Twin Arts for the twin
arts of music & dance
Comment from Pip Curling the Curator of the National Gallery
When Joyce Kohl first approached me at the National Gallery about her project we had a lengthy debate on the visual language that would be most accessible to all members of the public. In the spirit of inclusivity rather than exclusivity Joyce chose a visual representation that was both figurative and narrative, bearing in mind that this, more than any complex, abstracted, Western 'high art' means of communication would attract viewers to 'read' the imagery. I fully agreed with her decision.
Yes, the images are bleak and do pronounce the horror of the disease more than the caring warmth that should be given to AIDS sufferers. But the stories depicted were those chosen by the group of artists who made the images. To them, perhaps, horror is more the daily reality. In a climate of poverty and destruction of families it might be hard to hang onto the caring aspect of the AIDS struggle. When a visit to any cemetery will show that the majority of graves are of people born after 1960 - and almost each person who died was cared for by his/her family - and each death was a nightmare of pain, physical degradation and extreme cost to the caregivers. Maybe it is the horror that should be feared and shown because only when we see what is ahead can we hope to have the realisation that this can be avoided in many instances.
I think we should keep in mind that the AIDS quilt came from a different culture - one where there are sufficient medical resources to ease the pain and suffering of the victims of the disease and hospital beds for their treatment. The USA can afford the luxury of highlighting the caring - particularly a Western society where it is possibly not the norm to care for each other. Zimbabwean families do care - they do take the sick into their homes - they do wash and feed the dying - and they do take in the children - by and large the survivors in a family care and they shoulder a terrible burden. They do not need reminding. Those who need reminding are those who spread the disease - they are the ones who maybe will stop by the AIDS wall and reflect that they have a responsibility to themselves, their sexual partners and their families.
As to the aesthetic niceties of the wall - it depends where one is coming from - for me it is enough that the wall is there - it is durable - it is permanent - it is visible - and every day people stop and they look. Sometimes the visitors come to the Gallery to tell how much they were moved by the experience. For me that is greater than aesthetic considerations - although I confess to rather emjoying the clinical tiled structure and surface as a foil to the bleak picture of life.
The message is harsh, the realisation is unaffected. If only one person who stopped at the wall refrained from a dangerous sexual liaison that is enough - the AIDS wall achieved its purpose - a work of art that made a difference to somebody's life. How many works of art can claim to have done that?
Pip Curling