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.  

The wooden box of photos

The piece that I have completed for the hand-in of the first module of my final year on the B.A Fine Art degree uses sound and objects to express the idea of family, of moments shared and memories. A old wooden box full of equally old photographs and letters sits propped open upon a large white plinth, which conceals a DVD player and speakers playing an edited sound recording of a conversation between my Nan and myself whilst looking through old photographs, some of which are included in the box. The piece is away from the wall in the studio space, there is a short artists statement attached to the wall. 

Recently my studio practice has been exploring the marks we make as humans that determine our presence in a space, particularly looking into more personal examples of this. I photographed my Nan’s house, searching for a visual combination of what elements make up who my Nan is, her essence. The one photograph that stood out for me was an image of the chair in my Nan’s spare bedroom, it visually personified who my Nan was, her character. The chair was soft, yet strong and reliable, it also stood alone: my Nan is an independent woman. The chair felt sad, the black and white photograph along with the surrounding room gave that sense of age that I associate with my Nan. In the artists statement I focused on reducing this negative impact and instead pointing out the strength of the chair. These photos made me consider the power of family, and the unconditional love that comes with this. When photographing an afternoon of myself and my Nan going through some old photos, the sound recording I had made captured what the camera could not. The conversation that was recorded was emotional and honest, and a completely open door into the life that we have shared together as well as the lives of the family I did not know. The power was in this recording, in the laughter and the thickness of voices on the verge of tears, the advice my Nan gives and the memories she shares. I realised then that this is what the final piece for my hand-in needed to be. 

The voice recording was the main element of the piece, however I didn’t want the equipment to be seen. I wanted it to feel like the sound was around the space, like it existed in the room, taking the viewer to that afternoon. The echoing effect of the sound underneath the plinth makes it sound like my Nan is right there in the studio, her distinctive voice travelling around the room. I wanted there to be something that connected the viewer with the context of the sound, I think it would be possible to distinguish that we were looking at photographs from just listening to the sound piece but I wanted to make this connection easy. The box of photographs is significant because those are the ones that my Nan chose when I asked her which ones she linked with our conversation, the box also contains a letter that my Nan reads out towards the end of the sound piece. Its visual indicators like these that I wanted to ensure that the visual elements link with the sound. I believe that its important that although not obvious, it should be possible to make the connections. The plinth as well is relevant, as I wanted to the height of the box to be at touching distance, you can see clearly all the photographs, and when something is at direct hand height I feel it really entices the viewer to look through and physically become involved with the piece.

This is the artists statement that I wrote for the piece:

The wooden box of photos 

It is bittersweet; love and loves lost. It is happiness; laughter, moments shared and remembered. It is guilt; guilt about the things that I should never have forgotten. It is wonder; fascination with the lives they had before, before us, the children. It is unsettling; the knowledge that there’s another side to them that I do not know, one that to me has never existed. This is the before us, they were happy then too. It is sadness; there are some we wished were still here and some we never had the chance to know.  

I found this very difficult to write. I have started recently trying to write more emotive artist statements instead of something more clinical or theory based. I feel that if you are making a piece of work that is emotional the statement needs to match this, it cannot be completely detached and remain effective. This statement is very experimental, its more poetic than any of the others I have done and I want to test the effectiveness of this. I considered what I felt when I listened to the piece and the feelings I had when going through the box of photographs, I highlighted these giving the audience the chance to question why I felt this way. It is a very honest description of what was running through my mind, much like the conversation in the sound piece, this honesty is what I find emotional, there is no hiding. I was fascinated by the lives my family had before we existed, particularly the life my mother had, sometimes you do not remember that the people you love have a history, this should be recognised. 

I am intrigued to get feedback for this piece. I have listened to the audio CD all the way through, and I admit that I felt very emotional at times, however I find it difficult to judge how people would react. I have such a close connection to the piece I feel I am biased. My friend Sarah has listened to the sound as well and was moved by some of the things she heard however I feel it is the environment that matters. This will next be playing when the studio is empty, when everything is displayed to be marked, and to very few people. I feel this will make a difference. I listened to this piece when I was alone, and to me it was more powerful on that occasion, I felt like I was remembering a very personal moment. I wonder if the viewer will feel like they are intruding or listening into the conversation? Or perhaps enjoying that moment with myself and my Nan. There will most certainly be a difference between when I am listening to it in the crowded studio to when it is played when it is extremely quite. The echoing in the hollow space will most likely be sad, it will feel empty. However, in the moments where there is laughter and reminiscing I hope that it will fill the empty space that is the studio, I have made sure the volume is loud enough in hopes that it achieves this. 

I feel that the piece looks refined, I have thought carefully about each element. However there are a few changes I would make if I had the chance to do this over again or in a larger space using better equipment. I wondered first about the effect this would have in a dark room under a strong lamp. I considered this for the final display but changed my mind, mainly due to the fact that there was no place like that available under such short notice, but in reflection I felt it would change the atmosphere that I would be trying to create with the piece. I feel the darkness would be sinister, and not reflective of the conversation that took place. The ability to see clearly the photos and the details of the box in the bright white of the studio space shows the age around the edges of the photograph, I feel it is also more inviting, there is something about the dark that keeps people at a distance. I feel that this piece would also work if it was alone in a large gallery space. The studio is full of other things and although my singular space is clear there is still a lot surrounding it. The echoing effect could be resonated throughout the studio if this was changed. What would also be interesting is if there were speakers around a room, the sound coming from each side. The viewer would then be much more submersed in the sound, the voices will not be lost in the room; they would fill it. I could also see the box of photos resting on a large old table, like at my Nan’s, in a gallery space if I had that amount of room. This would bring even more of a context of the situation to the work. I could see the work as a larger installation, not necessarily a whole room but definitely a table setting. 

I am pleased with the final outcome of this piece of work, and surprised at how my studio practice has developed over the last module. The final piece is leading towards the direction I wish to be taking for the final module, I am excited to get started with this. 

Dissertation and my studio practice

I have included a separate section for some of my dissertation research because it has linked so closely with what I am practicing in the studio that I feel it is relevant to include. I know that my dissertation needs a lot more work as I have only handed in a first draft, I also have a few more things to read through before I can start rewriting it. Nonetheless, what I have been looking into now and also the things that I have been reading for the current draft of my dissertation are what have influenced my studio practice immensely. 

My dissertation explores Roland Barthes The Death of the Author (1967) and the role of the Author,  the reader and the critic in interpretation. Aside from The Death of the Author I have been using a text by Joseph Kosuth titled Intention(s) (1996) and Susan Sontag’s text Against Interpretation (1964), as well as Duchamp’s The Creative Act (1967) and Fred Orton’s Suspensa Vix via Fit (2004). All have been influential in building my discussion over the points Barthes’ makes in The Death of the Author text. Barthes boldly suggests that the author is dead. He writes that the author is not needed in finding the ‘meaning’ of a piece of work, Barthes argues that the answer lies with the reader, not the author. In relation to art practice, Barthes is suggesting that the artists intention or ideas for the work are not important, whats really important is the work itself, and the viewer and how they interpret that piece of work individually. Barthes also talks of the power of language, and how it is through language that we communicate ideas. 

There are quite a few ideas from my dissertation that I have found are relevant to my practice. My second year essay was focused on my own work and the idea of intention, this has continued on through the dissertation and my studio practice. My work has always been intentional, I looked into artists of the Conceptual Art era like Joseph Kosuth and Duchamp, my work is links closely with theirs due to the fact that the idea of the piece to me is more important than the physical outcome. However, I have come to realise that the physical outcome has to match the idea, the work needs to be effective, otherwise there is not much point in making the work at all. This has made me think in more depth about the work I am exhibiting and how the audience would view the work. The idea of the reader is key in my dissertation and an entire section has been allocated to explore the value of the reader in the artistic process. I have been trying to consider what the audience will see in the work, trying to step back from my emotional connection to it and relying heavily on feedback from fellow students and tutors. An example of this would be my work for the exhibition at The Waiting Room. The piece was very emotional for me and I struggled to make sure that someone viewing the work who did not know me would feel that similar emotion. I exhibited a photograph of a chair at my Nan’s house with the aim of trying to capture her essence in the image, her human presence. Along with the photograph I included a short piece of writing that spoke of the meaning of the work, it was quite poetic but for me included all the positive feelings I wanted to enforce, it took negativity that I knew you would see in the image without it, the sadness that the lone chair represents. The conclusion of my dissertation mentions Kosuth’s and Sontag’s radical ideas on the way art should be. Kosuth argues that artist’s need to write about their own work instead of waiting around for someone else to decide what the piece is about, he believes that no one knows the work better than the artist. I agree with this to an extent, I feel that writing is incredibly important in my own work and I rely heavily on the artist’s statement and feel it is as much a part of the work as the physical piece. However, I do believe that the audience or the viewer will get from the work what they will, they will see what they see in it and they cannot be persuaded otherwise. I feel artist statements are a way of explaining to the viewer what the artist’s intention is for the piece but this is not necessarily the only meaning the work has. 

Writing the dissertation has made me think more carefully about the work that I am producing for exhibitions, and think more critically about what the viewer will see. I take this in to consideration more so when I am writing the artist’s statement. This takes a long time for me to get these right as I attempt to look at it from someone else’s perspective and see if what I am saying for the work matches up, however its incredibly difficult if not impossible to do this with your own work. I believe its simply that although I have my own interpretation of what the work is about, I am open to other peoples interpretations and opinions, an artwork is there to spark thoughts and feelings, these are not going to be the same in every person. I know for a fact that the next draft of my dissertation and the new texts I plan to read will continue to influence my work throughout the next brief, it will still remain a crucial part of my practice. 

Heidegger, The Origin of the work of art, 1935

After getting over how many times the word ‘thing’ could be used in various forms throughout a text, I found that there was a few key parts of this text that I could pick out which related either to my practice or my dissertation. It is odd how completely the two of those combine for me, sometimes it is difficult to separate, therefore I tend to not try, the two work well together in relation to my practice and this is not something I should try and change. 

The first part of the text for me was the most confusing, Heidegger establishes the circle, the circle of ‘art’ you could say. He then goes on to try and distinguish what a ‘thing’ is for the most part of the essay. However, I think the circle needs to be addressed, as in relation to my dissertation I am questioning whether the artist remains an important part of the creative act (Duchamp, 1967), and the role of the artist, the viewer and the critic. Heidegger states: ‘The artist is the origin of the work. The work is the origin of the artist.’ The artist is the creator of the work, without the artist there would be no work. On the other hand, without the artwork, how can the artist be called such? This is the question that Heidegger raises and he links these with a third attribute to the circle: ‘art’. Again he states that art is the origin of both artist and artwork, but art would not exist without the latter. This leads you to believe that in this circle, neither is of greater importance, they are all codependent. However, Heidegger also suggests that it is the artwork that needs to be examined in order to establish the origin of the work of art, he states that: ‘Art essentially unfolds in the artwork. But what and how is the work of art?’ What is the essence of the work of art? He discusses how we establish that a work of art is what it is, we compare it to other examples we have in order to conclude whether it is in fact art or not (he later goes on to discuss why it is that we feel the need to do this.) After acknowledging the existence of this circle, Heidegger asks what is a work of art? To find its origin we first need to work out what it actually is. He talks of how the artwork is a ‘thing’, but with something else, something that gives it that artistic edge. It says something more than itself, there’s the concept of the work. 

Heidegger sets out to define a ‘thing’ in this text, that ‘thingly’ quality, however after reading it through a few times I felt that he never really defined what a thing was, and just made lots of different suggestions as to what it could be. He states a summary of the three main concepts he thinks work as an explanation for a ‘thing’: ‘These three modes of defining thingness conceive of the thing as a bearer of traits, as the unity of a manifold of sensations, as formed matter.’ The first for me was the explanation that held the most weight, I had not thought about this much before and so I found this a very interesting idea. ‘A thing, as everyone thinks he knows, is that around which the properties have assembled.’ This is the idea that traits, or properties of an object for example, surround the thing itself, making it recognisable to us, he talks of how we acknowledge its characteristics. However, the ‘thing’ itself is being assaulted by these properties we place upon it, but it needs to remain contained. He talks as well of how these properties exist: ‘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.’ This is an interesting idea, how everything was once new to us, and now as the years go on this is less so, we take the properties and traits for granted, they are not at all surprising. This is still not a particularly solid explanation of a thing, and Heidegger goes into many more different possible explanations however, I feel that this one is the strongest. He talks also of matter and form which would help to explain the physical quality of objects and works of art, however, this idea of given traits and properties also links with how we establish a work of art as ‘art’. We look for other examples we may have of a work of art, we compare the new to the old, to establish connections and similarities in order to define it, yet the slight differences are what make the work ‘new’. 

I read through this text because my tutor Jane mentioned Heidegger’s discussion of Van Gogh’s painting of the peasant shoes. He first talks of the shoes themselves and then goes on to mention the painting that depicts the shoes and why it has become so important to this argument, how its not just a pictorial reference. I was interested in looking into this specific part of the text because I have been looking into objects and photographs, and how they tell a story. I took some photographs of my Nan’s house and one of them was of a chair in my Nan’s room where she hung her coat. The chair symbolised my Nan in many aspects and it wasn’t till after I had printed the photograph that I realised this. I was aiming to capture the essence of my Nan in the space, the chair was strong, yet soft, and stood alone in the room, it had a sense of comfort that I connected with my Nan even without her surrounding room. It was because of this that I questioned the way in which we can link objects with people and memories. Jane suggested reading this example, as it would be beneficial to my research for the work. Van Gogh’s painting depicts a pair of peasant shoes, Heidegger talks of how there is nothing else in the image, we cannot see someone wearing them, or where they are located. Yet in those shoes you see the peasant woman wearing them, her pain, her tiredness, her relief when she takes them off after walking all day. You can see the soil that she treads on and the marks she makes. The shoes become so much more than just a pair of shoes, they have a history and a story behind them, one that we see in the painting. It is important to question why this is. Heidegger mentions that the women would think nothing of her shoes other than that they do the job well, whereas we, as we look upon this painting, see everything in them. Is it because of the painting? These shoes have been picked out for a reason, they have been painted to tell that story, not just simply to look like a pair of shoes. When they were chosen in this way they become more than a pair of peasant shoes. The fact that they have been depicted in this painting, in this art, it makes them more than what they first seem to be. Heidegger emphasises this idea when he states: ‘But then, is it your opinion that this painting by Van Gogh depicts a pair of peasant shoes somewhere at hand, and is a work of art because it does so successfully? Is it your opinion that the painting draws a likeness from something actual and transposes it into a product of artistic-production? By no means.’

The rest of the text I felt was quite confusing and complicated, it wasn’t until the section titled Truth and Art  that I again became interested in what Heidegger was writing. Heidegger writes more clearly of the connection between the work of art, art and the artist by summarising some of the previous points he has made. He mentions that we need to see the piece of art as something worked, effected, or we will never be able to see the origin of the piece. He states again more confidently: ‘The workly character of the work consists in its having been created by the artist. It may seem curious that this most obvious and all-clarifying definition of the work is mentioned only now.’ After going through and discussing many different explanations for the origin of the work of art, Heidegger arrives again at the artist. He talks of how it is important not to forget that the work of art was worked by someone, it is intentional, everything you see has been done for a reason, and as it was mentioned before, this is what makes a work of art more than just a ‘thing’. He talks of how you cannot just define the work by itself, you need to look to the artist also. This is relevant to my dissertation where I argue against Roland Barthes The Death of the Author when he states that the artist is dead, and it is only in the art work that we need to look, that the work is completed in the viewer. Heidegger here suggests quite the opposite: that the origin of the work of art must be discovered within the activity of the artist. 

Maureen Paley Gallery London, Morgan Fisher: Past Present, Present Past

On a day trip for afternoon tea at the Hilton, I stopped off at the Maureen Paley Gallery by Bethnal Green station after seeing an advertisement in Art Review for the exhibition of the work of Morgan Fisher titled Past Present, Present Past. The exhibition caught my interest because it was a photograph of an old film box, the title as well intrigued me. As I was looking into film photography at the time, as well as looking through old photographs and what they mean to us, the exhibition seemed to be key for my research for this module. 

We went up to the gallery on the Monday, after finding it was closed we rang the bell and a member of staff ushered us in and switched the entire exhibition on for us. I was pleasantly surprised as they went to a lot of trouble to allow us to have a walk around the exhibition. I liked the gallery space, the ground floor consisted of a room with a film playing on repeat inside. The first floor was a white space with a series of photographs of old films around the room, a second room came off this which had another film inside.

The first film titled Red Boxing Gloves/ Orange Kitchen Gloves I found at first relatively difficult to understand. It was obvious that one was feminine and the other masculine but it was difficult to figure out what was significant about the difference here. After picking up the handout that went with the exhibition, Fisher wrote that the glove films are in the form of a pendent pair; usually two paintings with subjects that compliment each other. Exploring the idea of man and the woman in this case, the male the large boxing gloves and the female the washing up gloves. After reading this the work appealed to me a lot more, it seems quite sexist but I guess thats just how I read the piece. I was looking for something from the work and this is what I pulled from it. 

The first floor of the space consisted of a series of photographs all around the room, positioned exactly in a line. From the initial advertisement that I saw I thought that there might be other things in the exhibition other than just old films, however each picture was of an old film. Morgan Fishers writing on the work explained how the films were now out of date, could not be used, and many of the brands were no longer in production. He talks of how the films used to carry a promise of the future, but now they are useless. They are film images, that were scanned and printed, which links with what he states about how film photography as an amateur practice is virtually extinct, it is left only to the professionals. What I liked about the work was what the individual images mean. This is something I have always found fascinating about photography and art in general. Significance is given back to these old films when they have been photographed, and staged in this way. The artist has taken these films and almost said, these right here are important, don’t forget them. There’s something about this that really interests me, how art and photography can make even the simplest of things seem important. 

The final film was titled Production Footage this was in the smaller room off of the main gallery space. The film consisted of documenting old film movie cameras, again I believe the idea of this film was to show that this old process has not been forgotten. Like the other works, by using the very techniques that are documented in the exhibition, the artist is going against the idea of old cameras and films being neglected. I enjoyed the show although it was very small and not what I expected. It was good to read the piece written by Morgan Fisher about the work because that made it much more clearer about what the work was about, it just goes to show how important it is for an artist to write about their work. 

POOL

We were given a short folded booklet titled POOL on the morning we were being introduced to Neil Ayling, who for many years worked with Anthony Caro in his studio. The booklet included Neil Ayling and a few other artists, one side consisted of a series of short pieces of writing in the form of artist’s statements, and the other side was a conversation held between some of the participants. Although it was closely related to sculpture I found a few sections of this booklet very interesting, and there were a few specific elements that really got me thinking, even with just one word. The conversation on the back of the leaflet was also interesting, not only the things said but that process of recording and writing down a conversation had where important questions were raised. My group has decided to attempt one of these conversations, have a question as a starting point and write down what is recorded throughout the time period and publish it. There are often things in conversations that are extremely important but are forgotten in the mass of other things that are said, what an excellent way to get around this. 

The first short piece of writing that I found interesting to read was by Claire Baily. She stated:

‘I believe the challenge to us is to reform and rearticulate the ideas and visuals that we already know in order to ask deeper questions.’

‘I work often with mundane visual motifs, trying to manipulate and distort them into a new visual language.’

‘Through these methods I hope to create something more than we already have, something that hosts an internal world of formations and strategies that form a proposal to the viewer, rather than a finished article.’

I was surprised at how much this short piece of writing aligned perfectly with some of the things I had been discussing in my dissertation. Joseph Kosuth in his essay Intention(s) discusses the way in which artists have to manipulate given meanings of objects and materials, and through this make something new, something different, he talks of this being an increasingly difficult challenge. The ideas of visual language have been discussed in my dissertation, Conceptual Art was also briefly touched upon when talking of the role of the viewer in completing this artistic process. When Baily talks of a proposal to the viewer here, you get a sense that she means the work is finished by the viewer, not the artist. 

The next artist’s statement was by John Wallbank:

‘I begin a piece of work because I am trying to find something out or because I want to remember something. The work is a conglomeration of notes to myself.’

‘For me the difficulties thrown up by the peculiarities of particular materials are a stimulus to the development of different ways of making.’

‘Processes must be made explicit since they are a physical manifestation of my thinking process…’

I saw connections with my own studio work and this when I first read through it. I realised last year that the work I do in the studio is quite personal, although the subject might not have been back then, the reasons for making the work certainly were. I often link work with things that I am reading or have been thinking about, my practice differs often and it helps me concretise my thoughts or feelings on a particular subject by using visual language to explore these ideas in a new way. He talks of how the work is notes to himself, this is certainly the way I view my own work quite a lot of the time, particularly the parts that are not for an exhibition or show. 

Justin Matherly is a sculptor who also works in a similar way, he talks of his work being a visual representation of the process of his thoughts. There is something about working in this way that makes the work personal, however, if it is then being placed into an exhibition the viewer needs to be able to understand it. I have often questioned if I am working in this way why then would I need to show the work to someone in a gallery, is that important? I think its about understanding, I like to find understanding for myself and sharing this with others in that way I find exciting. I rely heavily on the writing of the artists statement and the writing about the work to bring a context to the piece in which the viewer can understand. 

There was one other section of this side of the leaflet that I found very interesting, it is quite a long chunk of writing by Sophie Hoyle:

‘One is always working with self-awareness and reflexivity of one’s values and choices, but is also working within subconscious frameworks of other systems for ordering information, other ways of thinking, other visual phenomena and other art practices. Where one develops certain ways of filtering and ordering information, as a midway point between all these other systems and your own; filtering the stimuli of the work in a complex, ever-evolving process.’ 

Once you get past the wordiness of this I found it references quite closely again to my dissertation. When discussing the value of the artist and the viewer in the creative process, I discussed this idea of self development, how a work of art is the development of the self. Again Hoyle also talks of the struggle of working with given rules of meaning.

The other side of the leaflet held the conversation between the different artists and writers. The conversation is about sculpture and space, it was interesting to read a piece of writing that is set out in this way. The conversation is very clear, and questions that form in your mind when you read through it are often answered as you are going a long, much like if you were having a discussion about a piece of writing that is already there. The idea of the writing appeals more to me than what is actually being said, however Olivia Bax mentions something in the conversation that I think is sometimes important to remember, and something that I need to take into consideration for my dissertation and my work:

‘Olivia: I find that the bits that I can’t explain in my own work are often the best. Sometimes you don’t know, or can’t explain why things work.’ 

This idea of the unknown is complicated. I personally feel that if someone asks me about my work I must be able to answer all of their questions, however this is very far from how it should be. When I look at my own work I see what I have seen from the beginning, what it means to me, where the different elements came from from my point of view, from my thoughts. It doesn’t mean to say that someone might see something different in the work that you have never noticed, how then can you offer an explanation for something that you never realised was there. Nor can you say that the person is wrong, because to them, in the work they see that, and this is just as important as anything you may have intended. There is no right or wrong, no opinion is of greater importance. I have never really thought about this in much depth, or at least never thought that it was completely okay for there to be things about your own work that you do not know. From now on I will be embracing this idea, and accepting that I do not need the theoretical answers for everything. I was questioned why I used black and white paint or photography, and my honest answer was because I do not like colour very much, and prefer monotone, I worried that this was not a good enough explanation. But then when I considered this again I realised that of course it was because it was honest. Someone else might think of a hundred different reasons why I should have used colour or why I have used black and white, but my answer would be because I like it.