ARTISTS TALKING

# 8 [18 July 2010]

I am making two postings in response to David Minton's comment on my post #6.  The first, post #7, addresses objectivity and subjectivity. 

This is the second posting to address David's question about my statement, 'Therefore, it [the relationship of the body with outside forces] realizes the paradox that the self resides in context but is also obliterated by that same context.'

I will start my explanation by reiterating a paragraph further down in post 6: The self has a confident presence in my work but it is a presence which is tenuous, momentary.  It is a presence which knows it only has a moment.  The self in my reinterpretation holds its inner continuity, but sees the articulation of its presence as fleeting and so absolute relation to itself an impossibility. 

When I say 'the self resides in context', I mean the self is defined by the context in which it finds itself.  But this definition is limited if it is taken to be the end of the story, which I feel strongly that modernist views of the self have done.  If the perspective of this definition of self is opened up and set in relation to other things, which most likely are unrelated, happening at the same time, the definition of self becomes diluted, diminished, obscured, unimportant. 

Some examples: I am human.  There are six billion humans on the planet.  Which one am I and where is my place in terms of importance with the rest of those six billion?

A man has a career as a computer analyst and has been successful in his position for 35 years.  His company makes changes in response to market conditions and the man is made redundant.  Who is he now and what does he claim he does?

I am an American living in France.  I know where I come from.  I cannot convey the weight of my personal history to another who has no experience of the United States, the Mid-west, the state of Kentucky, of any other Americans, and what information they may have puts me in relation to things seen in the context of current events in which my country partakes, having nothing whatsoever to do with me.  My only chance to present myself in this situation is during the moments I stand in front of my French neighbor and communicate in limited French.

My view of the self could perhaps be seen as defeatist, depressive, timorous even, but I don't see it that way.  I see the self as part of a larger whole and to look only at the self is narcissistic and self important.  We all are in relation to other things, other people, time, and I feel, only in looking at this relationship will understanding be found.  This relationship diminishes us yes, but it also is a more realistic view of who we are in the world.

# 7 [18 July 2010]

The discussion we were having about resolving the desire to work intuitively and the desire to enter into artistic/stylistic debate (David Minton - Dead and Dying Flowers post #50, and my posts #4 & #5, in addition to comments on those posts) has taken a turn to question objectivity and subjectivity, which is perfectly natural and opens a mammoth tin of worms.  But being the inquisitive minds we are we're going to tackle it.

David comments:  Jane, If, whilst nailing a message to a post in the company of another, I hit my thumb with the hammer, we can both see the hammer but only I can feel my pain. An objective hammer and subjective pain?

David, I think the hammer is in a state of objecthood, your feeling of the pain is phenomenological, the person with you is a witness to the event and the message on the post is a subjective communication by you to the world.

Grammatically speaking, you (the subject) feel the pain (object) caused by the hammer (indirect object), that is, in a sentence construction of this sort.  All three of those elements can change position and their grammatical value changes as does the emphasis of the meaning of the sentence.  I mention grammar here only because it seems philosophy has taken a turn into literature with the work of Jacques Derrida, which has a bearing on art.

If I look at the hammer and you look at the hammer and we agree it is a hammer that is an objective conclusion.  However, it could easily be argued that we recognize the symbol of hammer and so understand the object in front of us as a hammer, in which case it is a subjective conclusion.

If you depict a hammer, a red thumb, a bent nail and a fallen message, it could be a subjective depiction of the inability to strike true thus causing undue harm and a failed attempt at communication.

If you see a hammer depicted with a caption reading 'hammer' and you have no reason to doubt the source where you see the depiction, it can be said to be an objective depiction.  The trouble with that however, are there any sources which are beyond doubt?  And is the giving of information (i.e. education) the beginning of conditioning?

I don't actually believe in objectivity except as chance.  And absolutely all of this is up for refutation and debate.  This is my understanding of objectivity and subjectivity off the top of my head without delving into the study of any of these issues further - something which I think my reading is about to lead me into.

# 6 [13 July 2010]

I often see mentioned the failure of Post-Modernism to connect with history.  I pay attention to that.  To be outside of history is to be lost, ungrounded.

In my own work I have striven to relate to history; place myself in dialog with it.  And while, it can be exciting for me as I create, I won't deny feeling unnerved when I compare my work to the contemporary market.  I can see that my work looks different.  I tell myself this is a good thing but it doesn't relieve my fear.

My work clearly is dialoging with Abstract Expressionism, the gestural abstraction is unmistakable.  The concept behind the work is where the debate changes.  I use gesture to recall the body in time.  This places the body in relation to outside forces such as chance and imperfection.  This relationship explores the impossibility of the self to relate absolutely to itself.  Therefore it realizes the paradox that the self resides in context but is also obliterated by that same context.

In my work the flattened plane and the 'all-over' composition is replaced by spatiality and isolated elements.  Bold defiance is replaced with temporal insolidity.  There is a feeling that at any moment if we look again, the whole scene will have shifted and changed.  The forceful elements will have lost ground, be under threat, be consumed.

The self has a confident presence in my work but it is a presence which is tenuous, momentary.  It is a presence which knows it only has a moment.  The self in my reinterpretation holds its inner continuity, but sees the articulation of its presence as fleeting and so absolute relation to itself an impossibility.

I, for one, am ready to move on from Post-Modernism.  How about a shift into 'Temporalism'?  It has a nice ring to it.

# 5 [8 July 2010]

We are having a very interesting discussion about intuition (see David Minton's Dead and Dying Flowers post #50, my post #4 and the comments attached) in addition to the discussion of post-modernism in the two posts mentioned above, which has been commented on by Jon Bowen (see his blog Before Hindsight post #28 and the attached comments). 

David Minton says this about intuition: as I see it, intuition as in the 'intuitive leap' intuitive response, judgement and so on is what connects past experience with current events (like making an artwork). It is not a process which reveals its workings in advance, but can be seen to have been appropriate in retrospect. Something like an 'impulsive leap' would be more akin to a guess. Impulse does not connect with experience in the same way as intuition. An impulsive act carries with it the implication that it lacks insight; success is a product of good fortune, whereas an intuitive leap is grounded in insight; success follows from an intuitive sense of direction.??

And Jon Bowen adds this: What David is saying about Intuition and Impulse reminds me of some psychological work done with trance: When trance is induced lightly, the subject sees abstract patterns and motions, the nature of which are common across the whole of humanity. However, as trance deepens, the subject has dream-like visions, which involve a combination of real-life things, and the abstract material. The visions are based on experience: A Masai tribesperson will see wildebeest, impala, woodlands, etc., whereas a Londoner will see neon signs, motor vehicles, buildings, computer screens, etc. Is Impulse as direct human reaction akin to the processes of light trance, while intuition as an insightful product of experience is akin to the processes of deep trance?

Both very good comments ending in very good questions I think.

What is intuition, how does it work and why do we need it?   And perhaps more importantly, are we still paying attention to it in art?  I'm not sure there is a great deal of intuition in post-modernism, it seems to be out of fashion.  And perhaps rightly so after the extreme emotion of Abstract Expressionism, the cooler head-space of logic and intellectualism (I'm thinking of minimalism and conceptualism) prevailed.  But are we missing the interaction with the unknown, the unpredictable?

I absolutely believe artists still make art on those terms, intuitively, relating and reacting to chance, but I question how visible it is in the work produced.  Is this perhaps what we dislike or feel discontented with in post-modernism?  Are we missing a bit of mystery?

Intuition is a very mysterious thing.  I've never know why I have it or how it works, but I know most definitely that I need it.  And, I know that I can trust it, whereas my impulses always get me into trouble.  I can explain it in no other way than when I act on impulse, it feels wrong and I feel uncertain.  When I act on intuition, it feels right as if some information I've needed is being given in time with my actions.

As for Jon's description of trance above, it makes me chuckle, not at Jon's words but at myself.  His description describes the workings inside my head in my waking state.  If asked, my husband would probably agree that I walk around in a trance most of the time!  But I'm just looking at the pictures in my head!!

# 4 [30 June 2010]

There has been some debate recently in the blogs (see David Minton - Dead and Dying Flowers post #50) in regards to resolving the desire to work intuitively and the desire to enter artistic/stylistic debate which has lead to discussion of post-modernist failings (if I can sum it up that way).  Jon Bowen makes a point that modernism reflected the 'tenuous and fragile creatures we truly are' and that post-modernism is 'a thinly-veiled attempt to disguise this'.

While I can't disagree with Jon's summation, I think it is a little more involved than that.  Certainly, I see a lot of sarcastic, contemptuous, angry work but I've recently come to realize that this work is as expressive as modernist work.  What I see behind the irony and contempt is a real almost panicked desire to understand this global reality we now live in and perhaps frustration at the complexities of living which make us feel impotent. 

The world has changed and living has become more difficult in many ways.  We are losing touch with the things that keep us feeling.  Simply stated, I think we feel overwhelmed.  Who wants to feel the emotions of seeing our planet destroyed in front of our very eyes, or watch helplessly as other cultures are destroyed, or feel fear at the threat of catastrophic illness, or realize the our lives can be irrevocably changed by someone risking monies somewhere else on the planet.  Dire vision perhaps, but all things we have witnessed recently.

Art has always reflected our view of the world and how we see ourselves in it, post-modernism is no exception.

It may seem crass; the business of doing art, but it is just that, it is business.  And while some artists feel it is 'defending one's corner' (to quote Jon Bowen again) in order to justify one's work, I think of it as explaining my intentions.  Let's face it, communicating is at best ambiguous and if our spoken words can easily be misunderstood, what chances do our visual efforts have.  And as such, in business people want to know where they stand and what they're dealing with.   

I'm not trying to defend post-modernism, in fact there is no defense for it, a feeling many had once about modernism, but I do think it is important to remember that it expresses our time; it reflects the issues were thinking about, even if some artists would refute that publicly.

In regard to intuition, I think it is important not to confuse impulse with intuition.  David Minton says, 'Intuition can be simply a polite term for blindness. Gut reaction: all sorts of crimes are committed on the basis of it. Trusting one's intuition might be the negation of judgment. Intuition is taste, which in turn is internalized learned value appearing as natural.'  I would apply those terms to impulse rather than intuition.  But then I freely admit that I have perhaps had a different experience of intuition.

However you look at it, it's all good debate and good material for pondering.

# 3 [26 June 2010]

Here are some lessons I’ve learned from reading art history:

-         Don’t feel you have to destroy your work if you didn’t succeed, hold onto it and when they find you it will all be there for them to see (lesson from Louise Bourgeois).

-         Sometimes it takes 25 years for someone to buy for a song and resell for a small fortune, that dusty work in your studio corner, turning it into a masterpiece and you a genius (lesson from Picasso).

-         Keep working and follow your own path (from Phillip Guston).

-         Art historians are trying to figure this stuff out too.

-         Make friends in the art world, it’s a cold indifferent place and having someone to talk to is nice (learned from Robert Rauschenberg).

-         Keep working, it takes a long time for people to find you and listen.

-         Only if you are young & British, have a degree show and have Charles Saatchi actively collecting at the same time will you have instant success.

-         Hook up with a gallery when it’s emerging too, chances are you will make your mark together (learned from Leo Castelli).

-         Think for yourself, nobody wants a copycat, unless you're Sturtevant

-         Anything goes in art – up to a point.  Art that looks at old issues in a new way or new issues that haven’t been realized yet get noticed (learned from Gillian wearing).

-         Make time to read, you’ll see more clearly how you stand.

-         Write plain English and don’t use art-speak, it’s a piss-off and it only looks like it covers the fact you have nothing to say and know it (learned from E.H. Gombrich - meaning his explanations are perfect).

-         Learn the vocabulary so you know when someone is trying to cover the fact they have nothing to say and know it (learned from Rosalind Krauss – meaning she is never fooled).

-         The art-speak vocabulary comes from philosophy and we all know how straight forward those guys are!

-         Think for yourself, you’ll find other artists around the world have already had the same thoughts, proving two things: 1. there is no original thought  2. you’re connected

-         Be patient and let a concept develop.  What you’re working on now may not be relevant but it may lead you to something that is (learned from Jackson Pollock)

-          Artists are made not taught (learned from Rob Turner)

-          Keep your personal and artistic integrity.  You may become an influence first and a success second (learned from Richard Diebenkorn)

www.jlbfineart.com

# 2 [23 June 2010]

I have always been kind of awed reading about artists who read philosophy.  It seemed so very intellectual, so 'New York', so removed from my own experiences.  Now I'm an artist reading philosophy and it's not so impressive.  It strikes me as a lot of circular thinking trying to state the obvious, kind of like art.

That is the interesting thing about The Death and Return of the Author by Seán Burke; he is straightening out the circular logic of Barthes, Foucault and Derrida.  Burke is looking logically at the theory of 'death of the author' and basically showing it to be 'philosophically untenable'.  The question of identity, I believe, has never been more important than it is now and basing ideology on theories which are perhaps not all they should be in terms of 'truth and logic' can be misguided, to say the least.

My own work has passed through several theoretical phases in an attempt to find meaning and understanding of what I produce.  A question of identity always seems to be at the bottom of it all.  It's not necessarily a search for my own identity; I feel it is more general than that.  Reading art history makes me feel more secure in following that question of identity because it seems that most artists are questioning identity in terms of a society that shapes and impacts living, indeed our very selves.

Medium and the debate of structuralism vs. post-structuralism is a big part of this identity question I think.  So much of art is non-structured in the sense that it is conceptual in nature and doesn't adhere to traditional media.  But an interesting thing I see from reading art history is so many of the artists working in a post-structuralistic way find their way back to painting or other traditional, structured media.

I find this compelling and it makes me consider seriously not only theory/concept but also media for my own work.  The debate over 'the object' and commercialism is a valid one, but perhaps one that is moot, because let's face it, all new ideologies will be subsumed by the market eventually.

I'm looking for what is true to the work rather than what is fashionable at the moment.    

www.jlbfineart.com 

# 1 [20 June 2010]

This is the first time I have kept a blog and I feel a little apprehensive about making my thoughts public.  But no matter, it's all about deeper understanding and this is a great way to experience both sides of it. 

I read a lot of art history.  In fact, a few years ago I made the decision to stop reading literature, which I love, and focus my efforts on art history, which I love even more.  And I have never regretted a minute's time reading. 

Currently I'm reading two books, Theories and Documents of Contemporary Art, edited by Kristine Stiles and Peter Selz and The Death and Return of the Author, by Seán Burke.  I've had Theories and Documents for years and have picked my way through, reading bits I was interested in, but I determined I would read the whole thing from beginning to end this time.  It of course has led me off on tangents, which is how I found my way to The Death and Return of the Author.  I took a turn looking into Roland Barthes and his 'Death of the Author'.  I was searching for the original essay of this title but came upon Burke's book and bought it because it was exactly what I was looking for.

The detour paid off because I found the very nugget of truth I was trying to find in my own theorizing and statement writing.  I had been walking all around it but hadn't stumbled on it until I read this:

'Even if the author-creator had created the most perfect autobiography, or confession, he would , nonetheless have remained, in so far as he had produced it, outside of the universe represented within it.  If I tell (orally or in writing) an event that I have just lived, in so far as 'I am telling'(orally or in writing) this event, I find myself already outside of the time-space in which the event occurred.  To identify oneself absolutely with oneself, to identify one's 'I' with the 'I' that I tell is as impossible as to lift oneself up by one's hair...'

Mikhail Bakhtin

This quote allowed me to revise my artist statement and nail the concept I was trying to formulate but couldn't.  My artist statement now reads, with the introduction of the quote above:

I'm exploring this impossibility of self identity, not only in terms of time-space but also in terms of forces outside of myself which influence my actions.  An artist never creates alone and the intent of the artist is never fully realized as conceived.  There are always things outside the artist which impact the moment of creation.

This reinterpreted gesture is not a search for identity; it's not a search at all.  It simply is realization.  It realizes the paradox that the 'I' exists only within context and the 'I' faces obliteration from that same context.

And I hope this is a good introduction into this blog and my head.

www.jlbfineart.com