Interview with Alix Lambert

The american artist Alix Lambert is filmmaker, writer, producer, photographer, conceptual artist. As filmmaker she had feature length documentary 'The Mark of Cain', that was nominated for an Independent Spirit Award and aired on Nightline.

http://www.pinkghettoproductions.com

1) How does your art approach the question of non verbal communication and do you think there is a political dimension in non-verbal communication?

I’ve done a number of projects that I feel deal with the subject of non-verbal communication – from my marriage project; an institution that announces certain beliefs and feelings to the world, to Male Pattern Baldness, where the dress and movement of a basket ball coach project to the players and viewers his emotional state as well as his position on the team, to a more literal exploration of non-verbal communication with The Mark of Cain, where actual drawings comprise a complete language by which prisoners are able to communicate with each other.

2) How does your documentary on the art of prison tattoo relate to the work in which you personally practice tattooing?

In addition to my interest in non-verbal communication, many of my projects deal with a “learning curve” – or what one learns by personally acquiring a new skill. In this case (as well as in the marriage project) an enormous amount of trust is involved – the people allowing me to tattoo them knew that I was inexperienced and were interested in the experience anyway for a variety o reasons.

3) Can you elaborate on the political dimension of the documentary 'The Mark of Cain' and more specifically about the body as a mean of radical cultural subversion?

I’m not exactly sure what you are asking – I was certainly interested in what was happening in Russia at the time. The enormous amount of change was illuminated by what was happening within the prison walls and I wanted to document the change in Russia. As far as the use of the body – a prisoner has nothing left that is his own – except his/her body. Marking one’s body in such a way, not only enables the prisoner to communicate his status but also says – here is what you cannot take away from me.

4) Tattooing was a painful way through which the prisoners could affirm themselves as subjects. Can we perceive in the new generation a loss of symbolical means to construct identity?

I think that might be too simple of a conclusion to come to. I am more inclined to think that symbolic means change rather than disappear.

5) How was the visibility you gave to the deterioration of the prison system received by the Russian audiences?
How is this subculture perceived?

I have been very moved by the response to the film, especially by the response from Russians who had family members or loved ones in prison – or who themselves served time in prison. People felt it was their story and have gone out of their way to express their appreciation to me for telling it. Of course, this means a lot to me.

7) Is according to you documentary a privileged art form to make a political statement, and to raise consciousness? How do you view your conceptual and editorial work in this regard?

Any way in which one can encourage others to ask questions and be aware, informed, and engaged in the world, I think is a productive thing to do.

8) Interviewing is a common form in your art. Could you tell how that form influences your perception of reality and motivates your work?

I am interested in the stories that people have to tell. If you listen to enough people of very different backgrounds and with very different sets of experiences, you start to notice patterns of similarity that speak to a commonality that trumps our differences.

9) In the book “Crime” you interviewed very different people with different experiences and approaches to the theme. The spectrum goes from fiction to reality. Could you speak about your interest in relating these two?

I tried to explain in my introduction the organic way in which art and crime have touched my life and overlapped with each other through the years. As an artist I am always interested in how we represent “true” events through our work. What is actually true? – if anything can be – what is the most productive / useful definition or understanding of “truth”. I am paraphrasing, but I think it was Robert Coles who said that in documentary you try to present what you believe to be the truth of the situation to the best of your ability, as you understand it …

In drama one’s story should stand for the truth rather than be the truth.

The moment you make a decision – what camera you are using, whether you are lighting your subject, who you want to talk to, what part of their interview you choose to use in your film, whether you make it black and white or color, every decision you make influences the viewer and ultimately tells your story as well as the story of your subject – which is why the best you can do is to try to honestly portray what you believe to be the truth of what you experienced.


Here are some words from my dear friend Jason Shinder who is no longer with us :

« When I am watching a film and I see something acted out, there is a release that my behavior is being attended to. They feed some primal level of our own fear and anger and rage that life doesn’t give you much opportunity for because most of us are trying to negotiate it. Are trying to live with it. How do you act on it? What do you do with it? You make something, maybe. Or you steal bubble gum. I think everything is governed by psychological laws. There’s a host of things, and I don’t know if you ever get to work them out. »

- Jason Shinder, excerpted from an unpublished conversation we had about crime and art.