In
the words of Bahá'u'lláh,
"Justice is the best beloved of all things".
My photo/text pieces, Give and Take and The consequences
deal with this. The apple could be 'the snare', the material that is
either trapped or possessed but for me it is the 'giving and taking' that
is really the trap: our motive. I chose a postcard as the form for this
artwork because
postcards are things often given and received. Often as souveinirs of
exchange rather than as objects in themselves.
It is open ended whether the apple is given or taken, mirrored or doubled,
or the child's part in the transaction.
For me, justice, is about everyday acts, and not so much about heroic
moments. What happens when you give and take? Is that compromise or wisdom.
Is that what justice means? Is the child giving, taking, copying, owning or offering?
The text warns us to consider our motives, particularly when we do something
nice for someone. It warns of making something that is essentially spiritual
(trust / manaakitanga) into a possession, but that emphasis is on the
positive: it just says, be careful about your motive when you give. It's
ironic that we tend to express justice with images of injustice. Here Bahá'u'lláh's words refer to justice in light of the 'giving' rather than the taking.
|
Give
and Take, 1995,
postcard, 10 x 15 cm.
Edition of 3000.
Text
on the card:
"Make not your deeds as snares
to entrap the object
of your aspiration"
Bahá'u'lláh,
Kitabi-i-Aqdás.
|
|

The
consequences, 1998,
computer print, 10 x 15 cm.
Text:
the consequences of telling the truth are as dire as those of lying.
|
In
The
consequences, a
man kisses a baby, and the text warns us that telling the truth is as risky
as telling lies. By presenting this 'saying' in this manner, the viewer
is encouraged to question what is meant by 'truth', and where is the 'risk'
in what seems a harmless ordinary act.
The text comes from the novel, To the Is-land by the New Zealand
author, Janet Frame.
In both pieces I deal with the issue of justice from the perspective of
ethics and questions, because justice, at least in this day and age, is
much more complicated than the principle of an 'eye for an eye'.
|