Wednesday, May 23, 2007

Drinking In The Kitchen, Irene Loughlin


Irene Loughlin, Drinking in the Kitchen Video still: Tagny Duff

We enter into the kitchen of Latitude 53 and find a place to sit on the floor. Irene Loughlin stands behind the table and grabs a bottle of dark scotch whisky. She proceeds to take copious amounts of drink from the bottle. Then she sits down next to the kitchen table. Slowly she sinks into the chair and lays her upper torso across the table.

This is a semiotics of the kitchen – of sorts.

However, it is not the same kind of Semiotics of the Kitchen performed by Martha Rosler on video in 1975. Whereas Rosler performs (while deconstructing) the engendering of gender in language through kitchen objects, Loughlin performs the excess of the sign experienced in the throws of drunkenness. She makes martinis and margaritas to the rhythm of Rosler’s video which plays as a loop on a VHS monitor placed on the kitchen table. The two performances collide and converse. At moments, Rosler’s articulation of “fork” and motions to jab the air is juxtaposed to Irene’s chopping of lemons with a butcher knife. The audience laughs at Rosler’s exaggerated mocking gesture and simultaneously grimaces nervously at Irene’s vigorous cutting motions. The collision between Rosler’s and Loughlin’s actions produce slippage and breakdown of language. I feel it. So does the audience as Irene serves us martinis and margaritas for the hour long performance.

I watch as Irene stumbles around the kitchen. The ice dispenser on the fridge is stuck. So she walks back to the sink and grabs some ice from the bag. She proceeds to put the ice and vodka in a martini shaker and shakes vigorously. Then she pulls at the lid to open it. But it’s stuck. She tries everything to open it. It won’t open. Members from the audience offer to help. They can’t open it either. Finally Todd leaves the gallery with the shaker and comes back with it opened. Irene proceeds to make martinis and adorns them with olives and lemons. She walks around the table and hands them to people who gratefully accept them.

She pours the ice into a blender and fumbles to switch it on. The smell of burning quickly fills the kitchen. Someone from the audience suggests she put some alcohol in the blender. It needs liquid, otherwise it might burn up the motor. She pours too much vermouth in. Everyone groans. The pouring and mixing of the margaritas continues to intermix with the rhythm of Rosler’s voice “ ladle”, “knife” and “apron”. I am offered a margarita and begin to drink it, even though I am video taping.

The laughter amplifies and gets increasingly louder through the hour of drinking and watching Irene make the drinks. We are complicit and participate in her drunken, clumsy stupor. This kind of social drinking is acceptable. No-one in the room turns the offer for a drink down. The drinks are too strong—too much vermouth and vodka—mixed with strange, horrific garnishes like cucumber, creamcheese, donuts and lemon.

When all the liquor is gone, Irene stops her work. She takes a quick swig of the bottle. Before it disappears, a slight foam appears in the bottle. I realize that it is coke in the bottle. Irene is performing her drunkenness. Everyone in the room, on the other hand, is noticeably intoxicated.

Irene grabs a gun.

There is more laughing. We follow Irene out of the kitchen to the street. She walks in her high heels and apron, with determination ahead of the crowd of people following her. As we walk past a bar, one guy sees us and says, “If you were a native and carrying a gun, the cops would be here in two seconds”.


Irene Loughlin, Drinking in the Kitchen
Video Still: Tagny Duff


We reach a parking lot. Todd, Juliana and other people set up a shooting range against the brick wall of a building. Irene watches intently as 12 cans of beer are shaken and stacked on top of each other. The beer cans tumble, and have to be reset. We wait.

I hear the sound of cop sirens. They grow louder. I look at Irene standing in the parking lot holding the gun, and notice the nervousness in the crowd. The sirens get louder. I wonder what will happen when the cops come. Who will the take the fall for possession of a firearm- Irene or the gallery? What about the public drunkenness and consumption of alcohol? Will the cops let it slid because we are participating in art, which is often the case? I wonder at the complicity we engage in. No-one interferes with Irene’s excessive alcohol consumption. No-one in the audience or on the street stops Irene from walking down the sidewalk with a gun. Unlike pedestrians in the street, we, the invited audience, know this is a performance, and want it to “go well”.


Irene Loughlin, Drinking the Kitchen
Video Still: Tagny Duff


The sirens never arrive. Irene turns her attention to the beer cans and takes aim. She shoots. She’s a straight shooter. All the cans are marked off, and one by one geysers of beer fountain. The crowd is relieved. We clap.

Irene’s staging of drunkenness in the intimate space of Latitude’s kitchen and its spillage on the streets addresses the affects of private and socially legitimized forms of substance abuse. Loughlin reverses the audience-performer role, through the manipulative strategies often employed by social drinkers. “I will drink if you will”. “I will join you in a drink”. But the drink is more than a drink. In this case, the exchange drinking is in excess of its own signification of “alcoholism” or “addiction”.

To join in a drink is potentially as invigorating as it is dangerous. Like Irene, Brian Jungen also brought beer to an art audience in a recent piece Beer Cooler (2002) to “share” in a friendly exchange of “spirits”. The pretence of drinking as a form of friendship may simultaneously be read as a ritual of territorialization. Irene’s friendliness with the audience was similarly a strategic ploy. Getting the audience drunk shifted the terrain of the performance. The audience welcomed her generous gift. Yet her generosity of gift was given on false pretence, she was sober and intended the audience to experience the effects of intoxication. We followed along with her offer and directions. When she takes out a gun, we don’t doubt her motivations. We know that she will be firing the gun at some point because the program said so. But we don’t know how or when or even why, but we go along with it. We trust her, even as we walk down the street with an armed weapon, albeit only a pellet rifle.

Again, I think of the guy at the bar who stated that Native people would not be so invisible when carrying a gun. Irene knows this. The performance of shooting is a direct reference to Lawrence Paul Yuxweluptun’s performance “Shooting the Indian Act” presented in Surrey, England. In this piece Yuxweluptun shoots a paper copy of the Indian Act to protest the ongoing effects of the legislation on Indigenous People. Irene, similarly shots at cans of beers to reject the gift of alcohol and the legacy of ritualized dependency and consumption of intoxications. Within this legacy, the intimate space of ones own kitchen has the potential to become a public shooting range fraught with undercurrents of violence. Casual exchanges between friends and strangers become suspect. Micro-exchanges of these gifts (bottles of wine) are to be received with some trepidation. The semiotics of Irene’s kitchen is overfull. They spill out of the bullet-ridden holes of language, urban dwellings and city streets.

9 comments:

flatlander said...

Nice work! Might as well go for a soda...

Irene Loughlin said...

Hi Tagny
you wrote really well about that. its difficult to write about. Thanks for all your thoughts and the discussion around it.
best
Irene

Joshua said...

This is a duplicate post in order to link the discussion occurring on Irene's livejournal to what Tagny has written about Irene's piece. Karen, I appreciate reading your feedback to the performance from the perspective of a reader. I understand your concern about alcoholism and guns, and felt a similar apprehension before entering the Kitchen of Irene's performance. I was afraid I would be in a situation like a funeral in which I would be expected to behave in a serious issue-based manner. I don't like feeling expected to behave in a certain way, it makes me uncomfortable and alienated from any genuine response. But I must say that being an audience/participant in the piece was quite different. And again, I'm second-guessing myself as I write this because I am very much a person who does not wish to privilege the experience of 'being there' over and above your engagement from over the www or any other prospective encounter with the piece. I also don't want to undervalue the immensely complex and subtle description outlined by both tagny and irene in their accounts of the event. However, I think much of what was funny and simultaneously sneaky in the experience of the performance through its duration cannot be communicated through verbal description. Irene's cute giggling ineptness and sweetness in giving out drinks that were actually quite passive aggressive (strawberry margaritas splashed with olive juice and garnished with creamcheese, sour apple shots, atrocious mixing of liqueurs and liquors destined to cause hangovers), but it was really funny and reminiscent (for myself) of my own teenage enjoyment in making collages with leftovers in restaurants. It was really immature and cutesy and I was laughing before I had a drink. Laughing and biting my lip at the same time, because it felt WRONG, but also not wrong enough to say no. I guess I want to add a bit to this discussion because I find that in performances that implicate dangerous elements such as a gun and alcohol, those terms become what the piece is reduced to in retelling and in retrospect and I don't feel like the event can be reduced to this. I would definitely not be in favour of 'warning' the audience in advance, because we need to encounter the limits of our responsibility on our own terms, not cushioned or sheltered by a conventional frame of reference that weakens the affect of the encounter by buffering it with our anticipations.
Once again, thank you for your engagement and I hope to continue this discussion both on livejournal and in person.

Irene Loughlin said...

Hi Josh, and Karen
I've also attached here some writing in response from my live journal that's relevant to Tagny's writing about documentation and related works.

This is such an interesting discussion. I'm a bit concerned how the work will live on past the performance, in written documentation and through video. This particular performance seems to be difficult in terms of such questions. When represented by the written word, the visual strength of the words "gun" and "alcohol" can have a profound effect as signifiers. The written word in relation to these two objects almost seems more difficult to bear than the visual action within the performance, which seems to diffuse the signifier by contextualizing it.

I was inspired by Lawrence Paul's work, "Shooting the Indian Act" in relation to this piece, as Tagny has written, and yet at the same time, I am aware of another relationship that might be particularly evoked by the promo image (taken at an organic farm near Hamilton, Ontario) - the reality and images of white "pioneer" women "defending" / TAKING the land/SUPPORTING THE COLONIAL PROJECT through a domestic, familial sphere - the farm, and the farmhouse erected on aboriginal territory. But I don't think this layer of meaning should be avoided, as it is necessary to take responsibility/MAKE VISIBLE such histories.
A further layer to the gun imagery exists in my earliest memories of photos of guns attached to LP record covers of IRA influenced folk songs. So there is an undercurrent of the aesthetic influences of the effects of Irish colonialism within this work as well, and the fallout of alcoholism when culture and language is denied. Its also coming back to me that I used a small hand held plastic pistol in an early work I performed at the Western Front, related to colonial conditions in Ireland. That work was a kind of sad, historical piece and was presented at the time of the introduction of the Peace Accord in Ireland.

My intention for the work Drinking in the Kitchen, was to convey a domestic frustration/anger with alcohol by shooting the beer cans. A game that men largely play at, not women. Although when I started working on this piece I was surprised by how many women I know who have handled a gun, women who have told me when they were younger they went down to a pit to fire a gun with their boyfriend, etc. I think my relation to the gun, may be similar to my relation to the gas mask (which I have also used in past performances), which is part of a european, world war two lineage. There is also an exchange of signification, gun/alcohol - one to the other, in this kind of historical context. uncomfortable, and fraught with a kind of spectral pain that lives on.

...the bravado of the act of shooting a gun, the humour in the context of a knowing audience made up of largely knowing friends and peers, and others who are reassured by the presence of such friends (Derridian, no?)... I hope all these conditions acted as a counterpoint to these serious goals of mine, to make visual what is hidden and suppressed.

I so much value your comments about the work Karen and Josh.

Best wishes,
Irene

Anonymous said...

advertisers preface brisbane socialist obfuscate marc derision aggregators consultant severity kevinpm
servimundos melifermuly

Anonymous said...

error drawbacks timeframes embedded pertains deaths midwifery managed agefqhc gardiner websites
servimundos melifermuly

Anonymous said...

[url=http://www.ile-maurice.com/forum/members/wetter-vorhersage.html][b]wetter schottland[/b][/url]

[url=http://www.ile-maurice.com/forum/members/wetter-vorhersage.html][b]wetter net[b][/url]

Anonymous said...

Hey
Companies House Webcheck
Webcheck Companies House

[url=http://perosnalbinking.v3host.be/companies-house-webcheck.html]company house webcheck[/url]

Anonymous said...

Hi,

I begin on internet with a directory