I think we have three questions plus big Daves question which I'm to tired to think about tonight and it's late so I might just ask the questions rather than asking them .
1. Why are we making this discussion so visible - is it useful- does it add to the work?
Quick answer - I'm not sure- it's an experiment to explore what happens if we make these thoughts and ideas visible to others and ourselves - yes may be a bit navel gazing and over reflective but nobody but us has to read it and for the sake of our personal development it's nice to have it recorded and it's a way to move things on when we are not in the same physical space. I don't think you gloss over things - I was just going over the process and authorship is important - in my first blog I was trying to unpick when the piece became shared - I think it's fully shared now and we are refining or perhaps arguing over details but I recon all collaborations have these negotiations around ideas and authorship and it is about the synergy we try and build rather than making us "Less shit". Within the talk we sometimes end up going around in circles but we basically get the job done and somehow always manage to move things on. The discussion is useful because it acknowledges the fact that ideas don't just materialise simultaneously from two minds and that sometimes the collaborative process is about someone taking the lead I was interested in how the piece became shared for me it was important that neither of us physically made it - this is again really interesting - having it fabricated by Robert aloud it to be more neutral - aesthetically more ambiguous
2. Are we been fully honest and reflective here?
I'm not sure this is the point - we are not trying to be authentic merely have a conversation - we both know that we can't write the work it is a material thing with it's own autonomy- we are mostly makers not writers - this is about exploring process not locating meaning in texts.
3. Why are we drawn to making aesthetic objects?
I don't struggle with this I think I've squared the circle in that it is one off many forms or modes which we explore to make meaning - the piece is a problem as we haven't done anything quite like it before in partnership so we are just extending the idea of joint authorship. We may not get the chance to do anything similar for a bit and Ive enjoyed this opportunity to have work in a gallery and a show.
4. How comfortable are we with this piece of work?
I'm comfortable with the piece as it stands - I think people will "Get it" but it's more than a single liner - it's a good piece as it's a nice idea and it's pretty well realised - it's one of many things we are both working on and it's pretty well resolved. I'm liking it more as it looks more like furniture than sculpture and I also like the fact it is becoming more and more an art object and less a means to engage people - a tool to get people into the gallery - it's forced us to be artists and reflect on our lived experiences and hope others find some common human experience in this. This is what artists do in galleries and we are artists showing in a gallery - Ill think on this more after the show opens but for the moment I need to accept the fact that I am in the room where this type of exchange and dialogue goes on - nobody forced me to do it so I recon I need to just suck it and see - and yes we did say we would explore the role of a retrurn to traditional aesthetical theory within the Ruskin project so we have done it - more or less.
i have responded to your points and questions:
ReplyDeleteI think your obsessed with authorship, with who did what and when. Of course I realise that ideas do not materialise from 2 brains simultaneously, of course it happens where perhaps one initiates an idea or a conversation will breeds the concept. I suppose i think im more of the persuasion [in a collaborative framework] that it kind of doesn't matter who did it, im just glad it got done.
I think making this discussion visible is a process and central to our working and in particular the press etc.. it clings to our original intention of giving access and clarity to our work both conceptually and metaphorically to a supposed audience and fellow collaborators - to make it richer. I suppose its a bit like doing a presentation to see what works - like a crit.
Im not sure we always go in circles - it feels like i gain clarity of your [and of course my] thinking when we talk or write here. yes it is slightly inward looking, but as i said above it is part of the process - "thinking through making" as they would say at RCA, or rather thinking through blogging.
I think for the sake of the press and the fact we were trying to share it, it was important Robert made it, it took authorship away from either one of us - as you say made it more neutral. I would have been frustrated at you saying "I made it". Im not sure it was aesthetically ambiguous because of him - he followed our design to a point, i think its ambiguous because we needed it to be so.
i try really hard to be authentic on the blog, to be true to my understanding and thinking. We are no writers, and yes we are makers, offering a way through the world through propositions or things. But i come to this space as i come to the work - with honesty. i never set about to create meaning through texts on here but i did set about trying to think about the work.
I am drawn to aesthetic objects because of skill, of mans hand, to look and really see the world. it is a nuero thing some of the time - a resonance that my brain/body enjoys. it is this that i would like to pass on - an experience of joy through looking.
I think we should talk more on the main blog about the role of a return to traditional aesthetic theory within the Ruskin project - I will post something....
I think I'm obsessed with Form and the form of the autonomous art object is intrinsically linked to authorship. Authorship is intrinsically linked to role and our role as artists is problematic for both of us. perhaps the idea of authorship is the thing which makes the social action or art as activism -Art and not just a social act or an act of activism. It's not important to me "who had an idea" this is of no interest to me at all and isn't really what I think of when I think of authorship.
ReplyDeleteHonesty on the blog is a given again honesty is a funny word but these posts are clearly part of the work now they are the piece and I think this is experimental for us. It is didactic and is trying to work with the ideas Grant Kester put forward in conversation pieces about why artists are so obscure. I feel like this is a very open and visible experiment and I'm only 90% comfortable with it - I do think there are things I wouldn't say on here and I'm starting to regret talking initially about authorship and the history of the piece which seems to have shaped the conversation when I was just looking back and trying to unpick feelings in retrospect - we had moved past it and without the blog and the openness it was resolved. I wasn't worried about it - it isn't a concern but I felt it at the time.
Yes I have sort of started this look at aesthetics in my last blog before I read these comments - I think this is a good area to explore and it relates to Ruskin really well and drawing and everything so can be our next conversation after show opens