i hope i learn something from this

Continuing on with practical matters I have been giving some thought to how art work is experienced. What sort of response do we get from art and what does it leave us with? There is obviously not going to be a single answer to this question. Our reaction to a piece of art can range from anger to joy to deep reflection. But is one type of response that I am particularly interested in and that is how art can increase our knowledge.

Clare Copley Gallery 1974

I was led down this train of thought after reading some of Kirsi Peltomaki book called Situation Aesthetics that deals with the work of Michael Asher. Asher is best known for his interventions into institutional spaces, typically the gallery or museum, that disturb our perception of that space. Early pieces such as the one pictured (all Ashers works have no title) involved Asher removing the dividing wall that seperated the gallery from the office space at the Clare Copley Gallery. This simple gesture directs us to the administrative and commercial aspects of the gallery that are normally hidden from sight.

This was a piece that i was familiar with and could grasp its significance. Many galleries contrive to appear as just places to show art and the commercial side of things are firmly placed behind closed doors. By removing the divide, both literally and metaphorically, we encounter an often unseen side of the institution.

But this was as far as I had ever got and gave little thought to what was actually taking place for the viewer. By visiting this space our knowledge of that institution is being increased. To use Peltomaki's term Asher's intervention is 'knowledge producing'. As an artist Asher does not just evoke an emotional response but actually contributes to what we know about art and how it functions in society. The nature of this knowledge is also important. It is not something that is given to the viewer like a report or history book. Instead it is 'produced' by the viewer after considering the work. In this sense we are given the chance to engage with work and discover it for ourselves. As a result we are left with a tangible insight, that transcends aesthetic of physical constraints, which we have arrived at after a reciprocal dialogue.

Part of the reason I never really thought of this is that I can never experience the work first hand. The production of knowledge relies on such an encounter in situ and no amount of photographs can ever compensate if this is lacking. Asher's initial intervention then is intrinsically site specific: we need to experience it first hand to fully engage with it. However as the work articulates issues that transcend that physical space we do not feel completely detached from it. So even if we get a second hand account the significance of Asher's achievements do not go unnoticed.

between thought and expression

The denouement of my degree is fast approaching and January is set up to be an invigorating if necessarily anti-social month. While the majority of this period will be spent giving my dissertation some semblance of cohesion there is also the small matter of my final project to consider. Fortunately I have been able to do just that over the last few weeks and consequentially I have some direction but also numerous obstacles.

To set the scene it would be worth explaining the basic premise of my project. In essence it is quite simple: show a series of films at a number of outdoor locations. The films will be simple, straight on shots of the location in which they will be shown. They will be projected onto a screen at night so when seen the viewer will simultaneously experience the location in both day and night. Complicated? Possibly but hopefully this mock up will help clarify things a bit:

There are a dizzying amount of conceptual and practical problems to sort out with the project and these will undoubtedly crop up in future posts. But one of the immediate issues that got me thinking is how will this project translate into a gallery space. The question is mainly a contrivance of my course as I need to physically submit something come late May. But there is a bigger question here of how does the documentation of something that is in many ways site specific alter the piece?

In this case the change is going to be significant. When viewed initially the projections will very much be directly related to the place they are shown. I aiming for a sort of gently interruption to our usual perception of a place. This achieved I hope it will allow for a reconsideration of our environment. At the heart of this project then is our interaction with the world around us and reflecting on this space. The artifice I insert into this space is a catalyst to provoke this process and the work itself is not the focus of attention. However once documented the physical site is no longer present. The project becomes seen through an intermediary and this fundamentally alters the premise of the work.

Or so I thought. After taking a walk and thinking these things through I realised that the documentation could actually facilitate the same sort of reflective response I am after. However the viewer would no longer be reflecting on a physical place but the general process of representation. For example if I produced a film there would be a film within a film. This can't help but draw attention to the tools by which we record the world around us.

When this first came to me I thought it felt a bit dry. I was concerned that I mind end up simply discussing the merits of a particular medium and the process of documentation. I want my work to have a broader reach than this and not simply address what I felt were narrow issues. But after a bit more thought I realised within the process of representation there exists the possibility to make a much broader statement. When thinking about this I had David Hockneys Joiners in my mind.

What is initially so remarkable about Hockney's work is the process he has used to record his subject. We recognise the use of photography but the feeling of dislocation we get is not something would be usually experience when viewing an image. In short this is not something we are used to seeing and the photograph seems unfamiliar in this role.

That Hockney is able to make something as ubiquitous as the photograph appear strange is quite an achievement. Our expectations of the medium have been subverted and we are left to reflect on this unusual style of presentation. That are our assumptions are confounded allows us to reflect on how we would usually engage with a photograph. In newspapers, magazines and adverts the image us usually presented as a cohesive entity and is employed to convey a clear message. But Hockney reveals that this is not a characteristic inherent in the medium and the photograph can be put to quite different uses.

So what may initially appear as a comment on representation acts as the starting point for how the photograph operates in society. Such a point seems particularly relevant in a media saturated world and increased awareness of how such media are constructed is surely of benefit.

For my own work then I hope the way it is presented directs you away from the rather dry technical issues of presentation and towards a broader consideration of the media and how it is used.

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......

a thirst for knowledge

I love to learn. Personally i find that there a few better feelings than acquiring a new skill or bit of knowledge. It really is quite remarkable that in the space of a few hours you can go from not being able to do something to finding yourself in quite the opposite position. There are obvious practical benefits to such a process but the positive affect on your state of mind can be just as important. 

For example, below is short film i put together this week. I say film, it is more of a glorified slideshow really. But even so it marked my introduction to the world of online video sharing (a process made all the more easier by the beautifully designed vimeo). It undoubtedly took me 10x longer than the average 9 year old to work out how to do this but nevertheless it was a distinctly satisfying experience. The results are below. 

As a footnote to this celebration of learning it is worth briefly mentioning this projects significance in terms of my own work. The subject itself is probably not something i am going to pursue but it was very interesting in terms of deciding what shape a project takes (a recurring theme of late). For example this project has a high level of transience. The water gets bigger, smaller and is a constant state of flux. Ift is the transient nature of the work that i want to emphasise. So this piece need to be shown in a way that helps articulate the nature of the work. The internet video then is quite a suitable way to show it. Usually viewed fleetingly and not existing in any physical form it is in itself a platform in flux. Another suitable way to show this would be a projection as again the light occupies a tenuous physical position. 

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.