Reach Me
CURATED
WORK
"The artist, however faithful to [their] personal vision of reality, becomes the last champion of the individual mind and sensibility against an intrusive society and an officious state."
- Ursula K. Le Guin
ACTION
Transgressive Artwork
No. 1(B)
The stage is set in a sterile, institutional environment. A single easel covered by a white sheet, concealing a mirror, stands on stage right, near the middle. On the far stage left, a crowbar sits upon a pedestal, draped in a similar manner.
The Artist enters from offstage right. They stand by the still-veiled mirror. The Jury enters from offstage left. They stand in attendance for critique as The Artist unveils the mirror without a word.
The Jury takes a moment to examine the piece before beginning their critique.
JUROR 1
(peers at the mirror, squinting as if straining to see something)
What strikes me here is the conspicuous absence of presence. The artist’s rejection of form attempts to negate the object inherent in the piece, yet, this paradoxically reinforces its materiality. It’s a fascinating dialectic, but exhaustingly tense—an ironic entrapment within the very constructs they seek to dismantle. Are we, as spectators, merely collateral in this meta-critical endeavor, or do we unwittingly become agents of the cycle the artist is trying to critique?
JUROR 2
(steps forward, nodding in agreement with Juror 1 but with a distinctly smug air of superiority)
I would hate to agree with you, so I’ll have to say it goes beyond that. There’s a refusal to engage with the medium in any way that feels substantial. It’s too self-referential, almost masturbatory in its reliance on symbolism in lieu of any real exploration of craft. I guess when I look at this piece, all I can see is the discourse surrounding the medium instead of what you’ve actually done with it. Honestly, I don’t even know what you want us to critique, it just doesn’t feel like you’ve even made anything to begin with.
JUROR 3
(approaches, hands clasped in front of them, tone more somber, as if they’re delivering profound wisdom)
I see a lack of commitment here. You present us with a mirror, which serves to open up a dialogue between internal and external space, but that dialogue then becomes reliant on the beholder. You can decide its intentionality later, but ultimately, there’s no real engagement with the audience. If you cannot exercise absolute control over each individual point of view, the piece threatens to become a serious perceptual accessibility hazard.
JUROR 4
(steps in dismissively)
No, no, you’re all giving it too much credit. Objectively, the only thing there is to see here is a fear of taking risks. The artist has given us a literal mirror. A fucking mirror! It’s lazy and it’s derivative. They’ve done nothing but attempt to reflect the audience’s gaze, and frankly, I’m insulted by the lack of originality. It is as Duchamp as it is Sol LeWitt, but unlike them it fails to be truly provocative because it hides behind the safety of ambiguity.
JUROR 5
(who has been silent this whole time, suddenly steps forward in a fit of anger, trembling with emotion)
Enough!
(They march toward the pedestal, yanking the white sheet off with fury, revealing the tool.)
This… this isn’t even real art!
(They grab the tool, and rush at the mirror.)
The Professor steps in, moments before impact.
PROFESSOR
STOP! We must tread carefully here! Art is a most potent force, a catalyst for change, but with that power comes an obligation. We must recognize our duty to the audience. We stand on the precipice of meaningful dialogue, but violence, both real and metaphorical, risks alienating those who we wish to engage with in the first place. As vital as it is for art to push boundaries, it must not endanger the audience, physically or ideologically. While smashing this mirror may seem like an intellectual statement, it fundamentally undermines the very dialogue we aim to foster here. Instead of enabling this anarchist, we should channel our energies into a constructive critique of the status quo while operating safely from within. Let’s not sacrifice our own safety at the altar of provocation. True transformative work emerges not from the mind of the self-serving instigator but from the collective amalgamation of everyone’s vision into a cohesive vision of a new culture—one that is enjoyable and digestible by all!
(And then everybody claps.)
FIN.