Denis Masi

Interview by William Furlong

from Audio Arts Volume 7, Number 3, 1985

Transcript

William Furlong: Denis, this is the first week of your three-month residency at the Imperial War Museum in London. So, at this very early stage, do you feel that there will be sufficient conceptual space or freedom within which to stand back and to function as an artist?

Denis Masi: That’s a big question. I think the first thing I should say is that I think it’s a common misconception that this institution is about the celebration of war. I say that because I have been incredibly surprised about what this place does represent and how it functions. I have only just come here, but first and foremost it’s an historical institution and war has been one of the primary concerns in determining factors of historical development. This museum is concerned with 20th Century war, the two most important wars that we’ve had to date and most of the other fringe wars that have happened throughout this century. It’s about collating, documenting and preserving all of the information that has come out of those two experiences and preserving it so that we can use it as a resource, like any other institution. I don’t think it actually celebrates it; I think we have to talk about that on another sort of a level. A level with interpretation possibly, about how these things that are conserved are actually exhibited; whether there’s any kind of propaganda laced into that.

WF: This is only the second day of your residency here as an artist. Have you formulated any ideas of about how you are going to approach working here?

DM: I have. I’ve purposefully tried not to think about it too much. I wanted to come here with a clear mind and when I made my proposal I made no definite plan about what I might do. Basically, because I didn’t know too much about the institution, I decided to use the first two and a half weeks to immerse myself in the archive and see what came up from it. Since I’ve been accepted, a couple of ideas have been floating around in the back of my head. What I’ll do now is try to focus on those and see if I can use them as a starting point. WF: How do you feel about working in a setting where there are people moving through it? DM: Well I find that quite exciting on one level and on another level it suits my particular attitude that I should, given the opportunity, talk more generally about the work that I do, with the public. I don’t think the artist should say, ‘well I’ve made the work, that’s enough, it speaks for itself’. I quite enjoy talking about my work; if it helps to clarify certain aspects then that’s a positive experience for both the viewer and me. I make my constructions in such a way that they have a certain openness; they’re balanced with a degree of ambiguity so that the viewer can use the information and it’s not key to any specific notion. It has to be broad enough for them to bring their own experiences and to therefore make some kind of contact with this work. When I talk to people; I can say ‘well, this is the situation this is what I intended,’ and this can draw out their experiences, feelings or impressions about the piece as they approach it. You can help to give them confidence that they’re interpreting what they see in the right way.

WF: One of the things that occurred to me as we walked around was that once you start looking it soon becomes clear that this place is really about individual’s response to conflict and aggression. What’s documented here is how that affects individuals in various social situations, which would seem to come full circle to the central concerns of your work; the idea of power, the affects of power and the affects of institutional struggles and conflict.

DM: I think there are two aspects that need identifying; one is a current social sensibility which is anti-war and transferring that sensibility into an historical institution is probably a bit unfair, and the other thing is, that in being an institution, which has education as part of its emphasis, there is a tendency for display to possibly sensationalise certain things. It’s being displayed for a broad public so that it’s mostly educational. These displays of war machines happen to be very close to us in terms of visual experience. If we went to the British Museum and looked at Roman or Greek chariots, which were used as war vehicles 1,500 or 2,000 years ago, we don’t look at them as a war vehicles, they become cultural objects. Unfortunately we don’t have enough distance from the machines here to remove ourselves from what they mean. We can’t make that transcendent jump by saying, ‘well, yes but 1,000 years from now we’ll see them as cultural objects’. I think that’s where a bit of confusion comes in and where it becomes very difficult.

WF: You mention that you were working on a piece that you’ve titled as ‘Shrine’. Can you talk about the concerns of that piece of work?

DM: Well the concerns are to create an atmosphere of a tomb and finding an ark or small sarcophagus with some relic inside, and to transfer this feeling of a private monument, which is quite sacred. I think that’s really my way of manifesting the feelings I’ve gotten from this experience.

WF: If we could talk again a little bit about the work. ‘Shrine’ that you began to formulate, in our August discussion? Can you be a bit more specific about what elements of this institution are operating in that work?

DM: Yes, they occupy about four separate areas. In terms of specifics, I want to bring into it some of the objects that I have seen here every day. There were certain remnants of objects from the two wars, which, in terms of their material quality and the images that they actually create, made a subliminal impact on me and I wanted to enshrine them; to make them into a more firm relic. One of the other areas was the sound archive and I’ve spent a lot more time listening to tapes and I will do some very heavy editing to give some sort of sound architecture to this work, which will be an installation. On another level there will be two-dimensional visual images incorporated into it, which will be things that I have lifted from the film archive. Now when I say ‘lifted’ I means in terms of selection, certain images which I think are very specifically icons from the first and second world wars; probably also icons in terms of representing the feeling of a period of conflict as opposed to a specific image of ‘war’. There will be a dome shaped tent-like area into which you’ll be able to walk, giving a feeling of the museum itself, as a kind of archive or tomb; almost like a church. It will certainly be very different from walking into the National Gallery. I think I want to draw attention to the reasons why this was originally established, by parliament, to be a monument to all those who died in the First World War.

WF: So you are in a sense, dealing with its history and association more than just the cultural object aren’t you?

DM: Its associations, it’s placing the whole of that aspect of that ‘after war’ period, after the First World War, to remind the public that this, never experienced before event, called The Great War, should never happen again. In that sense I get a strong feeling from this institution that it is the British equivalent of all the cemeteries in Normandy, and that influence has come over and is permutated into the work. To come back to the cultural objects; I still do believe that as most of the equipment, in terms of fighting efficiency and in terms of the kind of issues that we have to deal with, in terms of defence do represent the same thing, that arms manufacturing is still one of the biggest industries in this country. Whilst I have in previous interviews said a lot about those two guns outside, the cannons, and what incredible objects they are, one also has to think that that kind of manufacturing is still going on and is it right? I think these are the issues that are probably compromising, to some degree, the public view of this particular institution.