him or herself always already a pack, a collectivityofvarious‘passivesyntheses’whichareorphanandnomadic by definition – only later captured by the fiction of an ‘I’.25 In Anti- Oedipus, Deleuze and Guattari develop this microphysics further with the idea that ‘we’ as subjects are merely the residuum, or after-effect, of impersonal and inhuman processes – the various ‘passive syntheses’ of the Unconscious – that we then misrecognize and, again, only subse- quently claim as ‘ours’.26 In each case, the individual is simply a sequence – and nesting – of different retroactive fictions. S. O’Sullivan 7 Figure2.BrianCatling,The Vorrhcover,2007. Reproducedbypermission ofthepublisher. 7 1 0 2 st u g u A 4 0 8 1 6: 0 at ] 2 1 1 3. 0 1 6. 0 1 2. [ y b d e d a o nl w o D Fabulous images and intercessors: Brian Catling Brian Catling is a sculptor, performance artist, filmmaker, poet and novelist. More generally, he might be described as simply a ‘maker’ insofar as even his text works have a certain kind of material ‘weight’ 8 fiction as mode of existence to them (as well as being products of a very singular imagination). His recent surrealist/fantasy novel The Vorrh is a case in point (Figure 2).27 This is written in a very distinctive style, and Catling has remarked in interview how the novel more or less wrote itself (as he also remarks in the interview, when asked where he gets his ideas and images: ‘It’s like someone is talking in my ear’).28 It is this sense of being channelled – of both being by Catling and not by him at the same time – that gives the novelitsveryparticular‘flow’andother-worldlycharacter.Inrelationto mycommentsabove,thereisasensethatCatlingisnotthesoleauthorof this and others of his works – that they are also, in some sense, a collective endeavour involving other, non-human, entities and forces. ThetitleofTheVorrhisborrowedfromRaymondRoussel’sImpressionsof Africa, in which it names a large primeval forest. This terrain,in Catling’s hands, becomes the eponymous hero of his novel.29 Roussel’s forest is brought alive, along with a series of equally fantastic and finely drawn protagonists that journey across (and into) it. Avatars that are, as it were, 7 yet tocome, butalsorecognizable, toa certain extent, from our own past. 1 0 Like the forest and city of ‘Essenwald’ that sits on its borders, these are 2 st syncreticcreationsandcreatures.Takeforexamplethehunter‘Tsungali’,an u g entirelybelievable(butfantastic)medievalafrofuturistcompletewithfetish u A object Enfield rifle. Indeed, in Catling’s writing, a pagan pre-modern is 4 0 entwined with both the modern (the novel is ‘set’ after the First World 8 1 War)andastrangepost-modernitythatitselfloopsbacktothepre-modern. 6: 0 Or,asAlanMooreputsitinhisforewordtoTheVorrh(Moore’saccountof at thenovelisitselfastatementofthepowerandimportanceofmythopoesis): ] 12 Catling ‘builds a literature of unrestrained futurity out from the fond and 3.1 sorrydebrisofadissipatingpast’.30 0 1 The book throws up many startling images and memorable narrative 6. 0 sequences (for example, at the beginning there is a detailed account of 1 2. the careful construction of a magical bow from ‘Este’, a dismembered [ y lover). Catling has remarked that fiction allows him to ‘make’ the instal- b d lations that would be impossible in real life – and there is something e d about the above kinds of narrative episode (and there are many similar) a o nl thathaveacertainrealismtothem,despitetheirfantasticcharacter.Fe´lix w Guattaridevelopstheconceptof‘fabulousimages’forthosedescriptions o D that cross over from fiction to life, ultimately ‘producing another real, correlative to another subjectivity’.31 Guattari has in mind Jean Genet’s writings on the Black Panthers and how, overnight as it were, they changed a whole style of life, but he also suggests that: onecanlegitimatelybroadenthisexpressiontoalltheimaginaryformationsthat,fromthis same perspective, acquire a particular – transversal – capacity to bridge times of life, existentiallevelsasmuchassocialsegments,even–whynot–cosmicstratifications.32 ‘Fabulousimages’operateasconnectorsbetweenregimes,bridgesbetween thedifferentlevelsoflife,bothrealandimaginary.Theycanofferupapoint of inspiration around which a different kind of construction can begin to occurand,ultimately,attainconsistency.Herefictionoperatesasthefriction – the cohering mechanism – for the production of difference. The Vorrh is S. O’Sullivan 9 composed of just such images that have this traction outside the novel (despite or because of their fictional character), allowing something else (analternativemodeofexistenceperhaps?)tocoalescearoundthem. There is, however, also a strange postcoloniality about the imagery (for example,inafiguresuchasTsungali).AsMichaelMoorcockwritesofCatling (inhisreviewof TheVorrh):‘Histhesesarethemanyformsofpsychicand physical colonisation’.33 Although at times compelling, this is also a problematic aspect of the novel. The Vorrh, we might say, is an effort at decolonization, but written from a colonized mind: it offers up a different future premised on a rewriting of the past but from the perspective of a Europeanimaginary.Initsturntoakindofruinedimperialismalongsidea ‘reconstructed’ (and somewhat imaginary) Africa (alongside other landscapes such as an Irish peat bog), the novel belies a very particular attitudetotheforeign,doublingthetemporalsyncretismwithaspatialone in which different continents collide and intermingle (this collapsing of landscapesalongsidevarioustemporalfeedbackloopsandacertainresidual 7 colonialityresonateswiththewritingsofBurroughs).34 1 0 Moore’s foreword also pinpoints something else that is crucial about 2 st this work of fiction: the way it does not seem to fit neatly into any u g existing literary category but arrives, as it were, sui generis (to use a u A term from Moorcock’s review). The book has a certain singular and, 4 0 indeed, untimely character in this sense (not unlike a Ballard novel). It 8 1 creates its own scene or vibe (a kind of future-past Englishness). Might 6: 0 we even say it constitutes its very own genre (and thus the terms by at which it might be approached)?35 In mythopoetic terms, it is this differ- ] 12 ence from the existent (not just from the world, but also from typical 1 3. literary genres) that gives the novel a certain power (of otherness) from 0 1 within this world. 6. 0 Nonetheless, once again, it is also the way the book’s content is con- 1 2. nected to our reality that gives it a certain power of fictioning. In [ y particular,the fictional characters intermingle with real historical figures b d (Edward Muybridge and William Gell for example – alongside the e d author Roussel, referred to as the ‘Frenchman’), who have themselves a o nl beenfictioned(inTheVorrh,historyandbiographyareakindofmaterial w tobeplayedwith).WemightalsoturnhereoncemoretoDeleuze’sown o D comments on the mythopoetic character of certain fictions (again, Deleuze has cinema in mind) that involve real historical figures as inter- locutors and, with that, ‘the possibility of the author providing himself with “intercessors”, that is, of taking real and fictional characters, but putting these very characters in the position of “making up fiction”, of “making legends”, of “story-telling”’.36 InIainSinclair’sLightsOutfortheTerritory–a psychogeographicaldrift through an increasingly disappearing London – this fictioning moves in anotherdirection,withCatlinghimselfoperatingasintercessorinSinclair’s narrative.37Inhisbook,SinclairdescribesCatlingas‘theEnglishBeuys’and thereiscertainlysomethingaboutthematerials(andexpandedpractice)of boththatresonates,alongsideacertainamountofself-mythologizationthat Sinclairhimselfembellishes.Indeed,CatlingiscomparedtoDrDee,written aboutasan‘ElizabethanJesuit’anda‘wanderingscholarandmagician’,as