University Campus Suffolk

This weekend I went back home to Nottingham and while I was in town after getting in at the station I went over to the Nottingham Contemporary to see what was on at the moment. Although my decision to go to the gallery was random and I had no idea what to expect however there were a few pieces that were rather poignant in relation to my current work, in particular to material and space. The exhibit is entitled ‘Somewhat Abstract’ [1]and is on from the 12^th of April to the 29^th of June showing the work of 70 artists.

The first artist whose work caught my attention is that of Barry Flanagan[2]. Entitled ‘Sand/Muslin 1’ (1966) this piece is visible from the long window as you walk past the outside of the building, situated in the corner of a long room the piece is displayed alongside two other pieces but is not crowded. Consisting of two simple materials, sand and muslin, the piece has a great simplicity to it. The natural sag and weight of the sand creates great form within its materiality, and the bulge of the muslin under the weight of the sand gives focus to the two materials used is such a simple way. Also as the muslin is white and the work is sat in a white room, the piece is derived of any colour and intensifies the objects within the space.

Flanagan has a second piece on display in one of the main rooms, again situated in one of the corners the piece is entitled ‘Heap 4’ (1967) that consist of similar materials, sand and muslin, and a similar compositional style. The long tubular sacks ley ‘heaped’ on top of each other, sagging and sprawling against the other sacks. This piece the attraction me because of the way that the materials used worked so well together. The weight of the bags forced the objects to interact with the space it was in, with the weight of the sand forcing the muslin to push outwards and bulge, engaging and reacting against the floor. The friction and the weighted pressure between the materials and surfaces engaged me with interest.

Although the use of weight and pressure do not appear in my material use, it is always good to see a piece of work that explores materials in such a way. Before I actually began making work this year I did consider using soil, and I do have a large bag of compost soil in my studio space at the moment. Like the rope I would have explored its physical properties, predominantly weight and texture, so in seeing Flanagan’s work it has reminded me of a material I had forgotten. I believe that any two of the three materials (wood, rope and soil) would work well together in combination, as the wood and the rope do, but using all three in one piece might well be a problem for me personally. Over complication the amount of parts in a piece, or diluting the focus is something I want to avoid.

However, I am beginning to see that the wooden aspect of my work at the moment is merely a platform or a stage in which to engage the rope, focusing more on the rope aspect of the work rather than the wooden objects. So using compost soil or a substance that has bulk like the sand and muslin would inevitably be more than just a platform as simply using the substance would require physical interaction. Unlike wood the soil couldn’t simple be ‘placed’ or ‘propped up’ and would need to be ‘piled’, ‘spread’ or ‘shovelled’.

[1] Nottingham Contemporary: Somewhat Abstract
http://www.nottinghamcontemporary.org/art/somewhat…

[2] Barry Flanagan: http://barryflanagan.com/artworks/browse/type/scul…

At this point in time I believe that I know have a clear understanding of what my work is, and is going to be in the coming months. Through the process of making work and writing this blog I feel that I have come to understand and begin to define my work. My basic and initial intention is to create a piece of work that is visually and perhaps physically sufficient enough in its wholeness to sustain an interest from a viewer. Through the materials of wood and rope I have begun to explore this idea, creating something that can hold itself as an art object with the use of pattern and identifiable shapes. Giving focus to the simplicity of the work and its constructed materials, I am trying to create a visual depth the raw materials through process and reduction.

Behind the finished object and its intent to be sufficient in itself, I have also developed an interest in the process of making that object. Because of the minimalistic and reductive approach that I have given to the work, the use of material has been really reductive, meaning that a natural attention to process has developed. This is primarily due to the natural properties of rope. Rope is a very ‘usable’ material in that it can be used for many things, but these uses are often repetitive. To wrap, to knot or to pull the rope, these are all repetitive actions and through making work I have inevitably been performing these actions time and time again. These physical interactions bring me closer to the material, but they also focus my attention of performing these actions. Initially it had not occurred to me but over time I began to realise how repetitive my working process was.

The rope and its combination with the wooden objects are also important as the wooden object provides the space for the rope. The wooden shapes and their placing within a space give the rope an area to interact with. In conjunction with Judd’s opinion of the whole and construction of work, I like to use fewer parts and fewer aspects in my work. Keeping the number of parts reductive and again giving focus to the few parts that remain, the wood interacts well with the rope, showing little separation of parts. Having a solid object that flows and interacts well with a malleable material helps secure the piece within a space and also gives the work a unity and a sense of the whole and ‘wholeness’ reducing the temptation to examine the work in individual parts.

One aspect I am still considering is viewer interaction. I initially rejected the idea of making an interaction piece as I believed that making interactive work detracts from the primary concept of my work. I am worried that the viewer will see the work as an interactive piece and nothing else. However I am beginning to see the logic in an interactive piece, as my work is partly about experiencing the materials visual as well as physically. The extent of the interaction is now my main consideration. If I am to attempt collaboration between the work and the viewer it needs to be a subtle one. I need to avoid detracting from the physicality of the work but at the same time need people to physically experience the material. Because of my positioning of the rope at the moment is floor based I am inclined to simple give the viewer the opportunity to walk across the rope. This actively gets the viewer to feel the repetition of process of ‘To Curl’ the rope under their feet. I am still considering ideas at the moment.

I currently have my latest creation in The Freudian Sheep gallery in Ipswich that is owned and run by a fellow course member. [1] The gallery is a collection of work from an artist collective called ‘DIG’ that I am a member of, consisting of local and emerging artists in the Suffolk area.

The work that I have exhibiting in the gallery consists of two large planks of wood and a total of fifty meters of rope. This piece is slightly different from my last pieces as the wood used in it remains in its original form. Found and reused wood that I have left in its original condition. In my previous pieces I have always created the wooden objects, carving simplistic shapes out of pieces of wood and manipulating the wood as I manipulate the rope. The long wooden planks have a series of wholes down the centre and I have used them to thread the rope through, and I believed that the wood was interesting enough without me having to do anything to them.

Although leaving the wood as I found it removes any process of creating, and removes my ability to interact with the material I felt that in this case that if I had interacted with the material, and changed its appearance it would have detracted from the visual aesthetic of the object. Also because of their visual appeal to me I strongly believe that their visual appearance is sufficient enough in its visual interaction. After all, visual communication for me is equally as important as physical communication.

The balance between leaving the wood in its natural form, and repetitive and continues manipulation of the rope are equal, they balance each other out very well. It appears as if the wood had been stationary and motionless and the rope had formed around it. This equilibrium between material, visual and physical interaction create a visual depth to the work, giving much more of a link between the parts and attention to the joining of parts.

[1] The Freudian Sheep gallery: https://www.facebook.com/freudiansheep

I made this video for the purpose of showing my creative process and the actions I perform when working with these materials. Richard Serra’s list of process words has highlighted the significance of my working process. In order for me to create work I become very involved in the material, and working with its physical properties I begin working in a very repetitive motion. This is a continuous use and is reflective of Serra’s list of actions. ‘To Twist, To Curl, To bend’ are a few actions that I incessantly go through the motion of doing, and this physical handling of the material (in particular to the rope) brings me closer to fulfilling my intention to experience a material.

This process is not apparent to the viewer and the act of experiencing a material is only visual. I do believe that visual interaction is as important as physical interaction, but in order to do this with the viewer I would have to create a largely interactive piece. I have had reservations about doing this as it invites the temptation to create work purely for interactive purposes, and I did not want to detract from the focus of the work. By keeping it simple and reductive I intended to give all focus to material, and an interactive piece gives a large amount of focus to interaction itself.

An example of this would be Robert Morris’s ‘Bodyspacemotionthings’ exhibited at the Tate modern in 2009 (a re-exhibition from 1971)[1], featuring a number of different pieces all intended to be climbed, pulled, balanced and pushed, inherently giving the viewer the ability to experience the processes of ‘to push, to pull, to lift’, giving focus to the actions. However I feel that the fun and excitement of being able to ‘play’ with the work detracts from the physicality of the work itself. In comment on his own work Newman stated;

‘It’s an opportunity for people to involve themselves with the work, become aware of their own bodies, gravity, effort, fatigue, their bodies under different conditions. I want to provide a situation where people can become more aware of themselves and their own experience rather than more aware of some version of my experience.’[2]

Importantly, Newman’s piece was intended to give focus to process and thus the piece works well in achieving this, but personally for my own work I want to give focus to material over process. Although the process of creating is important to me in understanding material, if I attempt to convey this to the viewer I risk making a piece purely about process rather than physical material.

Although the final visual piece appears simple in appearance, the actual process of making and setting up the piece is time consuming and also involves a lot of making and re-making, ravelling and un-ravelling. I believe that like a lot of minimalistic or reductive work such as the work of the Minimalists or the Ready-mades, there is often more to be seen in a piece of work that just a simplicity. Donald Judd stated;

‘It isn’t necessary for a work to have a lot of things to look at, to compare, to analyse one by one, to contemplate. The thing as awhile, its quality as a whole, is what is interesting. The main things are alone and are more intense, clear and powerful …. In the new work the shape, image, colour and surface are single and not partial and scattered.’ [3]

Donald Judd is stating here that a piece of work doesn’t require many parts, to over complicate and dilute a piece. Having too many parts detracts from what is already there, and to have less parts and less aspects to evaluate gives the viewer the ability to focus on singular aspects of the work. This gives the work a specific emphasis on its wholeness and physical materiality in the case of my own piece. Often the simplest visual piece has a considerable amount of time given to its creation, and I believe that the creation of something made of few parts requires much more focus and depth of inquiry into its parts.

[1] Robert Morris: Bodyspacemotionthings Tate Modern: Exhibition: 22 May – 14 June 2009 http://www.tate.org.uk/whats-on/tate-modern/exhibi…

[2] This Is Tomorrow website: http://www.thisistomorrow.info/viewArticle.aspx?artId=56&Title=Robert%20Morris,%20Bodyspacemotionthings

[3] Donald Judd, Specific Objects, (1965) p.5