2008. február 17., vasárnap


So far, our project has revolved around questioning form and language and the relationships between words and images. This has progressed further into questioning the nature of art and its context, whether in a gallery or in a more public environment. Up to this point we have been using labels and tags to demonstrate our thinking. To take this further we would like to be confrontational - rather than suggesting at contradictions and separations between physical objects and spoken or written language, we want to outright challenge this.

Rather than labeling every day objects we wish to create objects and challenge or undermine a conventional reading of them. For example, a crafts enthusiast might make a plane from matchsticks, but it is not really a plane, it is a representation of a plane, embodying planeness. One idea that we have is to make sculptures or assemblages out of found objects. For example, if we were to construct a pyramid using glass bottles, the overall composition would take the form of a pyramid but would in fact still just be bottles. We could then title this as 'glass' or 'bottles', thereby any notion of art derived from the whole will be constructed by the audience. If we have said it is simply 'glass' and they see anything more then the interpretation lies with them and therefore the art is created by the audience. Obviously this is quite simple, but could be developed by creating larger, more complex sculptures and title them with a list of all the components or ingredients used to make it. You can also do this to undermine everyday objects such as a lighter by listing its separate parts eg. plastic, gas, spring, flint, etc. In this way you can potentially reduce something beautiful to something more mathematical and less exciting. 'Beauty is in the eye of the beholder'.

Another idea we have is to use words to create sculpture or compositions. However, the words used would need to be chosen specifically for the purpose because the they will ultimately affect the interpretation of the piece. For example, using leading words such as pain or dark could either reinforce or contradict the intended meaning and therefore would have to be carefully considered. Visual puns can be created purposefully in this way; for example making a lamp using the word dark. This is quite an easy concept however and we would like to explore it in more depth.

We are also interested in the idea of the gallery. We want to question the notion of the gallery by creating our own forms of gallery or exhibition in public spaces. We do not want to create art that is street or gallery oriented. Instead we want to combine the two to make a hybrid. By taking tropes of a gallery context into an outside environment, you bring the two together. It is not enough to create street art and expect it to be acknowledged, equally it is not necessarily true that all art within a gallery context deserves acknowledgment. If we are questioning and perhaps undermining the objects we create, this needs to be applied to the context in which they are shown. If we saw a strange animal we wouldn't know what to call it, but if it had four legs and a tail we might say it looks like a dog. This relates to Plato's dogness again. If we saw a sculpture on the street made out of junk we might ignore it, but if it had a red rope around it and a placard next to it (if it had galleryness about it) then it might receive some attention. By bringing some aspects of the gallery into the public then you may give some authority to the piece (you also may not but that is another debate) and it may therefore be more readily recognised and considered.

This is just a record of ideas - now we will create.

1 megjegyzés:

shaun írta...

Hi Angus and Laura

You example of the plane immediately brings to mind the essay, 'Meditations on a Hobby Horse,' by Ernst Gombrich, where essentially he is talking about aspects of abstraction. He talks about the hobby horse - a child's toy, which might be just a stick, with straw for a main and a further appendage for a nose. We will search for characteristics however slight and build a mental image of the thing that the object referents. We do not need much, in terms of information, with minimal means we will complete the picture. Once again, this might be seen to be firmly routed within semantics. Think Pierce's process of Semiosis. This process need not be object based but might also be taken into the two dimensions. - The photograph.

I like the way you are thinking, don't worry about the processes being simple, these are often the most effective ideas. The important thing is t 'do' and then see what happens.