The issues surrounding the morality of art continue to challenge.
Plato, in ‘The Republic’ argues that art is ‘mimesis’, or imitation leading the artist to be an imitator of life, ‘conjuring abstraction’ which calls for heroism without being him/herself heroic while speaking of matters they have no direct experience of and therefore, artists do not have a social role nor use. Plato argues that a person’s occupation should only exist if determined by the needs of the people forming the state. When art is displayed in galleries or performed on the stage it is difficult to access by hindrances such as class and money. Showing my ‘Twente Identity Robe’ in a gallery in a fashionable part of the Dutch town Enschede failed to connect or engage the very people of Enschede’s market which had provided the visual starting points for the print. The robe was mere a pretty thing- of little meaning.
Art becomes an escape from society and a poor reflection of its ills. Poetry and paintings may be ascribed to be noble, but seduces us by consuming suffering as a pleasure, and protest as entertainment. Hanfling in ‘Philosphical Aesthetics’ (1992: 301 -305)

The dilemma of my practice is for the work to be more than an imitation of life, more than a feeble protest displayed in not so accessible galleries. If printmaking is to play a role within the context of the idea of an honourable practice, it needs to reconnect with its historical past where the strength of the print was multiplicity and wide dissemination, may it be through newspapers or the internet.

The next Conundrum interdisciplinary discussion group will be on Wednesday the 9th of July starting 18.45 in my studio.The number of participants will be limited to 12 , as this has proven to be the most beneficial number for a lively debate.
Conundrum is attracting more attention, and was the subject for an article in the latest University of the Arts Alumni magazine.

Tiffany Jenkins, who is completing a sociology PhD at the University of Kent at Canterbury is also the arts and society director of the Institute of Ideas and a committee member of the Battle of Ideas Festival, will present her Conundrum:

‘Why cover human remains in museums when they are on show in galleries?

The holding, display and research on human remains in museum institutions in Britain, has become problematic in the last few decades. Initially concerning remains from overseas and once colonised groups; particularly the Aboriginals and Native Americans, this could be understood, in part, as the consequence of post-colonial thinking, the rise in influence of indigenous groups, and as part of a process which aims to make amends for colonisation by transferring human remains from collections, to culturally affiliated people today.
More recently, since 2005, members of the sector in the UK, have raised questioned about the research and display of all human remains regardless of origin, and despite the historical circumstances in which they were acquired. The Jewry Wall Museum in Leicester is setting up a storage space specifically for human remains, to separate them from objects. Manchester University Museum is trying to display the current exhibition of Lindow Man, more ’sensitively’. In May, this museum covered up one unwrapped mummy of Asru, a partially wrapped mummy of Khary, and a child mummy, which they argue is more ‘respectful’.

How can we explain the transition of concerns about the remains of overseas indigenous groups, to the remains of all people? Why are part’s of the sector worried about the display of dead bodies, especially when in other arenas, the skull and body parts; Damian Hirst’s, ‘For the Love of God’ or ever expanding work of Gunther Von Hagens for example, are on show more than ever before. What explains this paradox?’

For further information about Tiffany , go to her blog at:
http://www.tiffanyjenkins.blogspot.com

Please me e- mail at: info@bessfrimodig.com
with an RSVP by Monday the 7th of July and for further directions to the studio.

My practice is a moral dilemma. What use are the arts, and what use is this blog?

All I know, is that I need to communicate, at large.
Writing, to tell a story of worth is a shift in to a linear, discursive form while attempting to link a questioning narrative to images. Ideas that look so tempting in bullet points, die transposed in sentences, suffocated by syntax.

The robe is based on Enschede, its textile industrial past and environs.Printed on light and foldable material, the robe can be easily packed and unpacked for moments of culture shock and identity crisis. The traveller can wear the country of origin as a whisper of home.

The patterns are based on ’stiepel tekel’ from local farmhouses, ( seen on back) that sit on top of the roof gables protecting the house from thunder. Such shapes precede christianity, and , among others, can be found horse heads and the tree of life ( seen on the front of the robe). A makrell imprint grace the robe, and is the remnant of a visit to the market selling large, golden , fatty and smoked fish. Added on the sleeves, the outline of a heart, with a makrell, to keep the traveller close to the senses such as smell and taste that often accutely define memories.It may be food, and then customs that disorient the traveller, and as the makrell reminded me of my childhood by the north sea, the smoky scent of the shimmering everyday fish took me back , to myself, in Enschede. Additionaly, the robe has a hood, with a lacey edge taken from local folk costumes. This way- the traveller can be respectful of local holy places where covering up might be neccesary, yet, a bit of the lace edge, keeps home in partial view.