I'm involved in a game of Tag. I can only speaking for myself, but when I used to play this kind of game in the playground we called it Tig; then again when my brother broke his arm he had it put in a pot and a bun is a little cake.
Sorry if the people who I have tagged don't want to play.
Five Facts:
I don't like jam because my parents used to hide foul tasting travel sickness sweets in spoonsful of it.
I'm either a little deaf or I don't listen to people.
I only own one piece of clothing that has a hood, and it's a parka.
I don't think my hands match up to the rest of my body.
The R in my name stands for Richard and the B for Bernard.
Five Blogs:
http://alvobaert.blogspot.com/
The blog of Alvo Baert; she draws, I think she only has one hand.
http://tncva.wordpress.com/2007/
Tennessee ConserVOLiance blog. Some sort of Christian-right-wing-US blog; I found them when I typed in 'God is dead' on google.
http://onelesscar.blogspot.com/
One Less Car; I can't remember how I found this blog but I really enjoy it. Big A.
http://genderqueerview.blogspot.com/
Nice blog what I found.
http://www.hayleydixon.blogspot.com/
Hal Dix.
1. Link to your tagger and post these rules on your blog.
2. Share 5 facts about yourself on your blog, some random, some weird.
3. Tag 5 people at the end of your post by leaving their names as well as links to their blogs.
4. Let them know they are tagged by leaving a comment on their blog.
26/01/2008
25/01/2008
Set down by someone else
Have read 40 pages of The Color Purple. It's depressing; people fighting, getting beaten, getting married to people they don't like.
I have never had to suffer any hardship like that, and anytime when something has happened to me which has been unpleasant or upsetting I've made into a joke straight away. People perceive this as a coping mechanism but I don't think it is, I quite genuinely find my life a humourous topic - it's bizarre in many places and always manages to trip me up when I'm not expecting it.
This post may seem strangely personal so far, but it's not. I am starting to discover that a lot of the personal is universal. The human condition is something that we all suffer from. We may have different symptoms or aliments but it is the same for us all.
The statement about the lion speaking and us not understanding it has been playing on my mind. Granted the lion's points of reference would be wholly different to ours but his ability to speak would not. We are all able to talk about language because it is something we all use; if we were only to speak to the lion about speaking, then we might have a good and intelligible conversation.
There is a univerality to language, every human has an innate capacity to learn a language and use that language. Coinciousness, speech and writing are amazing gifts, but not from some higher being or what not, they come from our context, our circumstance; they are a product of evolution and are therefore destined to change.
The exterior engagement with another human is the closest we come to leaving ourselves, or at least extending ones own consciousness. There is a line in the History Boys that goes like this:
'The best moments in reading are when you come across something - a thought, a feeling, a way of looking at things - which you had thought special and particular to you. And now, here it is, set down by some else, a person you have never met, someone even who is long dead. And it is as if a hand has come out, and takes yours.'
This is a comfort, but with my inherently sci-fi mind it is also a danger. Language and cognitive thought need not exist only for humans; if a machine passes the Turing Test then we will have a universality of language that does not just belong to humans. Although that might well be a good thing.
R B Grange
I have never had to suffer any hardship like that, and anytime when something has happened to me which has been unpleasant or upsetting I've made into a joke straight away. People perceive this as a coping mechanism but I don't think it is, I quite genuinely find my life a humourous topic - it's bizarre in many places and always manages to trip me up when I'm not expecting it.
This post may seem strangely personal so far, but it's not. I am starting to discover that a lot of the personal is universal. The human condition is something that we all suffer from. We may have different symptoms or aliments but it is the same for us all.
The statement about the lion speaking and us not understanding it has been playing on my mind. Granted the lion's points of reference would be wholly different to ours but his ability to speak would not. We are all able to talk about language because it is something we all use; if we were only to speak to the lion about speaking, then we might have a good and intelligible conversation.
There is a univerality to language, every human has an innate capacity to learn a language and use that language. Coinciousness, speech and writing are amazing gifts, but not from some higher being or what not, they come from our context, our circumstance; they are a product of evolution and are therefore destined to change.
The exterior engagement with another human is the closest we come to leaving ourselves, or at least extending ones own consciousness. There is a line in the History Boys that goes like this:
'The best moments in reading are when you come across something - a thought, a feeling, a way of looking at things - which you had thought special and particular to you. And now, here it is, set down by some else, a person you have never met, someone even who is long dead. And it is as if a hand has come out, and takes yours.'
This is a comfort, but with my inherently sci-fi mind it is also a danger. Language and cognitive thought need not exist only for humans; if a machine passes the Turing Test then we will have a universality of language that does not just belong to humans. Although that might well be a good thing.
R B Grange
22/01/2008
Writing and filming and filming writing etc
Had a tutorial assessment this time last week. I think it went very well even though we only touched on a small part of my practice.
I started by talking about the work I had done in the summer, the destroying of Tatlin's Tower, and the main object it produced. I had not set out, you must understand, to produce and object, quite the opposite, but my actions and prompted me to write a film script. It wasn't that good, or at least not good for using as a script, but as an artwork I found it greatly interesting.
The 'unadapted' nature of the script interested my tutors and they wanted to know more, why hadn't I made it into a film, or more accurately, why wouldn't I.
I think it is to do with time mostly. When one is reading a book there is a timeless nature to ones experience of the text. When watching something, in an art gallery, one becomes aware of the time the film is taking. It is as though there is a set way to watch something, that there are codes one must obey.
But merely reading is a personal and intimate activity; it allows one to leave oneself and full engage with the piece.
Now I enjoy cinema and have films that I am intimately involved in - but they are a rarity, and I usually find myself thinking about myself watching (2001 style) and this clouds the object in hand.
Take for example a kiss. In a book when a kiss is described you can comprehend its intimacy, you can empathize and place yourself there and you are alone in your reading, no one else is looking over your shoulder. In a film, even when watched alone, there is an inescapability of character in screen, the characters are not you, where as in literature, they could well be. When watching people kiss on screen (I find anyway) I don't know where to look or what enjoyment I'm supposed to get out of it - is it empathetical? voyeuristic? I don't know. But the most alienating experience comes from theatre; where you cannot look away, where everyone feels some sort of embarrassment and where it is unavoidable to look in on the scene.
My work should engage on a personal level but be pluralist and overarchingly understood; so much so that even a replicant could empathize with its content.
R B Grange
I started by talking about the work I had done in the summer, the destroying of Tatlin's Tower, and the main object it produced. I had not set out, you must understand, to produce and object, quite the opposite, but my actions and prompted me to write a film script. It wasn't that good, or at least not good for using as a script, but as an artwork I found it greatly interesting.
The 'unadapted' nature of the script interested my tutors and they wanted to know more, why hadn't I made it into a film, or more accurately, why wouldn't I.
I think it is to do with time mostly. When one is reading a book there is a timeless nature to ones experience of the text. When watching something, in an art gallery, one becomes aware of the time the film is taking. It is as though there is a set way to watch something, that there are codes one must obey.
But merely reading is a personal and intimate activity; it allows one to leave oneself and full engage with the piece.
Now I enjoy cinema and have films that I am intimately involved in - but they are a rarity, and I usually find myself thinking about myself watching (2001 style) and this clouds the object in hand.
Take for example a kiss. In a book when a kiss is described you can comprehend its intimacy, you can empathize and place yourself there and you are alone in your reading, no one else is looking over your shoulder. In a film, even when watched alone, there is an inescapability of character in screen, the characters are not you, where as in literature, they could well be. When watching people kiss on screen (I find anyway) I don't know where to look or what enjoyment I'm supposed to get out of it - is it empathetical? voyeuristic? I don't know. But the most alienating experience comes from theatre; where you cannot look away, where everyone feels some sort of embarrassment and where it is unavoidable to look in on the scene.
My work should engage on a personal level but be pluralist and overarchingly understood; so much so that even a replicant could empathize with its content.
R B Grange
15/01/2008
and sometimes he went bare foot.
Another spontaneous blog.
I haven't done one of these for a while now, but I have to write something, so I will.
I really can't say anything; sorry about this.
sorry Chris
R B Grange
I haven't done one of these for a while now, but I have to write something, so I will.
I really can't say anything; sorry about this.
sorry Chris
R B Grange
11/01/2008
T.M.A. 2
Eight pieces of work to start an art collection. This is a daunting but thoroughly enjoyable prospect and one which I have taken quite a while over. On January 21st 2008 the first of many documents trying to understand the Chocolate Box exhibition will be published. This was a show of works from the Tate Collection that Hayley Dixon and I were unable to obtain. We selected our favourite works (whatever that means) and aspired to show these at MDX. My eight pieces of work selected here are not from the Tate and all address a theme or process which I enjoy greatly, that of the interior world.
Pieces:
Vito Acconci READ THIS WORD
John Baldessari SINGS SOL LEWITT
Jonathan Monk COVER VERSION (Signed)
Fischli and Weiss SUDDENLY THIS OVERVIEW (1981/2006)
Ron Mueck UNTITLED (MAN IN BLANKETS)
Alex Hartley PAVILION
Dan Flavin UNTITLED (TO JAN AND RON GREENBERG)
James Turrell DEER SHELTER (At YSP)
Vito Acconci READ THIS WORD
http://www.ubu.com/concept/acconci_read.html
Although this is not the most notable piece of Acconci’s I find myself drawn to it because bridges the gap between image and time based media. When one participates in the work, one cannot escape from ones own viewing of it. One becomes aware of ones own looking and therefore places this piece in a highly philosophical position, some ecstasy, an out of body experience, which is key to the overall collection.
The viewer of the collection is highly important to the work included because of the strong sense of plurality throughout the works. Not the participator’s reading of the work, but the participator of the work. The work in this collect should hopefully set a grounding for work that is outside of a perceived perspective.
Actually hanging this piece may well be a problem. I have only ever encountered the work on the internet, a place where one is able to take as much time on looking at an object as one likes. In a gallery I often feel pressured into looking, and will find myself looking back at myself seeing. I therefore think that this work should some how be readily made into a postcard, available for sale.
John Baldessari SINGS SOL LEWITT 1972
http://www.ubu.com/film/baldessari.html
Although LeWitt’s work first came to my attention through an interest in sculpture, it is his writing and practice of conceptual art that provides one with the greatest insight into formalised conceptualism. Baldessari here both trivialises and exalts LeWitt’s famous statements on conceptual art and provides us with a work that says no more that LeWitt’s original statements but changes the use and context and therefore the understanding that one can gleam from them.
This falls into the ‘interior worlds’ theme because the whole piece is in reference to something that exists as a basis or initial standpoint from which to make art. Of course, LeWitt’s writing was not designed to be applied in such a manner and so Baldessari’s singing is a bit hesitant and broken (he is not a professional singing and could not really use this object as the kind of pop songs it is mimicking).
Within the collect this piece works as a starting point. It addresses function and use but in a subverted manner placing itself firmly as a post-modern object. It being a video piece posses the question of exhibition, a question which is solved almost immediately with the subject matter and execution. Baldessari obviously has a great amount of respect for this writing and makes it into an accessible and ‘lowest-common-denominator’ format. A small screen (no more than 17 inch) should be used.
Jonathan Monk COVER VERSION 2004
https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEivbH83aE-ikLLYW_fA3mJ7OaKYeNmnlRuFg6OFxeps331uWtukacW2VOSZyvdkVMgEUsRaRDLVToX8SmK90sNRaKwypo8BkKm2mVQO_v4hDynD-pAucyJ4C_S0qwDHSmBJSgg7V2zQIMs/s1600-h/9781870699747_01.jpg
An easily purchasable book but a valuable object nonetheless. Monk, like Baldessari, treats the work of LeWitt, along with Ruscha and Weiner, with love and care. Here we have collection of front covers of books owned by Monk. All the books happen to be from the artistic careers of the aforementioned gentlemen. I have chosen two works that blatantly reference LeWitt’s work because it is often the reaction to an object or practise that is more interesting that the practise itself.
These ‘secondary objects’ are what interest me in post war art; not just that the subject of a work can be something other than any from depiction, but the subject can be existing pieces of art.
The book (here shown in somebody’s bike) was published by the brilliant BookWorks, a publishing company who work with artists to create some of the nicest objects to have and to hold. The Artist Book may well be seen as a passing vogue, but to my mind it marks an important watershed in objecthood. To have this book in my collection asks questions of long held artistic values such as; the original, ownership, the limited edition and how art is consumed outside of the white cube of the gallery space.
Fischli and Weiss SUDDENLY THIS OVERVIEW (1981/2006) 2006
http://www.tate.org.uk/modern/exhibitions/fischliandweiss/rooms/room3.shtm
This piece may lure one into thinking it is about some sort of analysis of context, that one may be able to see a set of works summing up at least something. This is not what the piece does at all. Disparate scenes and characters are depicted in this many objected piece. The apes from 2001: A Space Odyssey sit alongside random mice and tidal waves. This object is about, if anything, the vast and unknowable nature of every.
Everything in this work is made is a basic form (one of the four elements) clay, unfired. But one gains from the work that ‘everything’ isn’t as easy as that. Some of the clay objects seem to be missing a narrative, or a point. The ‘overview’ is not of something we, as a culture, understand, we may recognise some elements of it, but it is too much wrapped up in itself for us, purely as a viewer, to understand it fully.
This puts all comes to the work on an equal footing. There is no presumed knowledge and if one finds several highbrow jokes, there will be an equal number of lowbrow ones aswell.
Ron Mueck UNTITLED (MAN IN BLANKETS) 2000
http://www.jamescohan.com/artists/ron-mueck/
Another seemingly inaccessible work, but this time through its closeness to ‘the real’. The work of Ron Mueck is usually placed within the category of ‘Hyper Realism’, which I feel is a mislabelling. The works are close to reality but differ from it greatly placing the viewer in another awkward position.
This spersific piece is a brilliant example of a work existing by and for itself. It may reference the human form, but in a way that one is not used to understanding it; a tiny man wrapped in blankets. One’s mind might leap to Moses or Christ but these two are both temporal myths prone to change and fade as most memes do. This man is man, one need only be human to empathise with the figurative nature of this work. but through presumptions we have about the human form, scale and the like, this object exists somewhere between the real and the imagined, in the uncanny.
Plurality, therefore, is important to this work and all the pieces in the collection; the viewer brings a meaning to the work, or merely brings themselves.
Alex Hartley PAVILION 2000
http://www.sculpture.org.uk/image/000000100157/1/
In a similar vein to the Mueck piece I have chosen to select Pavilion by Alex Hartley. The images on the façades of the sculpture depict an interior, but one which is wholly inaccessible. After a few moments contemplation ones realises that all the information that one may every conceive to get from the object is right there in front of you. The ‘room’ is known completely to use, but it is not what we expect. The lines are not in focus and even stepping nearer does not give us any (excuse the pun) insight.
The viewer as an outsider to the work is a greatly important idea. This stems from my own personal interest in Science Fiction. Within classic Sci-Fi a new object will come into existence, be this through man’s endeavour, an encounter with another consciousness or some new, or old, form of nature. The characters within Sci-Fi must react to these new experience and try and apply morals that they may have, or learn new ones, better adapted to the strange new world in which they find themselves.
The image of a room is nothing new, but this object is. One must reassess ones form of looking; how one looks, why one looks, to better appreciate this object.
Dan Flavin UNTITLED (TO JAN AND RON GREENBERG) 1972
http://arts.guardian.co.uk/pictures/image/0,8543,-11505379680,00.html
Placement of the viewer comes into play yet again with this Flavin piece.
Set up as a wall of light one becomes aware of their own presence in the room. Unlike Untitled (Monument to V. Tatlin) this work drifts way from being an object which one looks in at, to being an one where you must look around. Where as one might perceive Pavilion to be three sides of a cube with a right angle pointing at you, this is the opposite, with the corner pointing out and away, a space in which we may place our heads.
Hopefully the collects casts the viewer as an outsider., someone who is being told things or experiencing them from a very personal stand point. I have aspired to choose works that are enclosed within interior systems but are by no means finite. The Baldessari and the Monk pieces may hopefully inspire people to take an active interest in something that is specifically not the object. The Mueck and the Hartley contain images that are known to us but have have been altered, placing them in the field of the uncanny. The Flavin, F & W and Acconci pieces address ‘interiors’ and the viewer, the viewer in the work, the viewer trying to know the work and the viewer becoming conscious of their own viewing.
James Turrell DEER SHELTER (At YSP) 2006
http://martingoodman.com/soyouwanttobeawriter/uploaded_images/James-Tyrrell-701654.jpg
And now to religion. It is easy to perceive that the acquisition of objects is now the key goal in people lives, with the artistic object being some sort of sacred relic, a strange and mystical thing that may hold obscure wonders that are inaccessible to the common man.
This is something I believe not to the true. Art objects are not something unknowable, they are valuable, but not necessarily precious, works of nature. I enjoy the theory of evolution because of its simplicity and because it is something going on around me but something I cannot see. Evolution has produced this world in which we live. My writing this is a product (but a changing one) of evolution; cars, trains, thumbs, bushes, radiators, all these are part and parcel of a process we are involved in.
There are times in the process when the mind (another product of evolution) soars, and things as of yet unimagined come before ones eyes.
Deer Shelter at the Yorkshire Sculpture Park is one of these things. The sky brought down to picture-plane for our examination. This work is not a window, it is constructed in a way that the sky seems not to be far and unattainable, but right next to the ceiling. This is of course where the sky is anyway, we just don’t think like that, yet.
R B Grange
Pieces:
Vito Acconci READ THIS WORD
John Baldessari SINGS SOL LEWITT
Jonathan Monk COVER VERSION (Signed)
Fischli and Weiss SUDDENLY THIS OVERVIEW (1981/2006)
Ron Mueck UNTITLED (MAN IN BLANKETS)
Alex Hartley PAVILION
Dan Flavin UNTITLED (TO JAN AND RON GREENBERG)
James Turrell DEER SHELTER (At YSP)
Vito Acconci READ THIS WORD
http://www.ubu.com/concept/acconci_read.html
Although this is not the most notable piece of Acconci’s I find myself drawn to it because bridges the gap between image and time based media. When one participates in the work, one cannot escape from ones own viewing of it. One becomes aware of ones own looking and therefore places this piece in a highly philosophical position, some ecstasy, an out of body experience, which is key to the overall collection.
The viewer of the collection is highly important to the work included because of the strong sense of plurality throughout the works. Not the participator’s reading of the work, but the participator of the work. The work in this collect should hopefully set a grounding for work that is outside of a perceived perspective.
Actually hanging this piece may well be a problem. I have only ever encountered the work on the internet, a place where one is able to take as much time on looking at an object as one likes. In a gallery I often feel pressured into looking, and will find myself looking back at myself seeing. I therefore think that this work should some how be readily made into a postcard, available for sale.
John Baldessari SINGS SOL LEWITT 1972
http://www.ubu.com/film/baldessari.html
Although LeWitt’s work first came to my attention through an interest in sculpture, it is his writing and practice of conceptual art that provides one with the greatest insight into formalised conceptualism. Baldessari here both trivialises and exalts LeWitt’s famous statements on conceptual art and provides us with a work that says no more that LeWitt’s original statements but changes the use and context and therefore the understanding that one can gleam from them.
This falls into the ‘interior worlds’ theme because the whole piece is in reference to something that exists as a basis or initial standpoint from which to make art. Of course, LeWitt’s writing was not designed to be applied in such a manner and so Baldessari’s singing is a bit hesitant and broken (he is not a professional singing and could not really use this object as the kind of pop songs it is mimicking).
Within the collect this piece works as a starting point. It addresses function and use but in a subverted manner placing itself firmly as a post-modern object. It being a video piece posses the question of exhibition, a question which is solved almost immediately with the subject matter and execution. Baldessari obviously has a great amount of respect for this writing and makes it into an accessible and ‘lowest-common-denominator’ format. A small screen (no more than 17 inch) should be used.
Jonathan Monk COVER VERSION 2004
https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEivbH83aE-ikLLYW_fA3mJ7OaKYeNmnlRuFg6OFxeps331uWtukacW2VOSZyvdkVMgEUsRaRDLVToX8SmK90sNRaKwypo8BkKm2mVQO_v4hDynD-pAucyJ4C_S0qwDHSmBJSgg7V2zQIMs/s1600-h/9781870699747_01.jpg
An easily purchasable book but a valuable object nonetheless. Monk, like Baldessari, treats the work of LeWitt, along with Ruscha and Weiner, with love and care. Here we have collection of front covers of books owned by Monk. All the books happen to be from the artistic careers of the aforementioned gentlemen. I have chosen two works that blatantly reference LeWitt’s work because it is often the reaction to an object or practise that is more interesting that the practise itself.
These ‘secondary objects’ are what interest me in post war art; not just that the subject of a work can be something other than any from depiction, but the subject can be existing pieces of art.
The book (here shown in somebody’s bike) was published by the brilliant BookWorks, a publishing company who work with artists to create some of the nicest objects to have and to hold. The Artist Book may well be seen as a passing vogue, but to my mind it marks an important watershed in objecthood. To have this book in my collection asks questions of long held artistic values such as; the original, ownership, the limited edition and how art is consumed outside of the white cube of the gallery space.
Fischli and Weiss SUDDENLY THIS OVERVIEW (1981/2006) 2006
http://www.tate.org.uk/modern/exhibitions/fischliandweiss/rooms/room3.shtm
This piece may lure one into thinking it is about some sort of analysis of context, that one may be able to see a set of works summing up at least something. This is not what the piece does at all. Disparate scenes and characters are depicted in this many objected piece. The apes from 2001: A Space Odyssey sit alongside random mice and tidal waves. This object is about, if anything, the vast and unknowable nature of every.
Everything in this work is made is a basic form (one of the four elements) clay, unfired. But one gains from the work that ‘everything’ isn’t as easy as that. Some of the clay objects seem to be missing a narrative, or a point. The ‘overview’ is not of something we, as a culture, understand, we may recognise some elements of it, but it is too much wrapped up in itself for us, purely as a viewer, to understand it fully.
This puts all comes to the work on an equal footing. There is no presumed knowledge and if one finds several highbrow jokes, there will be an equal number of lowbrow ones aswell.
Ron Mueck UNTITLED (MAN IN BLANKETS) 2000
http://www.jamescohan.com/artists/ron-mueck/
Another seemingly inaccessible work, but this time through its closeness to ‘the real’. The work of Ron Mueck is usually placed within the category of ‘Hyper Realism’, which I feel is a mislabelling. The works are close to reality but differ from it greatly placing the viewer in another awkward position.
This spersific piece is a brilliant example of a work existing by and for itself. It may reference the human form, but in a way that one is not used to understanding it; a tiny man wrapped in blankets. One’s mind might leap to Moses or Christ but these two are both temporal myths prone to change and fade as most memes do. This man is man, one need only be human to empathise with the figurative nature of this work. but through presumptions we have about the human form, scale and the like, this object exists somewhere between the real and the imagined, in the uncanny.
Plurality, therefore, is important to this work and all the pieces in the collection; the viewer brings a meaning to the work, or merely brings themselves.
Alex Hartley PAVILION 2000
http://www.sculpture.org.uk/image/000000100157/1/
In a similar vein to the Mueck piece I have chosen to select Pavilion by Alex Hartley. The images on the façades of the sculpture depict an interior, but one which is wholly inaccessible. After a few moments contemplation ones realises that all the information that one may every conceive to get from the object is right there in front of you. The ‘room’ is known completely to use, but it is not what we expect. The lines are not in focus and even stepping nearer does not give us any (excuse the pun) insight.
The viewer as an outsider to the work is a greatly important idea. This stems from my own personal interest in Science Fiction. Within classic Sci-Fi a new object will come into existence, be this through man’s endeavour, an encounter with another consciousness or some new, or old, form of nature. The characters within Sci-Fi must react to these new experience and try and apply morals that they may have, or learn new ones, better adapted to the strange new world in which they find themselves.
The image of a room is nothing new, but this object is. One must reassess ones form of looking; how one looks, why one looks, to better appreciate this object.
Dan Flavin UNTITLED (TO JAN AND RON GREENBERG) 1972
http://arts.guardian.co.uk/pictures/image/0,8543,-11505379680,00.html
Placement of the viewer comes into play yet again with this Flavin piece.
Set up as a wall of light one becomes aware of their own presence in the room. Unlike Untitled (Monument to V. Tatlin) this work drifts way from being an object which one looks in at, to being an one where you must look around. Where as one might perceive Pavilion to be three sides of a cube with a right angle pointing at you, this is the opposite, with the corner pointing out and away, a space in which we may place our heads.
Hopefully the collects casts the viewer as an outsider., someone who is being told things or experiencing them from a very personal stand point. I have aspired to choose works that are enclosed within interior systems but are by no means finite. The Baldessari and the Monk pieces may hopefully inspire people to take an active interest in something that is specifically not the object. The Mueck and the Hartley contain images that are known to us but have have been altered, placing them in the field of the uncanny. The Flavin, F & W and Acconci pieces address ‘interiors’ and the viewer, the viewer in the work, the viewer trying to know the work and the viewer becoming conscious of their own viewing.
James Turrell DEER SHELTER (At YSP) 2006
http://martingoodman.com/soyouwanttobeawriter/uploaded_images/James-Tyrrell-701654.jpg
And now to religion. It is easy to perceive that the acquisition of objects is now the key goal in people lives, with the artistic object being some sort of sacred relic, a strange and mystical thing that may hold obscure wonders that are inaccessible to the common man.
This is something I believe not to the true. Art objects are not something unknowable, they are valuable, but not necessarily precious, works of nature. I enjoy the theory of evolution because of its simplicity and because it is something going on around me but something I cannot see. Evolution has produced this world in which we live. My writing this is a product (but a changing one) of evolution; cars, trains, thumbs, bushes, radiators, all these are part and parcel of a process we are involved in.
There are times in the process when the mind (another product of evolution) soars, and things as of yet unimagined come before ones eyes.
Deer Shelter at the Yorkshire Sculpture Park is one of these things. The sky brought down to picture-plane for our examination. This work is not a window, it is constructed in a way that the sky seems not to be far and unattainable, but right next to the ceiling. This is of course where the sky is anyway, we just don’t think like that, yet.
R B Grange
08/01/2008
Sorting
For readers of my blog you may have noticed that I have not place a new post here for some time now. I can't really explain why this is because I do not yet know what my blog is for. At the moment it is the place I go to when I feel ready to put something into practice, when I've had a little think, or when I've found something out that I think people may find interesting.
But is that really good enough? Could I not be using that platform for something more, something higher?
I noticed that at the top of my blog is says something about 'a simple look into the art world', but according to my pervious writings there is not 'an' art world, in fact 'world' clouds or presumes too much to be a useful word.
2008 should be a year of conscious action and clarity starting with me sorting out this site.
R B Grange
But is that really good enough? Could I not be using that platform for something more, something higher?
I noticed that at the top of my blog is says something about 'a simple look into the art world', but according to my pervious writings there is not 'an' art world, in fact 'world' clouds or presumes too much to be a useful word.
2008 should be a year of conscious action and clarity starting with me sorting out this site.
R B Grange
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
