PROLOGUE
From: Dale Frank
To: Erik Jensen
13/02/2013
7:55 PM
Dear Erik,
It was a real pleasure speaking with you after the exhibition opening.
Despite a personal desire to, I have hesitated since at getting in touch.
Adam first knocked tentatively on my door in late 1986. He was an art student. Opening the door there was an instant association – we both had dark green hair. Some months later he did confess he deliberately had his hair coloured to meet me. I knew him for 15 years, closely, intimately and psychologically as, as he said, “coach, mentor and blackboard” till 2002. I would clarify by saying my unconditional contribution to the friendship continued till 1999, till the advent of excess drugs, his managerial girlfriend, and advent of his “becoming self-aware” knowledge that he was the next Brett Whiteley, which was all just prior to the Archibald.
I am very nervous about continuing a conversation concerning Adam. I do not know your motive. Are you attempting to make a sad figure something he was not, doing an “Archibald” on his character after his death? Adding to the mythology that is already cliché artistic? The basic fact was he was just one young artist among many.
As I believe your genuine intellectual grasp of art nuances go beyond the cliché, I wonder as to the direction of the intended publication.
I was seduced by your charm, good looks and your truffle-like intelligence that evening. But that is maybe, probably, your modus weapon. So it makes me very apprehensive in that what I may say, regarding Adam, may come from playing into that seduction, rather than a distance, for Adam’s sake, that I would like to maintain.
Sincerely,
Dale
From: Erik Jensen
To: Dale Frank
14/02/2013
10:15 AM
Dear Dale,
It was lovely meeting you, too. I very much enjoyed our conversation and while I understand your hesitation at getting in touch I am glad you did.
The book I am writing contains, I hope, no myth. It is a story of abused talent and excess pathos. It is an account of a man whose lifetime of bravado exhausted him and alienated those around him, but in whose gentle nature there might be some explanation for this impulse. All journalism involves the Sisyphean task of trying to understand other people and in this I have been dealt a boulder called Adam.
The interviews we did over the last four years of his life were unsparingly frank. They were for once free from vainglory – sad, reflexive, perhaps even honest. I have no interest in writing another man’s fictions. If it doesn’t sound too trite, I might say I am interested only in getting at truth. Talking to you about Adam seemed like truth, where others might have augmented the same events out of guilt or dishonesty.
Of course, I have never pressured anyone to talk to me and I would never write about conversations unless I was certain they were on the record. These were the terms of my very first meeting with Adam. I assure you I have no modus weapon; most days, I would struggle for a modus operandi.
But I greatly enjoyed speaking to you and would love to continue to do so – whether about Adam or not.
Best wishes,
Erik
From: Erik Jensen
To: Dale Frank
25/02/2013
4:56 PM
Dear Dale,
I hope you are well.
It is a little over a week since we exchanged emails and I wanted to be certain my response has not been lost in your inbox. Or – worse – that it had failed in explaining what I am trying to do with this book on Adam. The basic fact that he was one young artist among many is certainly not something I am trying to escape. Indeed, it is likely the premise I am most trying to explain.
Either way, it was certainly a pleasure to meet you.
All the best,
Erik
From: Dale Frank
To: Erik Jensen
27/02/2013
1:22 AM
Dear Erik,
Yes I got your earlier email last week. I’m sorry I did not reply sooner.
I spent this time thinking about you and about what you said in the email, your “public” (?) explanation of your purpose, the mention of the four years of interviews and Adam’s approach to you – “sad, reflexive, perhaps even honest.” I could actually picture Adam doing his “full of soul” trip on you. The image of this, and my own recollections of him doing this well learnt personality switch-a-roo on others, on myself, made me laugh – inside anyway. It was something Adam knew how to do, that I remember we joked about. He knew he could never get away with it with me. He presented to people what they wanted.
From the few mentions you have made it is clear from what I knew of Adam that he was letting you in. It is a shame you did not have longer because you would have come to recognise this soul trip, and then got past the soft sensitive pretense as well I suspect.
I do not know much if anything of the last 5 or so years of Adam’s working relationships, so I cannot comment on your thought that “others might have augmented the same events out of guilt or dishonesty”. I just cannot comprehend how anyone would have guilt or recall with dishonesty, unless they are weaving a more enlightened view of themselves into the picture. But I can’t see what is to gain.
And this returns me to your motives.
Discussing his failings, his abuses and abusing, his fears, his bigotry, his aggressive self-destruction, his mellow cyanide, alongside any talent, wasted, in an art environment full of jostling equal talent, all goes to mythologising him, unfairly. In the same way the culture has of mythologising other past art figures or figures of “otherness”. It is how our culture accommodates and defines talent so not to actually discuss talent.
It is not of any gain to me to say Adam for 18 years responded to me as both someone who could help his career, introduce him to the right people, and equally also as confessor, a therapist of sorts. I am just too cynical, too truthful, too direct, or maybe just too socially inept for artists to put anything over on me, at least personally. Career wise, business, that is another matter.
So a discussion of Adam will be truthful, nothing spared, but in saying that, I will need to give everything I say to you a second thought, a reconsideration, before it is “on the record” because I don’t want to disclose everything he and I discussed in confidence, as some things really should NOT be disclosed. Especially if it only goes to become lurid decoration.
His façade of bravado and uncompromising Ego hid the reality, in just the same way as his sad, responsive façade hid the reality. Both were structurally unsound. It was always someone else in control, in command, pulling the levers. Either Adam in the “third person” so to speak, or another person entirely. He had to give these people what they expected, pay the piper, both privately and in his work. He and I discussed this so often. So many “all nights”. So many examples.
It is definitely far too dangerous to consider post psychoanalysis as an approach, and I won’t be a contributor to that.
So, it is fairly pointless saying I will not talk to you about Adam, as that is obviously what I have just done!
I hope I can help you with this in some way, so long as its purpose and path stays somewhere in the parameters I see, not mythologising, not embellishing talent beyond its natural peak, nor creating a tragic figure.
With best wishes,
Dale
From: Erik Jensen
To: Dale Frank
27/02/2013
6:10 PM
Dear Dale,
I’m glad you wrote back. I understand your cautionary advice, and I think I have perhaps failed in conveying the complexity I saw in Adam’s character. He had a series of acts – and a major in performance, which is always important to remember – and I think I saw most of them. I think I also saw behind them – the bits where the act ran out, or where a question forced a chink between pretenses.
Anyhow, I suspect this is not your main concern. I suspect your concern is to wonder why a book might be written about Adam at all: Whether I might be a hatchet man looking to dress up a corpse, or an acolyte looking for stories to embroider a myth. I hope I am neither.
I am not writing about Adam because of his art, although that was obviously why he called me in the first place. I am writing a character study in which art – in the end – is not the most important part. Joseph Mitchell wrote about stevedores and barflies not because his particular subject was the best at lugging grain or drinking scotch; he wrote because the rest of them was interesting, irrespective of that first fact and not because of it.
I understand there is no way to write about a painter without privileging on some level his talent above the many other talents of his generation. But talent is not my subject. Art is not even really my subject. This is not a public explanation and nor was my earlier email. It is simply an honest answer to the question you have raised. I think – if I might be so bold – we are on the same page.
But your emails have helped me to clarify a lot of my thinking. Thank you for that.
I hope we continue communicating.
Best,
Erik