moving to your head not my hand

There comes a point when you have to decide what sort of work you are going to produce. what issues will it deal with? what is the focus of it? how would you like the viewer to respond to it? It is this sort of question that came to mind while i was looking at the work of Ceal Floyer recently.

Autumn Rhythm 1950

While looking over her work the idea of the gesture came to my mind and how important this is in positioning the work in a certain place. It might be helpful to look at a few examples here to try and get to the bottom of my thoughts. The first is Autumn Rhytmn by Jackson Pollock. One of the most famous pieces of modern art it is immediately recognisable. And it is certainly a distinctive piece of work. The dripping style of painting has become synonymous with Pollock and we can't see a similar style of painting without recalling the historic precedent. Amoung Pollock's many achievements then is to have an instantly recognisable style. This achievement should not be underestimated and is quite a feat in a world of competing painters.

As a viewer though we are placed within a specific and narrow frame of reference. This is a painting about painting and a painter. There are no external references here and the work is contained within the boundaries of the canvas. As such it is self referential not seeking to explore ideas beyond the application of paint. As well as this we contemplate Pollock's unusual technique and his skill in bringing harmony to such a seemingly random process. Although it may not look like it this is art in quite a traditional manner. The singularly skilled figure has a unique vision which is presented to the world.

Monochrome Till Receipt (white) 1999 (installation shot)

Monochrome Till Receipt (white) 1999 

For Ceal Floyer the emphasis seems to be elsewhere. Floyer's work is not contained within the parameters of the objects shown but rather the object instigates a process on contemplation. A till receipt in itself may not mean much but when it is the only thing shown in a gallery it takes on a whole new significance. Key to recognising this is the minimal aesthetic Floyer uses. The scarcity and simplicity of the objects found in her work mean they are easily resolved for us as a viewer: we all recognise a receipt. Free from contemplating the actual object we are left to consider the nature of the act and relationship of the object to the space it is in. Where as with Pollock we never get beyond the object with Floyer we are hardly with it. Instead we are given a much more active role in producing meaning and it is up to our imaginations and intellect to comprehend what is taking place.

This is not to say that either approach is right or wrong. Instead it demonstrates how art can focus or attention in quite specific ways. Also as viewers we have different roles to play and cannot be sure of how to act when we visit a gallery. We can end up just looking into the frame or having our imagination extended way beyond. It is this sort of potential that makes things so fascinating