Varanasi-ekh film poster (industrial paint on canvas 12 ft x 9 ft)
“Since no form is intrinsically superior to another, the artist may use any form, from an expression of words to physical reality, equally” . Sol Le Witt
Without a doubt, every human being is captivated by their own image more than anything else. As a child, I would spend hours talking to the animated reflection in the mirror, watching it bring my thoughts and imaginings to life. Over the years, my interactions with that image not only involved minor adjustments to my appearance but also played a larger role in shaping my life. Now, when I observe my little daughter engaging in the same act and compare it to the billions of human images scattered across the Earth, it reaffirms what we have always known—images have a profound connection to human existence.
Nearly every species on Earth has developed its own unique form and image through the process of evolutionary adaptation. However, intriguingly, only human beings can create and reproduce images, whether or not they are tied to an evolutionary context.
This ability represents a significant leap beyond the mere mimicry observed in the animal kingdom, and it has propelled human civilization to its current state. It becomes even more fascinating when we consider the triangular depictions of the human body created by our cave-dwelling ancestors. Despite their skill and capability to portray animals in great detail, they deliberately omitted intricate human features from those geometrical representations. The intrigue deepens when we observe our ancestors' exaggeration of the human form through body paintings, as well as the Greek and subsequent civilizations' preoccupation with the idealized perfection of the human body. Throughout history, there are countless examples of the pursuit of perfection and the abstraction of forms in human civilization, in various aspects of life and expression. In essence, the history of human civilization can be seen as an ongoing endeavour in this direction. Whether it is in the realm of visual arts, language, communication, science, physicality, metaphysics, or thought, all these pursuits revolve around and search for different forms. Sol Le Witt's statement, "Since no form is intrinsically superior to another, the artist may use any form, from an expression of words to physical reality, equally," reinforces this notion (1).
Since this discussion pertains to life and its ever-changing, non-absolute nature, it becomes clear that no particular form alone can achieve perfection or absolute capacity to convey meaning or evoke expression in art. Each form is inherently limited in its possibilities and constraints, sometimes differing from alternative forms of meaning and expression. In light of this, one might disagree with Sol Le Witt's assertion, as a particular form can complement or supplement another in its entirety. Furthermore, none of these forms is absolute in their entirety, and equality should not be understood strictly in a literal sense. Hence, we have different art forms catering to different expressions.
Every form has its own advantages and disadvantages, as Sol Le Witt states in the tenth sentence: "Ideas alone can be works of art: they are in a chain of development that may eventually find some form. All ideas need not be made physical" (2).
Therefore, it becomes important to comprehend art from the perspective of both the artist and the viewer. Graeme Sullivan, in the essay "Explanation, understanding and Beyond Art Practice as Research," highlights the ongoing debate regarding the production of knowledge in the visual arts. One common distinction questions whether knowledge resides in the art object itself or is constructed in the mind of the viewer. Insightful accounts are emerging that seek a deeper philosophical basis for situating art practice as a form of research within institutional settings. Neil Brown, for instance, presents a realistic perspective, viewing artworks as institutional artefacts that exhibit primarily objective, theory-dependent, and knowable properties, thereby providing access to insights that can be intuitive, mindful, and discoverable (3).
However, it is interesting to note that, apart from being discoverable, the faculties of intuitiveness and mindfulness cannot be strictly methodological within a primary objective, theory-dependent, and knowable framework. As the terms imply, these faculties are not solely procedural outcomes. They can vary from logical inference to impulsive decisions driven by the human inclination for adventure, representing a methodology of irrational human behaviour.
In this context, it becomes evident that art forms do not always adhere to a strict methodology in their emergence and existence within the artist-viewer phenomenon. Graeme Sullivan, once again citing Greta Refsum (2002), discusses the question of theoretical framework or methodology in art practice and artwork. Refsum suggests that artists and the field of visual arts primarily deal with the processes that occur before artworks are created. This realm represents their specialised arena, while what follows belongs to the realm of the humanities. If the field of visual arts aims to establish itself as a profession with a theoretical framework, it must build its theory production on the processes leading to the finished art object (4).
The argument advocating for the regimentation of the "arrival of art in the artist" contradicts the art of the twentieth century and beyond. In a renowned letter to the New York Times in 1943, painters Rothko and Adolph Gottlieb defended their recent work against critical incomprehension by asserting the profoundness of its content: "There is no such thing as good painting about nothing. We assert that only subject matter is valid which is tragic and timeless" (5).
Charles Harrison, in the midst of this critical incomprehension, notes that the "attuned" spectator found a form of security in the face of works falling under the operative descriptions of painting and sculpture, particularly the colour-filled paintings and abstract and constructed sculptures of the 1960s (6). David Hopkins, in his book "After Modern Art 1945-2000," quotes Duchamp's important lecture from 1957, titled "The Creative Act," where Duchamp argues that "the work of art is not performed by the artist alone and that the spectator's point of view affects the all-important 'transubstantiation' of inert matter into art." Here, the Catholic overtones of ritualism are intriguingly related to Etant Donnes, but what is most significant is the strategic undermining of the modernist conception of the art object's internal self-sufficiency in favour of acknowledging its dependence on contingent external factors, such as audience participation (7).
These arguments clearly demonstrate the futility of theoretical regimentation in the "arrival of art," as art continues to arrive at multiple levels and layers, and redefinition is an empirical reality. While Rothko and Adolph Gottlieb defend art for its profound content, Charles Harrison explains its success. Duchamp challenges the internal self-sufficiency of art in favour of recognizing its reliance on contingent external factors, such as audience participation.
However, David Hopkins later quotes Benjamin Buchloh from his essay "From the Aesthetics of Administration to institutional critique" (8) in "After Modern Art 1945-2000," offering instances where Duchamp's aforementioned argument diverges from these interpretations. He states, "Kosuth was making a bid to raise the theoretical stakes in the aftermath of minimalism. He also took the opportunity to place himself, alongside British artists Terry Atkinson and Michael Baldwin, as the first producer of authentically 'analytic' conceptual art in 1966. Certainly, his Art as Idea series (1966), comprising photographically enlarged dictionary definitions of words such as 'meaning,' was among the first works of the 1960s to assert a strict identity between verbal concept and artistic form. However, his reading of Duchamp was narrowly focused on the issue of nomination (the conferral of art status). It might be argued that in reducing artworks to tautologies (self-definitions), he was simply reiterating a modernist credo of formal autonomy. Conceptual purity now stood in for optical refinement."
Many Indian contemporary conceptual artists are already embracing this argument and pushing the boundaries of art. This is essential because, as Kandinsky states in his essay "The Spiritual in Art," "Every period of culture produces its own art, which can never be repeated." Art practice cannot remain stagnant; it must constantly push boundaries, innovate, renew, and redefine itself, especially in conceptual art where every idea serves as a protest against another.
Charles Harrison, in his book "Essays on Art and Language," argues that viewing ideas as discursive items of art is a challenging concept to sustain in practical and social spaces. It requires considering the hypothesised object not merely as art but as an object of inquiry, strategically claiming the status of art. The conviction held by Art & Language was that the inquiry itself had to be the work, becoming the focal point (9).
While this argument is open to debate, it becomes convincing in defining art practice. As Harrison continues to explain, "Changes in the art are generally insignificant unless they involve some form of cognitive change and unless they impose or presuppose some modification of the triangulation process, which locates a spectator, a work of art, and a world of possible practices and referents relative to each other" (10).
Sol Le Witt's statement that "no form is intrinsically superior to another, and the artist may use any form, from an expression of words to physical reality, equally" becomes a decisive idea in the context of meaning-making. We have already established that forms are not equal in themselves, and now we see that it is not possible to use different forms equally. Each form has inherent limitations and requires modification to achieve art as an idea, as every idea serves as a protest or modification against another.
Considering the constraints of individual forms and the ongoing modifications in ideas, it is crucial for any art practice to embrace these arguments and analytical developments in art and ideas. Rejecting regimentation and accepting modifications to existing practices becomes imperative. As Harrison emphasises, the relative location of a spectator, a work of art, and a world of possible practices and referents are of greater importance for art, prioritising meaning-making in that context rather than being solely concerned with the art form.
In the current art landscape, as Thomas Craw mentions in his foreword to Charles Harrison's Art and Language, "almost no possible artistic decision is free from the burden of historical and theoretical self-consciousness." Today, whether it is traditional art forms like painting, sculpture, installation, performance, theatre, singing, photography, cinema, computer graphics, or new age art forms like virtual reality, gaming, and internet/transponder projections, they all offer distinct possibilities and limitations. The realm of art is rich with potential and freedom, making it essential for artists not to confine themselves to a single form or prioritize one over another. The validity of every form of expression remains intact and will continue to do so. Throughout history, the fundamental aspects of human relationships and the underlying foundation of artistic endeavours remain unchanged. This is evident in my childhood fascination with mirror reflections and the universal human fascination with the countless images that abound in our interconnected world. These experiences testify to the enduring significance of art in our lives.
1. P2:pg:47 conceptual art: Art and Language- Charles Harrison :Basil Blackwel: 1991
2. P2:pg:47 conceptual art: Art and Language- Charles Harrison :Basil Blackwel: 1991
3. P3 pg:87 Explanation, understanding and beyond, Art practice as research, Graeme Sullivan, Sage publication-2005
4. P2 pg:87 Explanation, understanding and beyond, Art practice as research, Graeme Sullivan, Sage publication-2005
5. ( Mark Rothko and Adolph Gottlieb, letter to the New York Times, 7th June, 1943) Oxford University press ,2000 : After Modern Art 1945-2000: David Hopkins P:3:Pg:7
6. Basil Blackwell publication: Essays on art and Language: Charles Harrison, 1991 p: 3 pg:31
7. Oxford University Press, 2000: After Modern Art 1945-2000: David Hopkins P:2:Pg:41
8. Oxford University Press, 2000: Benjamin Buchloh “from the aesthetics of administration to institutional critique” October, 55, 1990 pp: 124-8 and passim): After Modern Art 1945-2000: David Hopkins P: 2: Pg: 177
9. Basil Blackwell publication: Essays on art and Language: Charles Harrison, 1991 p: 2 pg:49
10. Basil Blackwell publication: Essays on art and Language: Charles Harrison, 1991 P:2 page: 30
11. Basil Blackwell publication: Thomas craw: forward to Art and Language :Essays on art and Language: Charles Harrison, 1991 P :5 pa:13
No comments:
Post a Comment