MC: How do you define pornography? And what kind of language is pornography. FB: It's the language of impossible images. Images that are just somehow impossible — in a moral way, and physical way, but that's not a moral judge- ment. Porn is always descriptive, never real. Yes porn is a language. It describes things that are very physical. Sex... death... | found with this film in particular it is very difficult to be detached from, it is half-seductive half-repulsive. | was working with it and it kept luring me in. MC: But what | was more interested in is this struc- ture | see in the show that has some kind of gram- mar of images and full stops. FB: ‘Arsewoman_ in Wonderland’ for me was about describing something in words which is not of words, in words. There is no dialogue in the film, quite a lot of sound, but no talking. It is very abstract when you get down to it, sex, bodies, bound- aries, inside/outside really. The drawings of full stops, or periods as you call them, are no- thing... holes... they are just pauses you know in space, like how you walk round and pause because there is something to look at. They are made in such a way as to arrest you for a moment while you look at them, they are like arrests. MC: The flowers on the screens? Why screens? FB: Well I've made a lot of silkscreen prints. | like prints, the immediacy of how they are produced. Sometimes | look around my studio at all the stuff, the prints, and mess, all of the stuff and | think the screens are the coolest thing there, even though they are the apparatus of the work, not the thing | show. For this show | did not make prints from the screens, they themselves are the images. They are images that are some how poised to be pictures. The images on the screens: are the stencils, the process is the same as if you were making a screen to print from, but they are positives, so they are positive negatives. McC: And the flowers? FB: The flowers, well | was thinking flowers are the hermaphrodite of the plant world, and they are all about seduction. There are lots of reasons why | used the flowers, you know, | wanted to find some almost generic images, | started taking these pic- tures of flowers and they worked out because they were such a common currency that they were kind of authorless. | started thinking how often images @~ porn is a language. It describes things that are very physical. Sex... death... of flowers are used, | started thinking its always the big guy artists who are making flower images, it's an emascula- tion thing - it's flowers are a bird thing. The flowers are really blown up big, some are quite harsh, and witchey, some are a bit more seductive. People give flowers to each other all the time, it's this kind of a — cynical gesture. | think that's quite funny. | do it a lot actually. MC: Well then | guess I'm interested in what you think about your works physical relationship to the body, in its scale and use of materials? F B: Arsewoman in Wonderland is really big, it is not really possible to read it from start to finish, it is not like a linear memory, narrative or descrip- tion, it is a one frame of words, you look at it like an image not a page, scanning and picking out pieces of action. It is neon colour, because | find neon so alluring, and yet in a way it is repulsive. It draws you in, but is overwhelming and hard to look at. | think what is on the wall should challenge the view- er on a physical level, it should to some extent challenge their conventions of looking, of interpretation, their position. The viewer is not boss. The flower screens in the show are big, flowers are not pretty little things, they do not smell sweet, they are confrontation- al, they are beautiful. MC: Could you talk a little about the graphite drawings and Arsewoman in Wonderland in relation to the act of writing and the physical act of making these pieces? Well the graphite drawings are made by scribbling madly with a pencil for some time, it ends up being an act of erasure in a way, like a massive crossing out. | wanted to erase the marks by going over and over them, but they wouldn't go. The physical activity is not a lot different from that of writing, but it is a very abstract language. The pictures of full stops — or periods as you call them — are also about abstract language, thinking about full stops as arbiters of nothing, as pauses, breaths etc. The periods are massively blown up, they are all to scale. They are different shapes according to which font they come from. MC: I've been thinking about the dialects and accents in visual language and how artists develop their very specific means of speech. FB: I'm interested in the verbal aspect of language mostly, how people use it, how they don't, or can't, the things it's good at and the things it isn't, the things it's exploited for, it's taboos, requirements....... Talking about sex very directly is not that common only in intimate situations, and then people often aren't that good at it. But people describe all sorts of things, general, complicated, emotive things, but not sex, not in any real depth. | wanted to try describe this really visceral psychosexual fantasy which is not really of words at all, its kind of primal/prewords in someways, too abstract for words, | wanted to see what it was like to try describing it verbally, and how it operated Flower 5, exposed screen, 2000 MC: How do you define pomography? And what kind of language is pomography. FB: It’s the language of impossible images. Images that are just somehow impossible — in a moral way, and physical way, but that’s not a moral judge- ment. Porn is always descriptive, never real. Yes pom is a language. It describes things that are very physical. Sex... death... | found with this film in particular itis very difficult to be detached from, it is half-seductive half-repulsive. | was working with it and it kept luring me in. MC: But what | was more interested in is this struc ture I see in the show that has some kind of gram- mar of images and full stops. FB: ‘Arsewoman in Wonderland’ for me was about describing something in words which is not of words, in words. There is no dialogue in the film, quite a lot of sound, but no talking. It is very abstract when you get down to it, sex, bodies, bound- of flowers are used, | started thinking its always the big uy artists who are making flower images, it's an emascula- tion thing - it's flowers are a bird thing. The flowers are really blown up big, some are quite harsh, and witchey, some are a bit more seductive. People give flowers to each other all the time, it's this kind of a— cynical gesture. | think that's quite funny. I do it a lot actually. ‘MC: Well then | guess I'm interested in what you think about your works physical relationship to the body, in its scale and use of materials? F B: Arsewoman in Wonderland is really big, itis not really possible to read it from start to finish, itis not like a linear memory, narrative or descrip- tion, itis a one frame of words, you look at it like an image not ‘a page, scanning and picking ‘out pieces of action. It is neon colour, because I find neon so alluring, and yet in a way itis repulsive. It draws you in, but is overwhelming and hard to look at. | think what is on the wall should challenge the view- er on a physical level, it should to some extent challenge their conventions of looking, of interpretation, their position. aries, inside/outside porn is a language. The viewer is not boss. The really. It describes things that Head Sereens in Ga se ; ig, flowers are not prety litle The drawings of full are very physical. things, they do not smell stops, or periods as Sex... death... sweet, they are confrontation- you call them, are no- thing... holes... they are just pauses you know in space, like how you walk round and pause because there is something to look at. They are made in such a way as to arrest you for a moment while you look at them, they are like arrests. MC: The flowers on the screens? Why screens? FB: Well I've made a lot of silkscreen prints. | like prints, the immediacy of how they are produced. Sometimes | look around my studio at all the stuff, the prints, and mess, all of the stuff and | think the screens are the coolest thing there, even though they are the apparatus of the work, not the thing ! show. For this show | did not make prints from the screens, they themselves are the images. They are images that are some how poised to be pictures. The images on the screens are the stencils, the process is the same as if you were making a screen to print from, but they are positives, so they are positive negatives. MC: And the flowers? FB: The flowers, well | was thinking flowers are the hermaphrodite of the plant world, and they are all about seduction. There are lots of reasons why 1 used the flowers, you know, | wanted to find some almost generic images, | started taking these pic- tures of flowers and they worked out because they were such a common currency that they were kind of authorless. | started thinking how often images @” al, they are beautiful ‘MC: Could you talk a little about the graphite drawings and Arsewoman in ‘Wonderland in relation to the act of writing and the physical act of making these pieces? ‘Well the graphite drawings are made by scribbling madly with a pencil for some time, it ends Lup being an act of erasure in a way, like a massive crossing out. | wanted to erase the marks by going over and over them, but they wouldn't go. The physical activity is not a lot different from that of writing, but itis a very abstract language. The pictures of full stops — or periods as you call them = are also about abstract language, thinking about full stops as arbiters of nothing, as pauses, breaths etc. The periods are massively blown up, they are all to scale. They are different shapes according to which font they come from. MC: I've been thinking about the dialects and accents in visual language and how artists develop their very specific means of speech. FB: I'm interested in the verbal aspect of language mostly, how people use it, how they don't, or can't, the things it's good at and the things it isn’t, the things it's exploited for, s taboos, requirements....... Talking about sex very directly is not that common only in intimate situations, and then people often aren't that good at it. But people describe all sorts of things, general, complicated, emotive things, but not sex, not in any real depth. | wanted to try describe this really visceral psychosexual fantasy which is not really of words at all, its kind of primal/prewords in someways, too abstract for words, | wanted to see what it was like to try describing it verbally, and how it operated Flower 5, exposed screen, 2000