Making contemporary Art: How modern artists think and work, Linda Weintraub

This book was on the suggested reading list for this terms module guide, I tend to always get a handful of these and because of the recent feedback from the first module I am pleased about how relevant this book is. The feedback from the work that I handed in for the module suggested that my work was stronger when I was not looking at personal things, I have never been one to leak personal elements into a work and I believe that doing it at this time was a learning curve. One piece in particular that was raised as an example of a work that was effective was at Firstsite, Colchester for a Pop Up exhibition a few months ago. I recorded my Nan’s conversation as she walked around an exhibition of Bruce McLean’s work, her kind critique spoke volumes of the issues that the Firstsite space has with the media and locals. My Nan questioned the role of the artist and their intentions, and the need for understanding in being able to fully appreciate the artists work. She also questioned the institution the work was in and the barriers that the modern architecture of the space posed to an audience that lacked confidence and understanding, therefore resulting in an easy and often angry dismissal of everything held within. For this semester and the very last module, I plan to explore some of these ideas further, and in particular some of the things mentioned within this book. I have only read the preface of the book, and so far many interesting points have been made. I will be discussing a few of these a bit further, giving myself a more concrete place to start in relation to my practice and the rest of the book. It was written by Linda Weintraub, and after reading the preface I flicked hurriedly to the acknowledgements in order to discover more about its surrounding context. Weintraub speaks of the book happening from a desire to give guidance to those wondering how they could possibly make it in the art world. She talks of graduate students floating precariously on that edge, unsure of what lies ahead. As I am now going into the final part of my degree, that feeling of panic has been threatening to grip for the last few weeks, I am hoping that this book will not only enrich my studio practice but also give some well rounded advice for what comes after. Although I do not plan to be a practicing artist I hope to work in the art world, an understanding of how it functions today is crucial to being able to survive when thrown into it without the ties of tutors and fellow students. 

Linda Weintraub outlines questions that as an art student I have often been asked. Interestingly enough, I am usually asked these questions by people who do not have much knowledge of art and what it entails. Often when I state that I am an art student many feign interest, but they are simply dismissing the idea altogether, like there is an invisible barrier. The questions are: Why am I an artist? Who is my audience? How can I communicate with this audience? What is art’s function in society? We are taught to ask ourselves these questions, but I have realised that I do not do that enough. Although I know I might not be practising in a few months time, I feel these are still relevant. I hope by the time I have gone through this book and am more sure about what it is I will be doing for the final module I will be able to answer these question’s more confidently, these might even be my starting point, perhaps they will give my an idea of what it is I want to work on for the final module. For now I am going to discuss some of the points raised in the Preface of this book. 

Weinstraub talks of how there are no longer measures of success, no standards, these have disappeared for artists. She suggest that we are in a position to make a difference, there are no limits, there is so much to choose from. The question is, is the lack of limits what makes it so hard for artists to find a way into the art world? Have we given ourselves an impossible task? She discusses how art now can be revolutionary: ‘But evolutionary development also entails a disruption of the status quo.’ When she mentions works that have caused a stir and artists who have caused ‘irreversible mutations in the DNA of an entire culture’, there are two examples that immediately come to my mind. Tracy Emin is the first, and her work ‘My Bed’ (1998). This piece was groundbreaking. Many argued that her bed cannot possibly by an artwork, the high profile event and introduction of the work caused a backlash from an audience that would not usually partake in such a scene. The other is Marcel Duchamp and in particular his piece ‘Urinal’ (1917). Duchamp is an example of an artist whose work mutated the development of an entire culture, he was a major influence on the growth of the Conceptual art movement, where the work was about the idea not the physical qualities of the piece. An emphasis on the idea is still prominent as the skill of making and the aesthetics of the work have taken a step back. 

Weinstraub discusses what artists have sacrificed for a taste of freedom. Being free has left us with the impossible task of having limitless options, which becomes a restriction due to vast array of choices that we have to make. She suggests that this freedom leaves art whimsical, not necessarily dedicated as ‘no decision demands a lifelong commitment’. There is no longer that dedication to the making, a perseverance to grasp perfection. Weinstraub also suggests separately other difficulties we now face because of this bid for freedom and uncontrolled expression. Gone are the days when the value of the work depended on the skill of the making, the dedication of the artist in his craft. The artist was no longer given the title but became self-declared. I am an artist. Unprotected they are launched in this space, with an uncertainty about what their future holds or what they will achieve. Weinstraub questionably suggests that art has become a method of financial gain, but not necessarily for the artist. Artists strive to make for a society that sets out to question every step they take. Nevertheless, Weinstraub emphasises that it is a risk worth taking. Art can make a difference, it can be revolutionary, through art a mark is always made, and it is a given that it will one day be appreciated. This short piece of writing poses many questions about why artists take up this challenge, why some are compelled to continue on no matter what they may face, I believe that continuing to read through the book will allow for a greater understanding of the questions that are raised as at this moment in time I feel unable to attempt to answer them. 

What is a rhizome?

I am going to be looking at a short section of a text we were given by our tutor Jane after the introduction of the Rhizome as our last ever module brief. The text is a section of a book titled Deleuze Reframed: Interpreting Key Thinkers for the Arts (Contemporary Thinkers reframed): A guide for Art Students. by D Sutton (2008). Further reading that we have also been asked to do is Deleuze and Guattari’s ‘A Thousand Plateaus’. My basic understanding of the Rhizome is linked greatly with the visual representation of roots; as an interconnecting, forever changing and never-ending web. I feel that the idea of the Rhizome is almost an ideal, something we should strive for, to be able to think in this way and to be this flexible in what exists around us.  

Our tutor questioned at the beginning of the text: ‘What counts as knowledge and how do we learn?’. Thinking about the idea of the Rhizome made me create a link between a text I have recently read by Heidegger, titled ‘The origin of the work of art’. Interestingly Heidegger talks of the way we associate objects with certain properties. He questions where these presumptions come from. ‘What seems natural to us is probably just something familiar in a long tradition that has forgotten the unfamiliar source from which it arose. And yet this unfamiliar source once struck a man as strange and caused him to think and wonder.’ (Heidegger, 1935) It was this question of knowledge that for me created this connection between these two ideas. How do we know that what we believe to be the properties of something are actually the properties of it? Why do we describe it as so? Do we compare it against others that are similar? These continuous connections remind me of the link that is made between the Rhizome and the family tree, the tree being a continuous hierarchal connection. How we define something due to similarity is a hierarchal thought, its difficult to question now whether this is true. Is there a deeper connection here between the Rhizome and an object? This is something that needs exploring in much greater detail. 

‘It is also impossible to posit one origin to a forest, and not simply because you cannot tell which tree came first. Any one tree is a product of an assemblage, of water, sunlight and soil, without which there would be no trees at all, regardless of whether a seed exists or not.’ Although I now see the connections this makes with the point above, I continue to regard this with interest. Jane mentioned this sentence in the discussion over the brief, and I felt that this description felt earthy and true. My dissertation considers the artists intention and how important a part this plays in understanding the work of art; looking at the roles of the viewer, the critic, the artwork and the artist. Each of these things has an input to the understanding and the making of a work of art, much like Deleuze suggests it’s a combination of all of these factors, as well as art history, theory, context and culture. Barthes writes in his essay ‘From Work to Text’ that a ‘text’ is similar in the way that there are many different combinations, and cultures and ideas that make up a text. Following this I have realised that I found an example of the Rhizome within my dissertation research. When considering the context of the publication of Barthes’ text ‘The Death of the Author’  (1967) further an essay by John Logie titled ‘1967: The birth of “The Death of the Author”’ stated: ‘The challenge scholars from the disciplines favouring this journal face is de-emphasising an understanding of ‘The Death of the Author’ as a participant in a lengthy diachronic tussle over how literary composers compose, and instead seeing in its synchronic moment, in a rhizomatic network with the other contributions to Aspen 5+6, and also with the contributors to prior work.’ He talks of how the text worked with the other elements in the publication of Aspen, and we need to see it as a part of this continuing network. My studio practice has often linked with my dissertation work, and finding the evidence of this within other research and establishing a much deeper connection between the two through an example like this is invigorating. It was in this moment that I realised that my dissertation topic is exactly what I should be looking into at this point in my practice, the link was just waiting to be found. 

Another question that was asked in relation to our own studio practice was whether or not we work in a hierarchy or whether we work in a rhizomatic way. I feel that this is quite a difficult question to answer. For me the rhizome is not a subject but a way of understanding how things connect and work around you; influences that lead you in certain directions. When looking at the idea from this perspective I consider the way that my practice develops and the path that an idea takes. There are a few different elements that I recognise that seep in and feed my ideas for the studio: other artist’s work, photographs, the people around me, and most importantly different texts . My dissertation has recently governed my studio work quite closely, causing me to engage more with the reception of a piece of work, and the role of the viewer in that interpretation. Contemporary Art and Memory: Images of recollection and remembrance by Joan Gibbons is a suggested publication that has encouraged the progress of the professional development of my practice that really begun to take shape towards the end of last semester. I continue to acknowledge this driving force behind my ideas, but perhaps need to consider the other elements that contribute. I would say that the way that I work is more hierarchal because of the lack of experimentation, an idea tends to naturally follow through as planned, by taking a moment to consider any other routes with an idea could benefit my studio practice. Since being introduced to this topic I hope that this will change, whilst still continuing to refine the work I am doing, for the final exhibition in particular I need to encourage different ways of how to present my work and then how in turn each of these will receive a separate interpretation from the viewer. 

The text talks of the way in which ‘rhizomatic networks are enabled by the Internet.’ Over Christmas I went to New York and visited MOMA, in which I saw an exciting exhibition titled: The forever now, contemporary painting in an atemporal world. It explored the use of internet and the clashing of times and cultures that this access to information caused, it challenged the mixing of timelines, questioning the given of art history. This was an example I thought of when going through this text, the show was more edgy than the rest of the work being exhibited in the massive space. Focusing more closely on the ideas of art institutions and the clash of various movements and influences, this exhibition visualised the very nature of the rhizome, looking for new and unexplored connections. The text speaks of the Rhizome having ‘the potential to move into (and onto) new territories.’ There is a connection with this idea in relation to studio work, there might be a few different ideas but there is always one that inches further than the others, that leads somewhere that you never expected. 

The example give of the wasp and the orchid is confusing, but from what I understand it is about balance, between change and conformity, stabilisation and growth. ‘Lines of flight are created at the edge of the rhizomatic formation, where the multiplicity experiences an outside, and transforms and changes. At this border there is a double becoming that changes both the rhizome and that which it encounters (which is always, in fact, the edge of another rhizome.)’ The text also mentions violence, and how it is this that tethers a path of a rhizome, an element of control that is thrust upon something that is unforgiving in its aim to develop and spread. The final element of the text that interested me was the negative slant it takes on Freud’s use of psychoanalysis and the insistence of blaming everything on your childhood. The emphasis on the ‘rhizomatic patterns of everyday life in which we are interact with others’ as a strong candidate for the explanation of how we develop as individuals questions Freud’s ideas: ‘You did not develop into a healthy tree because your roots were not given the proper nourishment as a sapling.’ Although I have also enjoyed researching and reading about Freud, I have never fully considered many of his ideas. His assertion that who we are and the problems we face are due to our childhood is something I have never been fully able to comprehend, the ideas outlined in this text were refreshing. 

It is clear why my tutor said for us to not get too caught up in what the Rhizome is. There are many different elements here that are just asking to be explored, however this was not the task we were set. It would be useful to research further into the Rhizome to understand more clearly some of the points mentioned in this text, however this is a topic that can most definitely absorb you. At this stage in the degree it is important not to stray from the individual paths we are on too much, however the Rhizome can suggest a way of thinking and interpreting ideas and influences that will benefit your work as a whole. What I have taken from this is that its important to consider things in a much wider context, question how you got to that stage, what really is important and why, there may be something that you have missed that could potentially stretch the work you are doing that step further. Consider the way the work will interact with the audience, what you are trying to get across with the piece, whether you are being successful, or if the format you are using works; I particularly will be taking these things into further consideration as I throw myself into this final semester.