4 types of chalk

Amidst all this writing and drafting (and writing and drafting) i have been trying to keep up the practical side of things. So most weeks i have tried to do small, instinctive type projects just to try and get a feel for what i will do for my last project at University. The most recent of these has tentatively been titled 4 types of chalk. 


The project was pretty simple. I went to a nearby chalk cliff face armed with a pack of coloured chalk. Then just below the chalk line, on a man made wall, i drew a simple chalk line. I photographed the results and that was the project done.

I was left with a lot of photographs. They showed all stages of the process and from a number of angles.

The basic problem i had was what to do with all these images. So i spent some time looking through them and the more i looked the clearer it became that most of were not really that interesting. There was no need to have a repetitious cycle of chalk lines and the nature of the intervention could easily be conveyed with a single image. It is this image on the right that i felt was one of the most successful. There is a subtle link between the natural setting and my own intervention. Also the lack of colour not only gives the image a simple feel but also helps establish this link between the cliff face and line. The coloured chalk is clearly brought in to this place but the white chalk could plausibly have come from the cliff itself. As such it creates a dialogue with the site and becomes more about that specific location.  So we end with a single image. It was a bit hard to let go of all the images i had taken and also accept that the project was going to be different to how i had originally envisaged it. But it was an important process to go through and ultimately the work is more interesting as a result.      

getting dissed

Over the last few weeks i have led something of a sheltered existence. My life has revolved around my laptop and getting into dissertation writing mode. Now while this has been punctuated with trips to work, and occasionally the corner shop, the majority of the time i have for school work has been spent typing.

While such a secluded lifestyle is certainly not healthy the writing process has been more or less enjoyable. Certainly there have been days where is has felt like there was no point turning on the laptop. When you've written for 5 hours and got about 200 words, that you know will have to be done again, your heart does tend to sink. But luckily those days have been in the minority and overall steady progress has been made. Until the last few days or so when things started to get tough.

The obstacle that presented itself before me was this enigmatic proposition: how does a photograph work? Not in the technical sense but in the what sort of relationship do we have with the image and how do engage with it sense. Complicated stuff by all accounts. To try and simplify things and get my thoughts straight i made a diagram:

The first thing that i assumed was that the photograph is not an objective document. Regardless of whether we are taking the photograph or looking at one we always bring something to the process. So on the diagram we have the first layer of 'conceptualisation'. This may represent an extensive period of planning with lots of research and careful consideration. Or it could simply be choosing to shoot portrait instead of landscape just before taking the shot. Either way these decisions affect the final image and are one way the author can make known their presence. 

'Photograph' seems simple enough - you take the photo.

'Event gets pointed to' is not so simple however. It relates to Thierry de Duve's essay Time Exposure and Snapshot: the photograph as paradox. In this essay De Duve describes how the photograph will only ever 'point' to an event. It will not make statements about it or literally recreate it for us. Rather all we get from the image is the vague declaration: 'look at this'. 

Once the event has been pointed to the context in which it is displayed further informs the viewing process hence the  'layer of fabrication/more conceptualisation'. This is a space where the photograph is presented to us and this can be manipulated to privilege certain readings. For example the same photograph displayed in the gallery would be seen quite differently to the one in the newspaper. This part of the process can be controlled and planned for in advance so we have an arrow going back to start. Equally the final context can affect what we photograph and how. So we have a double headed line to represent this relationship.  

After all this we arrive at 'almost infinite possibilities'. When we view the image we always have the option to interpret it how we see fit. We may be directed towards a specific reading but this can always be challenged. This is because all the photograph can do is point to an event. As a medium photography in unassertive and it requires other elements to make its statement more forceful (the newspaper caption being a prime example). But left alone the image is a vague and suggestive thing. It hints at much but confirms little. But surely it is this speculative process that makes photography such a fascinating medium.

All this helped to clarify my thoughts a bit but translating all this into academic terms while relating it to a specific discussion is going to be a bit tougher.

Minimal?

i've been thinking a lot recently about definitions. Why do we call something a given name? What characteristics of an object actually allow us to define it? By what criteria do judge our definitions as valid?

This existential questioning about the nature of things was provoked by this image from Dan Flavin's retrospective at the Guggenheim:

Untitled (to Tracy, to celebrate the love of a lifetime), 1992

The reason this piece provoked such thoughts was that it contradicted what i had thought  about Flavin. I had always seen Flavin as the quintessential minimalist. His work was not concerned with demonstrating authorial skill but rather with creating 

a dialoguebetween object and space. When we look at a piece like the nominal three (to WIlliam Ockham) it is not the technical skill of the artist that we marvel at. The simple materials used and basic arrangement prevent any such reaction. Rather by keeping the objects simple we move away from thinking about them in isolation towards a consideration of how they interact with the context in which they are displayed. Flavin's work then is an important turning point in art and paves the way for conceptual art and site specific practices. 

Under the literal definition of the word the work is 

certainly minimal. Firstly there is not much to the lights used  by. They are basic strip lights that could be bought anywhere. It is also minimal in the sense that very little production is required to make the work. The lights are just attached to the wall. But the work is also part of the Minimalist tradition. Beyond the physical properties of the work the concepts that inform the piece adhere to principles of a specific genre of art. It is a combination of all these parts that make the piece such a clear articulation of Minimalism.

When we turn to Untitled (to Tracy, to celebrate the love of a lifetime) the work feels quite different. The work could no longer be described in any physical sense: it is simply too big. Yet in many ways it still adheres to the principles so indicative of Minimalism. This not a piece that fails to take into account the place in which it is being shown. Rather the strong vertical column draws our attention to the spiral staircase that surrounds it. It is not trying to overpower the space but enter into a dialogue with it. Within this dialogue elements of both parts are revealed. The light from the sculpture literally, and metaphorically, illuminates the staircase. In turn the stair case provides and ever changing platform from which to view the work. It is this sort of relationship that was integral to Minimalism and this is continued here. 

But there is no escaping the fact the size of the work introduces a degree of monumentality to it and this seems to contradict some of the principles shown in the earlier piece. It may be Minimal is principle but not so in execution. So can both pieces be said to represent Minimalism? I guess it depends on how you define it. If a piece is defined solely by its' concept then yes they could. But this neglects a huge part of the work and seems unsatisfying. Rather we should not use definitions so stringently. To define anything in fixed terms is an injustice to the mutable nature of the world we live in. Instead lets accept that things develop and change as is necessary. We can borrow and combine various aesthetics and concepts but ultimately is the end product the is of consequence.  

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 

pointing

So the experimentation continues as a new week starts with a new project:

After last weeks project i really wanted to slow things down. While i was pleased with the images i had produced they were just too dynamic for me. So i tried to produce a project that was simpler and had the contemplative tone i was after. The result is the image above that has been tentatively, and more than little obviously, called pointing. 

The image is a response to much of the theory that i have been reading recently. This has led me to realise that the photograph is actually quite a vague thing. Nothing much in it is certain and the best it can do is 'point' to something. Whatever meaning, value or qualities we give to the image come more from us, and the context in which we see the image, rather than the image itself.

I am actually quite please with the test run and think there could well be some scope here for a bigger project. Firstly it feels calmer which is a feeling i crave at the moment. The subject is still, the colours muted, and the viewer is not confronted with an action packed scene. There is space for you to think basically and the photograph itself plays a more subdued role.

I want to mention the traffic cone. When i arrived at the park the stick i had was flat ended and was never going to penetrate the soil. I tried a range of things to get the sign propped up but in the end had to resort  to the traffic cone. At the time i was worried as i thought this would spoil the harmony of the image and basically look a bit clumsy. However in the image i think it is arguably my favourite part. It looks slightly engnigmatic and also suggests that the sign is a temporary inclusion. This is clearly not a permanent fixture but something that has been spontaneously put up. It is this temporaneity that accentuates the question why is the sign there? The lack of an answer is in turn emphasised and the image becomes all the more enigmatic. Just goes to show you should not trust you instincts sometimes. 

Just to mention two big influences were John Baldessari Commisioned Paintings and Robert Barry's Inert Gases

By way of an evocative footnote i also started writing my dissertation today. Didn't go well. This is going to be tough........

in advance of a splash

As well as writing a dissertation i do actually have to complete a practical project over the next few months. This time four months ago i was not overly concerned about this. I had just completed what i felt to be a successful project (take a look here for more info) and was all set to stage a similar event for the culmination of my degree.

But at the same time i had begun to explore other ideas/mediums and felt the need to incorporates these thoughts into whatever it was that i was going to do. So by the time we arrive at the present i find myself slightly conflicted and unsure in what direction to proceed.

After a bit of deliberation i've decided to combat this by a process of experimentation and working through issues by doing as opposed to thinking. In practical terms this means that i will try and do a short project every week and examine the results as i go along.

On 10 October the first project took place:

Between us we chucked about 10 water bombs and took photos along the way. The project was made into a small pamphlet style book after and i played with a few different image sequences. The one above is the most logical but also the dullest. It feels very literal and descriptive. By showing each stage of the act the viewer is pretty much shown what they would expect. As such there is not a lot of room for contemplation and the project feels pretty much resolved.

Things got more interesting when i took one part of the sequence and repeated different versions of it. For example you would see 3 balloons suspended in mid air and never see what actually happens when they land. This makes the work more evocative and gives the viewer space to wonder what will or did happen. 

On first inspection i thought the images were good and it was close to the project i had in mind. But after a bit more thought and time with the images my thoughts began to change. There are certain issues that my work has usually dealt with, such as site specificity,  and this project was quite a departure from those. Also it feels quite dramatic which is contradictory to the more peaceful, contemplative tone i usually try to evoke. 

So overall while i enjoyed the project and the images they are not quite what i want to do. I guess even failed experiments can produce interesting results

how to peel an orange

One of the problems with continually researching is that you can forget to actually stop and look at the images that occupy such a large proportion of your mind. You read book after book but rarely just stop for 15 minutes and look at a photograph.

the yielding stone

This feeling hit me as i was going through an ever increasing collection of notes. Amidst these scrawled on sheets was a copy of the yielding stone by Gabriel Orozco. I thought for a moment i will just look at the image and try and figure out why it works. What follows is a bit of a deconstruction of the image and analysis of the resulting parts (may go on a bit):

- it is low angled shot in the centre of which is, based on the drain and road markings, a fairly large dark, spherical object
- its' size suggests something unusual and probably man made
- it appears to not be solid as the drain has left indentations on the surface suggesting that it has been rolled
- this sensation is emphasised by the road markings and diagonal composition that also imply forward motion
- as such it implies a human presence. The object seems to large to be moved by the wind and the fact that it has not seeped through the drain suggest it is relatively and therefore heavy
- that a photo was taken just about confirms that there was a human presence
- with all this established we are left to wonder why this ball has been made and rolled
- that this has happened feels odd but not sinister or threatening. the even lighting close up angle help this
- rather it seems playful or even child like
- but the scale of it suggest more that just a whimsical childish act. to a certain extent this has been planned and the object constructed
- as such the human presence is again suggested/emphasised
- feels like we are at the crossroads of an encounter and see the ball before it continues on its journey

The first thing to notice here is the language i found myself using. It is anything if secure and every conclusion drawn has an element of guesswork, educated guesswork, but guesswork none the less. So the first conclusion i came to is the photograph is a very unstable thing and left alone does not give us much security.

The other main point of interest was the consequences this has for Orozco's work. The photograph here is able to form an open, loose dialogue with the viewer. We have plenty of space to interact with the image and use our imagination. This is the key function of the image i feel. It is not describing something but rather evoking an action. The photograph starts our contemplation of this action and it is this we focus on rather the actual photograph. Crucially this dialogue is never resolved for us and remains open. So the viewer can keep pondering the work and its significance. The photograph does not interfere too much but rather provides a supportive platform for our imagination.