{"id":11373,"date":"2018-02-24T09:12:04","date_gmt":"2018-02-24T08:12:04","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/chaplachap.com\/art\/?p=11373"},"modified":"2025-02-02T12:30:42","modified_gmt":"2025-02-02T11:30:42","slug":"second-hand-rose","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/chaplachap.com\/art\/second-hand-rose\/","title":{"rendered":"Second Hand Rose"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>&#8211; some thoughts on appropriation<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p><iframe loading=\"lazy\" src=\"https:\/\/player.vimeo.com\/video\/415933378?autoplay=0&amp;loop=0&amp;title=0&amp;byline=0&amp;portrait=0\" width=\"520\" height=\"390\" frameborder=\"0\" allowfullscreen=\"allowfullscreen\"><span data-mce-type=\"bookmark\" style=\"display: inline-block; width: 0px; overflow: hidden; line-height: 0;\" class=\"mce_SELRES_start\">\ufeff<\/span><\/iframe><\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p><strong>Joseph Cornell\u2019s <em>Rose Hobart <\/em>(1936)<\/strong> <a href=\"https:\/\/www.filmpreservation.org\/preserved-films\/screening-room\/rose-hobart-1936\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\">\u2192<\/a> is the first film appropriation work ever made, and like some other \u2018originals\u2019, remains the best; extremely beautiful, and enigmatic almost to the point of collapse. It is in many ways \u2018about\u2019 nothing; perhaps the closest I have ever seen to an artist making a film of substance without content.<\/p>\n<p>Many artists have striven to make contentless works, but all have failed \u2014 because the emptiness of these works <i>is<\/i> their content. And the longer this quest goes on, the further away is the goal of \u2018no-mind\u2019 (because that is probably what is being desired). What we get instead is some kind of conceptual art, and the more academic this becomes, the more content (read: thought) is generated.<\/p>\n<p>But <em>Rose Hobart<\/em> is not a conceptual work of art. Of course, it is, in the sense that it can be described as an idea \u2014\u00a0a remix of <em>East of Borneo<\/em>\u00a0leaving mainly just the shots of Rose Hobart, plus clips of an eclipse and an object falling into water filmed in slow motion, all played at \u2018silent\u2019 speed (18fps vs 24fps) through a rose filter, accompanied by a soundtrack of appropriated and repeated popular tunes. Moreover, it has been the inspiration for countless subsequent works of film appropriation, most of which can be fairly termed conceptual. But although Cornell\u2019s work can be described in these conceptual and material terms, to do so does little to convey the experience of actually watching it.<\/p>\n<p>So what is it about? Rose Hobart, obviously. But what about her? Her beauty, clearly. So there is a kind of voyeurism \u2014 but it is not really sexualised. And the subject is not objectified \u2014 at least, not in the usual sense that we are asked to forget that the body has a mind. But what is she thinking? We have no idea, because there is no narrative \u2014 again, not in the usual sense of linear film narrative; it is more like a painting (or to be precise, a photomontage).<\/p>\n<p>But the more I watch <em>Rose Hobart<\/em>, the more I notice another subject; there are two male lead actors, both of whom can be seen as stand-ins for Joseph Cornell. In fact, Charles Bickford, who plays the alcoholic husband in <em>East of Borneo<\/em>, bears a striking resemblance to Cornell \u2014 as a kind of masculinised version of the tall but rather frail artist. And the way Cornell edits the scenes with Bickford, he sometimes interchanges him with the suave Prince of Marudu, producing the suggestion of two sides of one character, or an alter-ego.<\/p>\n<p>So is <em>Rose Hobart<\/em> a kind of voyeuristic fantasy, where Cornell could imagine himself in the place of the husband\/prince to his muse? This is a bad question; bad because it reduces Cornell\u2019s work to cheap psychology. Psychoanalytic film criticism has been very insightful, but if it cannot fully account for, say, the art of Hitchcock (which I don\u2019t believe it can, at least not in its more reductive forms) it certainly can\u2019t explain <i>Rose Hobart<\/i>. I don\u2019t think that Joseph Cornell the artist wanted to be Charles Bickford, and thereby to possess Rose Hobart. Nonetheless, his film is suffused with desire.<\/p>\n<p>So what did he want? We might get closer to this question by moving beyond the correspondence between Bickford and Cornell, and noticing the resemblance between Hobart and Bickford \u2014 both with wavy hair swept back from the face, and Hobart\u2019s athletic build and masculine travelling garb suggesting an idealised, feminised, mirror image of Bickford. And if Cornell is Bickford, and Bickford is Hobart, then Hobart is Cornell.<\/p>\n<p>So is <em>Rose Hobart<\/em>\u00a0Cornell\u2019s Rrose S\u00e9lavy \u2014 an artistic alter-ego? Duchamp dragged up as Rrose is a conceptual act,\u00a0but as previously stated, Rose Hobart is not fundamentally a conceptual work of art.<\/p>\n<p>I don\u2019t think that Cornell wanted to be Rose Hobart in his mind, so much as he wanted to be in her world \u2014 or rather, the world of her film. That is, he desired to be in her world\u00a0as he saw it. (To that extent, his presence, via the male character\/s, is a kind of donor portrait.)<\/p>\n<p>As C. S. Lewis put it, <em>we want so much more \u2014 something the books on aesthetics take little notice of. But the poets and the mythologies know all about it. We do not want merely to see beauty\u2026 We want something else which can hardly be put into words \u2014 to be united with the beauty we see, to pass into it, to receive it into ourselves, to bathe in it, to become part of it.<\/em>\u00b9<\/p>\n<p>Ren\u00e9 Girard said\u00a0\u2018all desire is a desire to be\u2019.\u00b2 \u00a0Furthermore, he theorised that all desire is mimetic \u2014 we desire what others desire (and therefore, to have what others own, and to be what others are).<\/p>\n<p>That our desires are not original is not an original idea \u2014\u00a0for example, we are all aware that advertising creates false desires for things we do not need and did not even know we wanted \u2014\u00a0but whereas Marxist critiques of consumerism suppose that our \u2018natural\u2019 desires have been stolen from us by capitalism, and replaced by a counterfeit ideology, Girard suggests that human desires are always learned, one way or another, and thus always second hand.<\/p>\n<p>What happens when we consider this in relation to <em>Rose Hobart<\/em>?<\/p>\n<p>Theories of appropriation in art are generally based on the former assumption, whereby originality has been fatally compromised, and thus in need of deconstruction; this is the Duchampian tradition, now fully established academically (and financially \u2014 the market can easily incorporate the avant garde it seems, which is perhaps one reason Duchamp gave up the game of art in favour of chess).<\/p>\n<p>However, a Girardian perspective, whereby mimicry is not simply imposed by external forces, but is intrinsic to human being, offers another way of understanding appropriation in art; not as a didactic tool, but as a means of agency \u2014 a kind of re-appropriation, or queering, if you like. Thus <em>Rose Hobart<\/em> is more camp than Rrose S\u00e9lavy.<\/p>\n<p>And it is within this campness, or queerness, that the Christianity of <em>Rose Hobart<\/em> may be recognised. While Joseph Cornell was a Christian, his work does not obviously deal with Christian subject matter; rather, we may see Cornell&#8217;s Christianity performed through his work. Erika Doss writes:<\/p>\n<p><em>Founded by a woman and considered a particularly \u2018feminine\u2019 religion, Christian Science further appealed to Cornell\u2019s apparent disinterest in stereotypical \u2018manly\u2019 behaviour and attitudes. Significantly, he did not choose to join the more \u2018manly\u2019 Christian churches that emerged in the 1920s\u2026 Rather, Cornell chose Christian Science, a religion centred on heady, abstract thought, on reading, on the valorisation of &#8216;feminine&#8217; spirit over &#8216;masculine&#8217; desire, and on personal salvation through self-control and denial. He articulated and affirmed his faith through both his religious and art-making practices<\/em>.\u00b3<\/p>\n<p>Christianity is inherently performative: <em>Then he took a loaf of bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to them, saying, \u2018This is my body, which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me.\u2019<\/em>\u00a0<a href=\"https:\/\/chaplachap.com\/cloud\/luke-2214-23\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\">\u2192<\/a><\/p>\n<p>Furthermore, our performance is not original, but a reperformance \u2014 we copy Christ, who in turn was copying his Father: <em>\u2018Very truly, I tell you, the Son can do nothing on his own, but only what he sees the Father doing; for whatever the Father does, the Son does likewise.\u2019<\/em>\u00a0<a href=\"https:\/\/chaplachap.com\/cloud\/john-519-29\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\">\u2192<\/a><\/p>\n<p>Thus we make a performance of our imitation. Christianity is therefore camp, not kitsch, because it is conscious of its performativity and lack of originality. Of course, as with all such appropriation as resistance to oppression, there is also an unconscious aspect \u2014 otherwise it could not function as a defence against death: <em>\u2018See, I am sending you out like sheep into the midst of wolves; so be wise as serpents and innocent as doves.\u2019<\/em>\u00a0<a href=\"https:\/\/chaplachap.com\/cloud\/matthew-10-16-26\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\">\u2192<\/a><\/p>\n<p>Please note that I am not claiming this as an explanation of Cornell\u2019s work, let alone Christianity. Nor am I suggesting that Christian artists are the only ones who can authentically work in this manner. Indeed, Kenneth Anger \u2014 after Cornell perhaps the most seminal artist to work with appropriation in film \u2014 was explicitly <i>anti<\/i>-Christian. But this opposition may in itself reflect a relation between appropriation, performativity, and Christianity.<\/p>\n<p>\u2014 Mark Dean<\/p>\n<h6>[1] C. S. Lewis, \u2018<a href=\"https:\/\/chaplachap.com\/art\/wp-content\/uploads\/C.-S.-Lewis-The-Weight-of-Glory.pdf\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\">The Weight of Glory<\/a>\u2018, preached originally as a sermon in the Church of St Mary the Virgin, Oxford, on June 8, 1942<\/h6>\n<h6>[2] Ren\u00e9 Girard, \u2018Quand ces choses commenceront \u2026 Entretiens avec Michel Treguer\u2019, Paris: Arl\u00e9a, 1994, ISBN 2-86959-300-7, p32<\/h6>\n<h6>[3] \u00a0Erika Doss, \u2018Joseph Cornell and Christian Science\u2019, in Edwards, J. and Taylor, S.L. (eds), \u2018Joseph Cornell: Opening the Box\u2019, Bern: Peter Lang, 2007, ISBN 9783039110582<\/h6>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Some thoughts on appropriation<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":7,"featured_media":21265,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":"","_wp_rev_ctl_limit":""},"categories":[7],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-11373","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-selected-texts"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/chaplachap.com\/art\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11373","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/chaplachap.com\/art\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/chaplachap.com\/art\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/chaplachap.com\/art\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/7"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/chaplachap.com\/art\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=11373"}],"version-history":[{"count":10,"href":"https:\/\/chaplachap.com\/art\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11373\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":23120,"href":"https:\/\/chaplachap.com\/art\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11373\/revisions\/23120"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/chaplachap.com\/art\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/21265"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/chaplachap.com\/art\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=11373"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/chaplachap.com\/art\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=11373"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/chaplachap.com\/art\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=11373"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}