Metaphysics

Amidst the ongoing dissertation writing process i am consciously making an effort to distract myself. This may seem a little odd but it is a useful tactic in the fight to remain productive. I do this because i know that i will, at some point, get distracted. Armed with such knowledge i will occasionally give myself a small break which allows some respite from the rigors of writing.

Such breaks could involve a walk or household chore but today i decided to take a look at an anthology of conceptual art. One of the pieces that i came across was Metaphysics by Jaroslaw Kozlowski:

Jaroslaw Kozlowski Metaphysics 1972

This is actually the first of the three pieces that formed Metaphysics. In this first part numbers were written on the image and exhibited opposite various phrases (a selection of which are to the left of the image above). In the second part,  Physics (not pictured), the image is now a projection with the same numbers written directly on to the projection surface. In this instance a recorded voice reads the phrases rather than them being written down. The third and final part, Ics 1974, dispensed with the image and projection. All that is left are the numbers on the wall and the recored voice.  Gradually then the physical elements are reduced to a point where there are nearly dispensed with completely. 

It took me a while to piece together in my head how the work took shape. From the information i had it was difficult to get a clear idea of all the elements and what the experience of viewing them would have been like. The main reason for this was that i was viewing Metaphysics in a book and not in the original context. As such many of the key elements are missing for me. I have not seen the second piece, read all the text or heard the voice reciting these phrases. So i am viewing this work in a greatly reduced form and not in the way Kozlowski would have intended. 


But once i had worked it out, and formed what i considered to be a plausible account, i found myself in quite a different place to the one I started in. This place was the relationship between the two photographs. I really enjoyed the abstract representation of the photograph that the numbers produced. Visually the numbers were intriguing in themselves. On the photograph though they act differently and almost like a catalogue of the various items seen there. It encourages the viewer to explore the frame of the photograph and consider all aspects of it: not just what is in the centre. There is clash then between the highly referential photograph and the abstract, speculative nature of the numbers.


After reading the text though numerous other issues come in to play. We have to consider that each part existed at a separate time (there was roughly a year between each part being shown). The viewer may have been aware of these other parts or not. But in either case there is the idea of a serial exhibition with each part relating to others but equally standing alone. This is not something i have come across often. Usually an exhibition is self contained and does not usually refer so directly to work exhibited elsewhere. I couldn't help but imagine a sense of lack upon viewing the work and the feeling that it isn't all quite there. But this is surely intentional. It gives the impression that art does not have to be complete and contained within a single place. Instead it can refer to other locations and situations. In doing so it engages our imagination and asks us to think. This sort of work then exists more in the mind of the viewer than the physical objects presented before us. 


So from thinking about representation and issues decidedly photographic i moved on to curation, institutional conventions and materiality. Such a dramatic shift is the result of context. How work is presented can greatly affect our interpretation of it. This can go as far as to introduce new ideas that radically transform our perceptions.


Ok back to work......