Last week I attended the private view of Allora and Calzadilla's piece Clamor at the Serpentine. Nina, a friend of mine from Goldsmiths had said she was going and I begrudgingly tagged along with Hayley and Clare. I say begrudgingly because my image of 'private views' is of people drinking and disappearing up their own arses. What I found was different to my expectations and yet not so at the same time.
We arrived to see someone having their picture taken with Grayson Perry, as Clare. The dress Clare was wearing had a straighter cut to the ones Perry is famous for and her hair was also smoother this a large fringe. This got me quite excited - one may easily forget what a contemporary artist looks like but not one with such a distinctive look as that.
For a minute or two we loitered outside. This was not wholly my fault, but I'm sure I added to it, you see somehow we had gained the idea on arrival that it was invitation only and we wouldn't be able to get in. In my mind that was reason enough for not trying and from glancing at the garden area we were all (maybe bar Chris and Hayley) inappropriately dressed. Unfortunately for me we were able to get in with no trouble.
I can't remember ever going to the gallery before but it's a lovely space. I would have preferred there to be fewer people there and a less obtrusive piece. I like art to be silent, or at least silent from a distance, which this piece was not. The massive concrete bunker wailed out semi-military tunes and was, if one believes what one reads in the bumph surrounding art, a piece 'about' war. Now I didn't read the any of the paraphernalia and when I became stuck that the piece had military connotations, a certain tune triggered this I think (up until this I thought the object looked like one of the houses in the Goblin City in Labyrinth), I quickly felt ashamed of myself. Not because war is bad, or the fact I probably help sustain it, but because I was wearing a jacket cut in a military. This may sound petty and stupid, but I did not want people to think that I had come to this work knowing about war, or thinking I had to get dressed up in reaction to the art. Obviously no one would think this, no one except me, but I could easily imagine that other me being in the room and laughing blatantly at me, so I took it off sharpish.
We then retired to the garden, sat on the grass and where I talked about 1990 - 1999 comedy programmes with Libby and her boyfriend Danny. Danny mentioned an Eddie Izzard sitcom about cows and while Chris marvelled at the fact he did not know about this I wondered if or not Kevin Eldon and Paul Putner had been involved, and if not, how was I able to link them to Eddie Izzard.
Brett Anderson walked past us on the grass without saying hello, but that's normal for me, Konnie Huq walked past me and Chris yesturday up at Alexandra Palace without even stopping to talk. You think you know people.
The rest of the evening entailed watching the HandMade film How to Get Ahead in Advertise, a great film that turns out just to be a massive pun with an abrupt ending.
I realise now Gilliam fits in well in the HandMade films canon because he is not good at narrative.
R B Grange
26/04/2007
17/04/2007
A Piece of Correspondence
Dear Mr Meadley,
On 04/02/07 Mr R B Grange invented a formula. An algebraic equation with the ability to produce varying art objects.
The formula is this:
“Object = n x n2 x 1.6n”
The formula is used thusly: ‘n’ is variable and therefore any statistic may be used in the place of it. Take for example the number of stars on the European Union’s flag – 12.
n = 12
Therefore: Object = 12 x 122 x (1.6 x 12)
= 12 x 144 x 19.2
Now, with the three outcomes one is able to make objects. These could be cuboids, line drawings, or triangular based pyramids, it does not matter. ‘n x n2 x 1.6n’ works to abstract meaning from shape but demands that an investigation into the representation of itself occur.
For this installation in 1032 Mr R B Grange has decided to take three existing dimensions of the gallery space and place them within the formula. Each length taken is equal to n2 (this enables all objects created to fit within the required space [n2 usually being the longest length]), the lengths chosen are as follows:
Shape X n2 = 615mm
Shape Y n2 = 610mm
Shape Z n2 = 430mm
Therefore the three lengths in the formula are as follows:
Shape X: Object = 24.80mm x 615mm x 39.68mm
Shape Y: Object = 24.70mm x 610mm x 39.52mm
Shape Z: Object = 20.75mm x 430mm x 33.18mm
Now one might take these at face value, using each statistic as a length and make three cuboids. But a more, let us say, dynamic form would be to use these lengths to make a triangular based pyramid where each of the lengths meets at a 90 degree angle to each other.
Below is a basic net from which objects may be created.
n2
1.6n
n
When the flange of n is attached to the n length the object is finished. The fourth face of the object need not be applied as it is already suggested towards in the existence of the three faces.
For installation the pieces should be placed as follows:
Shape X: should be placed in the back left corner with its n2 length at a vertical.
Shape Y: should be placed on the main right hand horizontal with its n2 length on the horizontal and with its three right angles in the back right corner.
Shape Z: should be placed with its n2 length on the front 430mm of the raised platform with its three right angles on the right.
I hope that these instructions are fully understood and shall be executed in an appropriate manner.
Yours,
Mr R B Grange
p.s. Sol LeWitt is dead. Long live Sol LeWitt.
On 04/02/07 Mr R B Grange invented a formula. An algebraic equation with the ability to produce varying art objects.
The formula is this:
“Object = n x n2 x 1.6n”
The formula is used thusly: ‘n’ is variable and therefore any statistic may be used in the place of it. Take for example the number of stars on the European Union’s flag – 12.
n = 12
Therefore: Object = 12 x 122 x (1.6 x 12)
= 12 x 144 x 19.2
Now, with the three outcomes one is able to make objects. These could be cuboids, line drawings, or triangular based pyramids, it does not matter. ‘n x n2 x 1.6n’ works to abstract meaning from shape but demands that an investigation into the representation of itself occur.
For this installation in 1032 Mr R B Grange has decided to take three existing dimensions of the gallery space and place them within the formula. Each length taken is equal to n2 (this enables all objects created to fit within the required space [n2 usually being the longest length]), the lengths chosen are as follows:
Shape X n2 = 615mm
Shape Y n2 = 610mm
Shape Z n2 = 430mm
Therefore the three lengths in the formula are as follows:
Shape X: Object = 24.80mm x 615mm x 39.68mm
Shape Y: Object = 24.70mm x 610mm x 39.52mm
Shape Z: Object = 20.75mm x 430mm x 33.18mm
Now one might take these at face value, using each statistic as a length and make three cuboids. But a more, let us say, dynamic form would be to use these lengths to make a triangular based pyramid where each of the lengths meets at a 90 degree angle to each other.
Below is a basic net from which objects may be created.
n2
1.6n
n
When the flange of n is attached to the n length the object is finished. The fourth face of the object need not be applied as it is already suggested towards in the existence of the three faces.
For installation the pieces should be placed as follows:
Shape X: should be placed in the back left corner with its n2 length at a vertical.
Shape Y: should be placed on the main right hand horizontal with its n2 length on the horizontal and with its three right angles in the back right corner.
Shape Z: should be placed with its n2 length on the front 430mm of the raised platform with its three right angles on the right.
I hope that these instructions are fully understood and shall be executed in an appropriate manner.
Yours,
Mr R B Grange
p.s. Sol LeWitt is dead. Long live Sol LeWitt.
14/04/2007
Quotes
Here are several pieces of writing I did for an essay. They are analysis of three objects. They are my opinion and therefore matter as much as yours.
The ‘Go-motion’ animation of the raptors in the kitchen made in the preproduction of Jurassic Park.
The nineteen-ninety-three film Jurassic Park is both the seminal film of my childhood and has had the longest lasting impression on the way I understand the world of any film. (‘Your scientists were so preoccupied with weather are not they could, they didn’t stop to think if they should’ is still one of my favourite phrases in the English language.)
The quote, in bold, refers to the process of making regarding the finished film. The raptors in the kitchen as seen in the end object – the Object that is Jurassic Park – are either CGI or animatronics, but these in the preproduction are Stop or Go-motion animation. This preliminary piece works as an animated story board but in more detail. The lighting and colour scheme is as it is in the film and the actions of the characters and their movements are also similar.
The most interesting aspect of this object for me is the context of when I first viewed it. The object came into existence in my understanding on 9th December 2006. Up until this point in time I knew only a basic amount of knowledge concerning the making of the film, but in purchasing it on DVD I acquired masses of preproduction knowledge through watching documentaries and early screen tests. But all these objects experienced were in retrospect, they were all put into my consciousness after the original object had been there for thirteen years. The sequence of events in the making of the films are as follows:
Go-motion film made (preproduction 1992) - Film made(1993) - Film viewed by myself (1993)
But my understanding of the film (in its making) works backwards.
Film viewed by myself (1993 to present day) - Go-motion film viewed by myself (2006)
Of course I am conscious that the film was made, but I cannot fully comprehend how.
The raptors in the kitchen Go-motion is a quote about deconstructing an object (the object being Jurassic Park). But at the same time understanding the deconstruction (the viewing of the Go-motion) is an object and the making of the original object (the Go-motion film) are objects in themselves. The film exists outside of the Go-motion film, they are completely separate and similarly the other way round, the Go-motion film is beautiful to watch and should be seen as something complete and completely other in itself.
The concept of Virtual Photons
This second quote is a concept, or really; it is the easiest way of understanding something.
In truth we know very little of how the universe works and that is why our understanding of it is through theoretical sciences. We can only guess or predict how things came into being and the rules we learn at school and the information we are told is merely how scientists presume things to happen. In a hundred years time we will have progressed and we will understand things better, maybe, or we will at least have a different way of expressing them.
Virtual Photons are a concept which scientists use to help with equations. If a particle is being study in a vacuum and it suddenly does something unexpected like gains an amount of energy, or changes directions, the scientist will not know why it has done this. It has gained the energy from a source that we at the moment do not understand and therefore it is said to have come into contact with a Virtual Photon, a sub-atomic particle that does not exist but must exist for the matter observed to have reacted in he way it did.
As I say, in the future we may well understand what has happened to the particle, but for now we must comprehend that it has reacted with something that is completely unfathomable to us but which we have given a name.
This ties in with the Go-motion film because they both deal with the subject of being conscious of things happen and yet accepting the fact that things will happen without us knowing how.
‘I can’t report her now. I’ve destroyed the evidence’ from A Cream Cracker under the Settee.
This direct verbal quote from one of Alan Bennett’s Talking Head works in my consciousness in the same way as Jurassic Park, it has been something that I have been aware of for the majority of my life, but only of late have I understood it more fully, through maturity. But the important aspect of the quote for me is the meaning of the words.
An old woman has fallen in her home. There is no one to help her and the help she is offered at one point she declines. The woman, Doris, played by Thora Hird in the original television play, finds a cream cracker under the settee, proof that her cleaner – Zulema – has not been earning her keep. The woman then eats the cracker. The quote refers an idea, I do not like it in films when a character has experienced something and no one believes them, time travel films usually involve insanity – The Twelve Monkeys and Donnie Darko spring first to mind – and it is this, the being conscious of an experience and being unable to prove it, which make people maybe not doubt the individual’s sanity but their truthfulness. The image of an old woman who knows she is near death pathetically helpless on the floor reminds me that the individual is alone and no matter how much explaining some does other can never know the full meaning of their words, or that person exactly.
The ‘Go-motion’ animation of the raptors in the kitchen made in the preproduction of Jurassic Park.
The nineteen-ninety-three film Jurassic Park is both the seminal film of my childhood and has had the longest lasting impression on the way I understand the world of any film. (‘Your scientists were so preoccupied with weather are not they could, they didn’t stop to think if they should’ is still one of my favourite phrases in the English language.)
The quote, in bold, refers to the process of making regarding the finished film. The raptors in the kitchen as seen in the end object – the Object that is Jurassic Park – are either CGI or animatronics, but these in the preproduction are Stop or Go-motion animation. This preliminary piece works as an animated story board but in more detail. The lighting and colour scheme is as it is in the film and the actions of the characters and their movements are also similar.
The most interesting aspect of this object for me is the context of when I first viewed it. The object came into existence in my understanding on 9th December 2006. Up until this point in time I knew only a basic amount of knowledge concerning the making of the film, but in purchasing it on DVD I acquired masses of preproduction knowledge through watching documentaries and early screen tests. But all these objects experienced were in retrospect, they were all put into my consciousness after the original object had been there for thirteen years. The sequence of events in the making of the films are as follows:
Go-motion film made (preproduction 1992) - Film made(1993) - Film viewed by myself (1993)
But my understanding of the film (in its making) works backwards.
Film viewed by myself (1993 to present day) - Go-motion film viewed by myself (2006)
Of course I am conscious that the film was made, but I cannot fully comprehend how.
The raptors in the kitchen Go-motion is a quote about deconstructing an object (the object being Jurassic Park). But at the same time understanding the deconstruction (the viewing of the Go-motion) is an object and the making of the original object (the Go-motion film) are objects in themselves. The film exists outside of the Go-motion film, they are completely separate and similarly the other way round, the Go-motion film is beautiful to watch and should be seen as something complete and completely other in itself.
The concept of Virtual Photons
This second quote is a concept, or really; it is the easiest way of understanding something.
In truth we know very little of how the universe works and that is why our understanding of it is through theoretical sciences. We can only guess or predict how things came into being and the rules we learn at school and the information we are told is merely how scientists presume things to happen. In a hundred years time we will have progressed and we will understand things better, maybe, or we will at least have a different way of expressing them.
Virtual Photons are a concept which scientists use to help with equations. If a particle is being study in a vacuum and it suddenly does something unexpected like gains an amount of energy, or changes directions, the scientist will not know why it has done this. It has gained the energy from a source that we at the moment do not understand and therefore it is said to have come into contact with a Virtual Photon, a sub-atomic particle that does not exist but must exist for the matter observed to have reacted in he way it did.
As I say, in the future we may well understand what has happened to the particle, but for now we must comprehend that it has reacted with something that is completely unfathomable to us but which we have given a name.
This ties in with the Go-motion film because they both deal with the subject of being conscious of things happen and yet accepting the fact that things will happen without us knowing how.
‘I can’t report her now. I’ve destroyed the evidence’ from A Cream Cracker under the Settee.
This direct verbal quote from one of Alan Bennett’s Talking Head works in my consciousness in the same way as Jurassic Park, it has been something that I have been aware of for the majority of my life, but only of late have I understood it more fully, through maturity. But the important aspect of the quote for me is the meaning of the words.
An old woman has fallen in her home. There is no one to help her and the help she is offered at one point she declines. The woman, Doris, played by Thora Hird in the original television play, finds a cream cracker under the settee, proof that her cleaner – Zulema – has not been earning her keep. The woman then eats the cracker. The quote refers an idea, I do not like it in films when a character has experienced something and no one believes them, time travel films usually involve insanity – The Twelve Monkeys and Donnie Darko spring first to mind – and it is this, the being conscious of an experience and being unable to prove it, which make people maybe not doubt the individual’s sanity but their truthfulness. The image of an old woman who knows she is near death pathetically helpless on the floor reminds me that the individual is alone and no matter how much explaining some does other can never know the full meaning of their words, or that person exactly.
Signatures
I've just got back from visiting the newly installed pieces of Andy Goldsworthy work at the Yorkshire Sculpture Park.
Only two of the works struck me as anything of interest: the first being a space created by the weaving or stacking of tree trunks and branches. I have to admit that this is a piece one has to experience, you cannot hope to 'know' this 'room' without stepping into it. The second piece I enjoyed was a room (next door to the first piece [I think]) with a mud and hair mixture applied to the walls which had cracked as it had dried and was still in the process of cracking. In truth I did not enjoy the whole of this piece but one certain element of the ridiculous stuck in my mind, the sharpness of the corners. Now interior corners are able to be sharp and unobtrusive convex ones (ones which stick out) stick out - the two convex corners around the entrance of this room were, like the rest of the place, covered in mud, but they still held a very crisp line. This seemed absurd to me.
But to the main point of this post.
Mother and Father both enjoyed the Goldsworthy work, his use of space, material, time etc - but to my mind he cut corners. He seems to have fallen into something Richard Wilson talked about when he visited Cat Hill, the concept of a signature piece. Wilson admitted that his sheds were something of an albatross (or maybe a smaller bird: a toucan or a gannet) and the constant image, for it did seem figurative, for Goldsworthy seems to be the absent circle. It appeared (ha) in several works of very differing materials and through different dimensions being very dominant a structural piece made from leaf stems and also in large drawings (called paintings by the artist) made by muddy sheep footprints. But all the time these detracted from the work, giving vasts amounts of detail unneeded focal points.
I am not saying that it is wrong for an artist to have a system or a set image which is used and explored, indeed if I stated that I would be very much the hypocrite, I mean to say that Goldsworthy knew what he was going and did what was expected of him.
Nothing manifested itself as new, it was all within a comfort zone of both artist and view. Maybe this is a good thing, I am sure in my that it is not but that is my comfort zone - maybe I should leave it sometime.
R B Grange
Only two of the works struck me as anything of interest: the first being a space created by the weaving or stacking of tree trunks and branches. I have to admit that this is a piece one has to experience, you cannot hope to 'know' this 'room' without stepping into it. The second piece I enjoyed was a room (next door to the first piece [I think]) with a mud and hair mixture applied to the walls which had cracked as it had dried and was still in the process of cracking. In truth I did not enjoy the whole of this piece but one certain element of the ridiculous stuck in my mind, the sharpness of the corners. Now interior corners are able to be sharp and unobtrusive convex ones (ones which stick out) stick out - the two convex corners around the entrance of this room were, like the rest of the place, covered in mud, but they still held a very crisp line. This seemed absurd to me.
But to the main point of this post.
Mother and Father both enjoyed the Goldsworthy work, his use of space, material, time etc - but to my mind he cut corners. He seems to have fallen into something Richard Wilson talked about when he visited Cat Hill, the concept of a signature piece. Wilson admitted that his sheds were something of an albatross (or maybe a smaller bird: a toucan or a gannet) and the constant image, for it did seem figurative, for Goldsworthy seems to be the absent circle. It appeared (ha) in several works of very differing materials and through different dimensions being very dominant a structural piece made from leaf stems and also in large drawings (called paintings by the artist) made by muddy sheep footprints. But all the time these detracted from the work, giving vasts amounts of detail unneeded focal points.
I am not saying that it is wrong for an artist to have a system or a set image which is used and explored, indeed if I stated that I would be very much the hypocrite, I mean to say that Goldsworthy knew what he was going and did what was expected of him.
Nothing manifested itself as new, it was all within a comfort zone of both artist and view. Maybe this is a good thing, I am sure in my that it is not but that is my comfort zone - maybe I should leave it sometime.
" 'God save thee Ancient Mariner
From the fiends that plague thee thus,
Why looks thous so?'
'With my cross bow
I shot the Pelican!' "
R B Grange
12/04/2007
Absenteeism
[continued]: Correspondence is linked to Wikipedia because it is a constant discussion (as discussed already by myself in an earlier post). Wikipedia to Sturgeon White Moss because they are both overviews into something very contemporary.
Sorry if that was a bit short and quick but I received some news today which I think very important.
Clare tells me that Sol LeWitt died on Sunday, and indeed, when I consulted Wiki just now this has been proposed as a fact.
So what does this mean? It means there are a finite number of LeWitt structures, pieces, instructions, drawings etc. Which is good for R B Grange, with Lewitt unable to make more work I can carry on where he left off, coming up with instructions and systems and doing them (excuse the phrase) to death.
And what of the pieces of his in existence? Will people read more into them now that the 'author' is unable to say "shut up"? I hope not; my love of LeWitt's work has nothing to do with the man, in fact it is the distancing of the artist from his work I admire. I know little of his background, his art education and other such nonsense - I do not need to know these to love an execution of words on a wall, LeWitt may well have been dead for several years now and the work would remain the same to me.
I don't wish to get into another anti-artist rant but I shall finish with this: Sol LeWitt is dead - A Wall Divided Vertically into Fifteen Equal Parts, Each with a Different Line Direction and Colour, and All Combinations (1970) is not.
R B Grange
Sorry if that was a bit short and quick but I received some news today which I think very important.
Clare tells me that Sol LeWitt died on Sunday, and indeed, when I consulted Wiki just now this has been proposed as a fact.
So what does this mean? It means there are a finite number of LeWitt structures, pieces, instructions, drawings etc. Which is good for R B Grange, with Lewitt unable to make more work I can carry on where he left off, coming up with instructions and systems and doing them (excuse the phrase) to death.
And what of the pieces of his in existence? Will people read more into them now that the 'author' is unable to say "shut up"? I hope not; my love of LeWitt's work has nothing to do with the man, in fact it is the distancing of the artist from his work I admire. I know little of his background, his art education and other such nonsense - I do not need to know these to love an execution of words on a wall, LeWitt may well have been dead for several years now and the work would remain the same to me.
I don't wish to get into another anti-artist rant but I shall finish with this: Sol LeWitt is dead - A Wall Divided Vertically into Fifteen Equal Parts, Each with a Different Line Direction and Colour, and All Combinations (1970) is not.
R B Grange
11/04/2007
Leaps and Bonds
This blog is entitled thus because I feel I have amassed enough trivia in my mind to link my five objects.
First a refresher.
The objects:
Sturgeon White Moss.
Private Eye.
Wikipedia.
Communication.
HandMade Films.
HandMade Films:
Was made to fund The Life of Brian and then continued to make comic/surreal British films. One of the many key players in the films was Michael Palin who wrote and appeared in several productions. One of these films is A Private Function written by Alan Bennett. Bennett was friends with and worked with Peter Cook who both rose to fame with their show Beyond the Fringe. Cook up some money into the magazine Private Eye.
Private Eye:
Is a fortnightly satirical magazine. Wikipedia says that:
"[Private Eye] was the first outlet to name the Kray twins as the gang leaders terrorising the London underworld in the 1960s. This only occurred as the then editor Richard Ingrams was on holiday and proprietor Peter Cook standing in for him thought it too good an opportunity to miss."
an amazing random fact. The magazine, to me, seems more like a discussion than other publications; you will often find that when an article has gone for too long there will be a small note in brackets, something like [Ed. that's enough]. There is also a large sections of the paper where letters are published - criticising, commenting, correcting etc, and indeed the articles themselves are written (in a similar way to how Yes Minister was) by people who are directly engaged the subjects.
Correspondence:
will follow shortly, I have to smash up a gate now.
R B Grange.
First a refresher.
The objects:
Sturgeon White Moss.
Private Eye.
Wikipedia.
Communication.
HandMade Films.
HandMade Films:
Was made to fund The Life of Brian and then continued to make comic/surreal British films. One of the many key players in the films was Michael Palin who wrote and appeared in several productions. One of these films is A Private Function written by Alan Bennett. Bennett was friends with and worked with Peter Cook who both rose to fame with their show Beyond the Fringe. Cook up some money into the magazine Private Eye.
Private Eye:
Is a fortnightly satirical magazine. Wikipedia says that:
"[Private Eye] was the first outlet to name the Kray twins as the gang leaders terrorising the London underworld in the 1960s. This only occurred as the then editor Richard Ingrams was on holiday and proprietor Peter Cook standing in for him thought it too good an opportunity to miss."
an amazing random fact. The magazine, to me, seems more like a discussion than other publications; you will often find that when an article has gone for too long there will be a small note in brackets, something like [Ed. that's enough]. There is also a large sections of the paper where letters are published - criticising, commenting, correcting etc, and indeed the articles themselves are written (in a similar way to how Yes Minister was) by people who are directly engaged the subjects.
Correspondence:
will follow shortly, I have to smash up a gate now.
R B Grange.
09/04/2007
A Hopeful Vacuum
Whilst walking in Lancashire today I remembered a discussion I'd had with Sue on 29/03 about how I hoped people would view works of art. As ever I was arguing that works should be comprehended in a vacuum, that no exterior forces should affect ones understanding of a piece of work. Of course this can never happen. The example I use a lot now is the person who burns their tongue on a hot drink in the morning, views a piece of work hours later and can only think that the work is about them burning their tongue. This is the level of triviality I invest in people's reactions to work when they talk about the 'emotion' a piece has. The piece does not have emotions - the viewer does, and can only think of the work in relationship to themselves.
What I would wish is that people leave themselves at the door when entering an art arena. They should view and think about the work with no 'knowledge' (or knowledge they presume they have), respect the work for itself.
I think like this because I perceive art to be of major importance. I do not look for how a work has come into being, but how it affects things around it, but at no point do I apply anything to the work. No name, no author, no comment.
Sue asked how I would go about forcing people to view work in such a way, and I realised that it is far from a easy task. I white cube of a gallery has a floor covered in muddy footprints, indeed many belong to the curator, the artist and the owners. I suppose I must have to admit defeat on making other people see in the way I do. But if you wish to understand exhibitions the way I do just make a conscious decision to think of nothing.
R B Grange
What I would wish is that people leave themselves at the door when entering an art arena. They should view and think about the work with no 'knowledge' (or knowledge they presume they have), respect the work for itself.
I think like this because I perceive art to be of major importance. I do not look for how a work has come into being, but how it affects things around it, but at no point do I apply anything to the work. No name, no author, no comment.
Sue asked how I would go about forcing people to view work in such a way, and I realised that it is far from a easy task. I white cube of a gallery has a floor covered in muddy footprints, indeed many belong to the curator, the artist and the owners. I suppose I must have to admit defeat on making other people see in the way I do. But if you wish to understand exhibitions the way I do just make a conscious decision to think of nothing.
R B Grange
For many a reason I decided to start reading Alice's Adventures In Wonderland two days ago. I finished it yesterday and then went on to Through The Looking-Glass and What Alice Found There, which I am still on with now. In reading the first story I flipped between the two copies I own of the book; the first I purchased from a small shop near Christ Church which has an introduction by Will Self, the second I bought from a Waterstones in Leeds (the one nearer the Headrow) during my ISBN project on foundation. This second book has both stories and several once damp pages - due to my covering of them with a plaster lid.
The stories remain the same as they ever did, although sometimes my mind drifts to the myriads of adaptations that exist and their depictions of characters. Indeed, the two books have different illustrations. But I find now something more in what the characters have to say. There is no more intelligence - the work is nonsense - but it seems more quotable.
The Alice makes a brilliant statement after she id asked "Why is a raven like a writing desk?". After the conversation going off at a tangent about watches, butter, meaning what you say and saying what you mean, Alice gives up on the riddle:
"No I give it up," Alice replied "What's the answer?"
"I haven't the slightest idea." said the Hatter.
"Nor I," said the March Hare.
Alice sighed wearily, " I think you might do something better with the time," she said, "than waste it in asking riddles that have no answers."
Of course in works of art I do not look for answers. Films, novels, sculpture etc are meat hods of exploration, not places where one can find what they are looking for. If something does seem to provide an answer it should be treated with immense suspicion. But there is nothing better than asking questions which ask questions in themselves and of themselves and that I why I love paradoxes - they are things that cannot be solved and therefore anyone trying to solve them is an idiot. One who looks for answers does not gain intelligence. One who looks for questions finds everything and nothing.
Which brings me on to my next quote during the trial:
"If there's no meaning it it," said the King, "That saves a world of trouble, you know, as we needn't try to find any..."
I think that's a good place to stop tonight.
R B Grange.
The stories remain the same as they ever did, although sometimes my mind drifts to the myriads of adaptations that exist and their depictions of characters. Indeed, the two books have different illustrations. But I find now something more in what the characters have to say. There is no more intelligence - the work is nonsense - but it seems more quotable.
The Alice makes a brilliant statement after she id asked "Why is a raven like a writing desk?". After the conversation going off at a tangent about watches, butter, meaning what you say and saying what you mean, Alice gives up on the riddle:
"No I give it up," Alice replied "What's the answer?"
"I haven't the slightest idea." said the Hatter.
"Nor I," said the March Hare.
Alice sighed wearily, " I think you might do something better with the time," she said, "than waste it in asking riddles that have no answers."
Of course in works of art I do not look for answers. Films, novels, sculpture etc are meat hods of exploration, not places where one can find what they are looking for. If something does seem to provide an answer it should be treated with immense suspicion. But there is nothing better than asking questions which ask questions in themselves and of themselves and that I why I love paradoxes - they are things that cannot be solved and therefore anyone trying to solve them is an idiot. One who looks for answers does not gain intelligence. One who looks for questions finds everything and nothing.
Which brings me on to my next quote during the trial:
"If there's no meaning it it," said the King, "That saves a world of trouble, you know, as we needn't try to find any..."
I think that's a good place to stop tonight.
R B Grange.
02/04/2007
A Centre
The centre of something can be many things. It is able to be a hub, a starting point, a concentration of something. Many things.
Another way of thinking about the centre of something is to think of it as the epitome of said object. Although this is thoroughly flawed. To look at the centre of a silhouette does not tell you anything of the image, other than its blankness; the peripheral elements of a silhouette give it its distinction, its self.
The centre can also be seen as an average, indeed the Median average is just this. Therefore number, not only shape, is able to have a centre.
I often wonder, and never acted upon my wondering, whether or not Britain had a centre. I do not like Little Englanders or this new breed of anti-intellectual middle class, but I wished to see what the geographical epitome could be. And here it is. A page on Wiki that is exactly what I had been not really looking for. My friend Chris pointed it out to me.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centre_points_of_the_United_Kingdom
It has many variations of the Centre, but that's fine, in fact it fits in more with my understanding of things. No answers, only more questions.
R B Grange.
Another way of thinking about the centre of something is to think of it as the epitome of said object. Although this is thoroughly flawed. To look at the centre of a silhouette does not tell you anything of the image, other than its blankness; the peripheral elements of a silhouette give it its distinction, its self.
The centre can also be seen as an average, indeed the Median average is just this. Therefore number, not only shape, is able to have a centre.
I often wonder, and never acted upon my wondering, whether or not Britain had a centre. I do not like Little Englanders or this new breed of anti-intellectual middle class, but I wished to see what the geographical epitome could be. And here it is. A page on Wiki that is exactly what I had been not really looking for. My friend Chris pointed it out to me.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centre_points_of_the_United_Kingdom
It has many variations of the Centre, but that's fine, in fact it fits in more with my understanding of things. No answers, only more questions.
R B Grange.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
