Even is
come; and from the dark park, hark.
—O!
What do W. C. Fields, the Mona Lisa, an upside down Tarot card, and the
capitalized phrase, “GOOD NIGHT, PAPA” have in common? Not much, except that
they all grace the cover of an almost unknown masterwork by the San Francisco artist,
Jess.
O!, a pamphlet of Jess’s poetry and collages—his preferred word is “paste-up”—was
published by Jerome Rothenberg’s Hawk’s Well Press in 1960. It sold for $.50.
The book must have seemed fresh, even amazing at the time. Fifty-seven years
later, out of print and impossible to find except in Rare Book Rooms, it is
still fresh and amazing.
The upside-down Tarot card is “The Hanged Man,” but, upside down, the figure
looks like a dancer. W. C. Fields is saying, “FANCY—IMAGINATION!” It’s a joke:
fancy that, imagination! But it’s also a play on Coleridge’s categories of
mentation, Fancy and Imagination. A sharp-pointed piece of metal seems to be
penetrating W. C. Fields’ ear. Fields’ face is stuck onto the Mona Lisa’s, so
we don’t see her at all: we see his head (with straw hat) above Mona Lisa’s
bosom. The resulting figure is androgynous—part male, part female—but it is
created in an extremely playful way: Jess does nothing at all to disguise the
fact that he is deliberately manipulating these images. At the top of the page
is a statement attributed to Montaigne—a kind of credo for the entire book: “I
have gathered a posie of other men’s flowers, and nothing but the thread that
binds them is mine own.”
Quotation, disruption, imaginative play, and a sentimental if ironic evocation
of childhood are all elements of O!, as is a subtle, persistent
homoerotic content. The book has a “Pre-Face” by Robert Duncan, who calls O!
“art that is that very genuine phony fifty dollar bill—but it’s a three
dollar bill.” (“Queer as a three dollar bill” was still current in 1960 America .)
Duncan goes on to comment that in this book, “which is in every detail
derivative,” “something funny”— “amusing,” but also “odd,” “queer”— “is going
on.” In O!’s “multiphasic” context—in which anything may be anything
else—W. C. Fields, “stuck on” the Mona Lisa, may well be the phony
fifty/three-dollar “Bill” (as the comedian was known to friends), a figure for
the artist himself. Across the page from Duncan’s comment is a diagram of a
lunar eclipse, in which the word “moon” becomes “moo”—the sound of the cow
jumping over it—and “earth” drops its first and last letters to become “art.”
“Jess,” writes Duncan ,
“has swallowed Dada”—cf. “PAPA”—“whole.”
In Secret Exhibition, a book dealing with West Coast Beat art, Rebecca
Solnit has a chapter on Jess as a “painter among poets.” Jess cites “Max Ernst,
Jean Cocteau, Antoni Gaudi, and San
Francisco ’s rococo Playland-at-the-Beach (particularly
the funhouse) as important influences,” Solnit writes. “The impurity and
the levity [of his work] were an outrage...in a way that is hard to imagine in
the laissez-faire art world of the present...[I]f the work of Jess, [Wallace]
Berman, [Bruce] Conner, and [Edward] Kienholz is considered as part of the
canon of American art, it becomes clear that surrealism, with its
insurrectionary wit and adoration of the absurd,...became a potent way to
address the incongruous realm of American experience.” One thinks as well of
Chester Hines, whose novels often have surrealist elements: indeed, for Hines a
“racist” society is an “absurd”—and so a “surreal”—society.
The underground world in which these artists functioned, Solnit goes on, “has
remained a kind of public secret—some of Jack Kerouac’s novels take place on
its periphery, and its literary aspect has been touched upon in books about the
Beat Generation—but the importance of the artists in this time and place is
still a well-kept secret.” “Barely acknowledged at the time [Beat] poetry was
acclaimed,” Beat art “is some of the most lasting and influential to have been
made during those years.”
O! contains many fragments of verse as part of its texture. Often they
appear in something like comic strip balloons, so that figures in the
paste-ups appear to be speaking them. But this book is particularly significant
because it is one of the few presentations of Jess’s own poetry, which is
little known. (When I mentioned Jess’s poetry to poet Thom Gunn, a close friend
of Duncan ’s and
Jess’s, he said immediately, “Jess doesn’t write poetry.”) The influences here
are primarily Lewis Carroll and James Joyce—particularly the Joyce of Finnegans
Wake. Jess’s first poem was written in response to the Wake, of
which he owns a signed edition. Here is a sample:
PTARRYDACTYL I
I’d need
a linnet on a spinet to be infinite
(Indeed
a spider as a glider’d not be wider).
But the butterfly
ought to utter why
new roses don’t suppose us worth the gnosis.
The poems are presented in white boxes, in which we can consider them
separately from their surroundings—images, fragments of quotations, etc. Yet
the surroundings constantly impinge upon the poems. “Ptarrydactyl I” is
presented sideways on a page which includes, among other things, “Ptarrydactyl
II,” bits and pieces of sheet music, diagrams probably lifted from the pages of
Scientific American (Jess began his working life as a chemist), a Cupid
perched on a child’s shoulder (the Cupid appears to be driving a nail into the
child’s head, just as the child is driving a nail into a top hat), the word
“VOLTAIR,” and the punning phrase “SCENE IN TEXAS.”
Images and phrases also extend across both sides of the book’s pages. We find
unattached hands, animals (a zebra, a gnu, a tiny fox slinking away and saying,
“O it is monstrous! monstrous!”), a man’s profile (the ear is on one page, the
eye, nose and mouth on the other), smaller versions of the Cupid on the boy’s
shoulder, and a trolley car with the word “VACUUM” on its side. The more you
look, the more you see. The poems in the boxes thus seem to be emerging out of
a teeming world which is at once orderly (we see reflections, parallels, verbal
and visual puns) and vastly chaotic—a parallel universe which contains
everything present in our own, but changed, distorted: reminiscent but wildly
different.
What are they? A child’s simple prattle,
A breath on the Infinite
ear
*
Beats may be produced by singing
flames.
Ludwig Wittgenstein answered the famous
opening sentence of his Tractatus, “The world is all that is the case,”
with a sentence in Philosophical Investigations (I:95): “Thought
can be of what is not the case.” Jess’s book is a boisterous ride
through a mind blissfully open to its endlessly unraveling uncertainties,
through what is precisely “not the case.” It is utterly of its time and
utterly beyond it. I first came upon it almost by accident in the Bancroft
Library at the University of California at Berkeley ,
where you can still find it. You can also find it, reproduced—one might say
reconstructed—in Michael Duncan’s Jess: O! Tricky Cad & Other
Jessoterica (siglio: 2012). Jess’s “heart irregularly igneous” is present
throughout:
So patter me with formulae
with syllables-a-mercy,
and tell me that the poem you see
is better late than early,
and draw me that the scene you hear
overestimates the nucleus;
the particles will pester Guenevere
in my heart irregularly igneous.
POST
SCRIPT: NOTES ON THE RHYMING OF A COLLAGE ARTIST
“My dear
Degas, poems are not made with ideas but with words.”
—Stéphane Mallarmé
PTARRYDACTYL
I
I’d need
a linnet
on a spinet to be infinite
(Indeed
a spider
as a glider’d not be wider).
But the butterfly
ought to utter why
new roses
don’t suppose us worth the gnosis.
—Jess
At the
very center of Jess’s poetry is rhyme. In the recent resurgence of formal
poetry, one often finds poets used to free verse attempting to force their
“ideas” into the prison of rhyme: “Rhyme,” one of them remarked to the
formalist X.J. Kennedy, “won’t let me say what I want to say.” “Yes!” Kennedy
answered. In Jess’s work, as in Kennedy’s, rhyme is not an imprisoning element
but a liberating one. Jess does not begin with “ideas”; he begins with
words—rhyming words. “Meaning” is not something that exists previous to the
rhymes; on the contrary, “meaning” is what rhyme can discover.
What then
is rhyme? The sudden conjunction, through sound, of words that are in
themselves entirely disparate.
The internet has this to say about Lautréamont’s
famous sentence:
“This metaphor captures one of the most important principles of
surrealist aesthetic: the enforced juxtaposition of two completely alien
realities that challenges an observer’s preconditioned perception of reality.
German surrealist Max Ernst would also refer to Lautréamont’s sewing machine
and umbrella to define the structure of the surrealist painting as ‘a linking
of two realities that by all appearances have nothing to link them, in a
setting that by all appearances does not fit them.’”
“A linking of two realities that by all appearances have nothing to link
them.” Isn’t that precisely what rhyme does?
And doesn’t chance—“le Hasard” in Mallarmé’s
famous phrase—haunt both procedures?
Jess’s
work is a discovery of rhyme as collage.
No comments:
Post a Comment