Kevin Platt’s Invested Objects at Firstdraft
One night I climbed into a boat with a girl I loved. It drifted off. Soon the boat was in the middle of the bay. We climbed out and swam back to shore. On the beach we sat. Our clothes wet. And watched the boat drift for a while. Remembering when we were in it.
Kevin Platt 'Nostalgia for the never known' 2008
The first object Kevin Platt built was a boat. In Nostalgia for the never known (2008), Platt builds a boat, ties himself to it, and swims out to sea, towing the boat behind him. Platt created a vessel but did not enter it. He was building an object that could take him places. Instead he took the object places.
In the exhibition Invested Objects currently at Firstdraft Gallery, Platt creates more vessels, but unlike the boat in Nostalgia for the never known, these objects suffer no illusion of functionality. They are only ideas of objects. Sketches of objects. Skeletons of objects.
Kevin Platt 'Invested Object' 2009 (Photograph by Alex Reznick)
The skeleton of a structure is something we build upon. But the skeleton of a body is what is left when the carcass rots away. Something we can remember the body by. The Invested Objects are both kinds of skeletons. They are structures we can stand outside of and build upon. Fulfilling sculptural blueprints, we can create our own vessels. Take them on our own voyages. Yet soon the imaginary disconnects from the object. We are left drifting in the bay. We climb out of the vessel. Stamp feet flat on ground and watch the imaginary vessel deteriorate before our eyes. We see only its skeleton. Then we remember the vessel. Remember when we were in it.
When we fill the jug, the pouring that fills it flows into the empty jug. The emptiness, the void, is what does the vessel’s holding. The empty space, this nothing of the jug, is what the jug is as the holding vessel. … But if the holding is done by the jug’s void, then the potter who forms sides and bottom on his wheel does not, strictly speaking, make the jug. He only shapes the clay. No — he shapes the void. … The vessel’s thingness does not lie at all in the material of which it consists, but in the void that it holds.
Heidegger’s vessels come into being not by their frames, not by their sides and bottoms, but by their void. Their emptiness. Platt did not enter the boat because he did not want to fill the vessel. He desired the void to persist. In Invested Objects, Platt creates skeletal objects so that the vessel cannot be filled. Everything slips through. The void cannot be entered. Platt does this because he does not want to defile the vessel. Once Platt enters the boat and it takes him some place, the potential of the void, the vast emptiness it consists of, dissipates. To paraphrase Fitzgerald, by entering the boat, Platt’s count of enchanted objects would diminish by one.
The Invested Objects are in essence constructions of Pothos. The desire for the absent being. A longing for something out of reach. Disconnected. Platt manifests this longing in his objects because he wants a permanent Pothos. He wants Pothos, which by its very nature is a transitory state, stuck in time. He wants to stall Pothos. So he creates objects that will always be unfulfilled. Objects that long to be something. Always wavering before the embrace. As Nicolas Rothwell writes:
For if art is just its own pleasing, weightless thing; if it comes into being by our will and vanishes, like some particle in the cold depths of an experimental chamber, if it is doomed and transient, then nostalgia is all it is – the imprint of its own mortality, the catch in its breath, the false promises that lure us with their siren grace.
Platt wavers in such anguish because of these siren songs. He knows that to follow those songs, to enter his vessels and fulfill their desires, will surely lead to a sort of death. So Platt creates only glimpses of objects, objects that are both doomed and transient, but objects that are also tangible enough that he can share whispers of that haunting song.
argues that authenticity is formed by a particular set of cultural tastes and values and not from any historical truth. I would argue that authenticity is formed through a half empty jug, through ambiguity. By being able to project meaning onto an ambiguous object an individual feels an object is authentic because it adheres to their own individual meaning. Once news media begins to fill the jug up with meaning through referring to the object frequently in stories the jug begins to be filled with outsiders manifestations of meaning. The object loses its authenticity for an individual and in turn loses its cool. But all this would be nought but theory if there wasn’t any empirical data, because with data comes ‘truth’ .