The Function of the Studio, Buren

The Function of the Studio

1971

David Buren. translated by Thomas Repensek

Buren brings into question the value of an often overlooked integral part of the artistic process; the artists studio. 'The importance of the studio should by now be apparent; it is its first frame, the first limit, upon which all subsequent frames/limits will depend.' (Buren, 1971) We have recently been asked to consider the role the studio plays in our work. For me the studio is not so much a place where I do the work, in fact next to none of the work I produce comes from my degree studio. As a photographer a lot of the work is done in the dark room, my work also is about writing, all of which are done from my computer. To me the studio space is not an area that fuels my work, but its a space that I can use without being interrupted, where I frequently display where I am in relation to my studio practice. Buren's idea of the studio is that of artistic creation, of a second canvas almost onto which the work is made, when the work is removed from this a part of it is left behind. This brings into question the idea of context. I think Buren is talking more about painting, where locational context is not necessarily as important. I feel often now that, and I speak from the perspective of my own work, as an artist I consider the location the work is going to be in previously, and cater to the effect this would then have on the piece. Buren here discusses a disconnection within the work when it is removed from this studio space, where the work originates and its 'unique space of production'. (Buren, 1971) The work is created within that space, the space fuels the artist, what does the work then lose if this is taken away?

David Buren then considers the role of the curator. He speaks of a gallery often by using the term museum, this is interesting as it implies a negative view of the gallery space, Buren's emphasis here is on the importance of the studio, the text suggests that the gallery is a space in which the work is shown to the public, devoid of all individuality and promise. It becomes bound in this collection and rules. This is where Buren suggests the role of the curator comes in with relation to the gallery. He talks of how the studio is almost like a shop, where curators come and choose the work they want to show, the work is picked, specifically sorted through to find which is right for the public to see. The intentions of the artist for the work are gone, it is the curators intentions that now matter. What does the work mean now, how does it fit in with their space, their rules. Buren talks of the studio as a 'commercial depot' where pieces are churned out without any true considerations for the pure intention or meaning, the work has to be displayed and due to circumstances often it is in any way possible, no matter the consequences this may have on the change of meaning for the work. Because of this Buren suggests that a works true place of belonging is in the studio, where it originates. 

He goes on to consider this need for the artist to show works in gallery locations and exhibitions, artists need to show work, however how does this displacement from the studio alter what is seen?  '...it is impossible by definition for a work to be seen in place; still, the place where we see it influences the work even more than the place in which it is made and from which it has been cast out.' (Buren, 1971) A work can change simply because of the location it is set in, a photograph in a white wall gallery space would have a very different meaning to the same photograph projected onto the side of a building. One example of this that I have recently seen is the work of Neil Ayling, Ayling worked with Anthony Caro in his studio on his large sculptural pieces. I was introduced to his own work in a lecture and was pleasantly surprised by the pieces, he looked at using lines and refolding images to make new sculptural forms. One piece that particularly caught my eye was a room where a sculpture was made that seemed to show the walls folding in on themselves down new lines, completely transforming the shape and space of the room by becoming an edgy multitude of dimensions and angles. He focused on the use of buildings and lines, and in one exhibition took sections of a building and made these into free standing sculptures in a white gallery space. This removal of that section of the building from the rest into the gallery space completely shifted its position. It became a separate part, it brought a questionable importance to that area. It made you consider what building it came from, why that section was specifically chosen. What is interesting is that in this case the separation makes us wonder about where it came from, but as Buren suggests the separation of the work from the studio does not, it is considered normal. '...the place for which the work is destined is not defined by the work, nor is the work specifically intended for a place which preexists it...' This is interesting as he talks of the two things as being separate,  the work is not intended for a specific location and the location is not defined by the work, the exist in their own as two separate entities. He is lessening the value of the final location of the work, and heightening the value of the studio, the place in which the work is ripped from. Buren suggests the opposite propositions when dealing with a work of art and curating. He states that works or art are all the same, and then that works of art are unique. How can we get a balance for this? If all works were unique then curating a combined show or collection would be impossible. Yet if all works were the same then the result of the curating would be incredibly boring. 

The text speaks of the role of the gallery, but emphasises on the works true place in the studio. There is a sense of reluctance when Buren is speaking of the gallery or museum, he seems to be resigning to the fact that the work will be taken from the studio and placed in the gallery. What does this then mean? Buren speaks of the plain white walls of the gallery, the uniform space that caters for all work in the most demographic way. You then question the result of the knowledge of this empty space. Buren speaks of the dullness of art where this is concerned. What is good in art is taken away, the passion of the studio that surrounds a work is stripped when it is removed and placed in these sterile white walls. He mentions the work of Constantin Brancusi in relation to this and how the artist battled this disconnection by bringing the audience to the studio space, to see the work in its prime, there was no disconnection, just the sense of seeing what was meant to be seen; completion.