TBT 2009 - Comments about the Object: (User 1)


- Living with it interfered with the space.

- The sensation is smooth and pleasant.

- Pleasing and beautiful

- Exists an absence more than presence:

A non-space because of what surrounds it. Provokes visual interference, surrounds the space, (transitory in its essence). By accepting it is a rejection per se (something to be dealt with)

- The packaged of it, was relevant due to the limited period of time in the house (was near the Box as if the Box was going to leave in the following day).

- Temporality and supportive/engaging. (Find a balance in between)

- Integration of the box and them with the space is an unconscious process.

- Wanting to spend every time with the Box, supporting physically.

- Time has effect. Affects the box (A fast engagement)

- Establish a connection with it by sitting side by side.

- Is not a work of art but part of it! (They complete the work in some way)

- Allowing people to engage with it makes them think how to receive it and think about the level of expectation in art; (allow the function of the artwork to engage).

TBT 2009 - Comments about the Object: (User 2)


-The object was used as a table during its stay in the house.

- The textile function of the object was also very appealing.

- The object had for them the remembrance of an old suitcase but still a reference to a functional object. Made them think of something inspiring and at the same time romantic.

- One of them used as his own desk for a couple of hours. (They tried to emphasize the functionality and its use).

- Their intervention worked in some way as a written statement a document made for themselves and by themselves.

- The impact of the box in the room was notorious because it didn’t change the spatial organization but it transformed the way they perceived it. In same vague sense was a reunion, inspiring and even healthy.

- Due to all these qualities the box was reserved to create a special occasion and to enjoy the short period of time they had with the box.

- It also worked as a diary of their lives that in some way works as a testimony of what will certainty leave some affection behind.

- However the changes happened to in their lives even if it was for a night. The functionality of the box, worked also as a break in their routine provoking a relationship directly with something more than just a box.

- The experience itself turned out to be different and promoter of new things and happenings in their lives.

TBT 2009 - Comments about the Object: (user 3)


- The box was very appealing when it was unwrapped, but there was also a questioning between being a box or a cube in conceptual terms.

- There was an interest in naming it because it was there were several possibilities to go with the box.

- They faced the object as an object so they felted restrained in doing something to the box.

- They used it as a support base, to make it functional.

- in some way the box made part of the family for while, and was created a relation even thought the object itself remained strange to them. The presence of it was a bit frightening because of its size.

- There was a slight contradiction in their behaviour with the object because in one hand it was almost like a sense of loss but in the other hand there was a kind of affection. It is also interesting how the object even thought it didn’t suffered any intervention it became an active object that completed some kind of gap.

- There was also the interest of going for a walk with the box and trying to interact with it in specific places. However the idea didn’t happen!

- At the same time there was a need to not engage with it, because it is something that an ordinary object would not require from you!

- The box had a lot of dust in it.

- The box has also the power to precede you into the room as something that was dislocated.

- Nevertheless there was a creation of a relation due to the box being attractive to them. The physicality of it and its basic and tactile attributes it was not divorced from them because they felt it belonged to the everyday world. Another point that was considered was that it was something natural and very practical to accept.

- There was an objectification of the box diminishing it. The object itself becomes an accumulation of space that seems to belong to place but still does not belong. Remains alienated. There seems to exist a boundary that keeps us to still keep close but at the same time distant from it.

- In some way part of our lives were brought as close as possible because of a need of interacting

- it is also relevant to say with no apparent intention there was created an aura in the object because they felt they could project anything to the box as long as the box remained with no intervention. Afterwards it becomes difficult and there is also other aspect that once the box itself becomes intervened until the point whether it loses its integrity!

TBT 2009 - Comments about the Object: (user 4)


- They felt that the smell, touch and smoothness were very important factors to their engagement with the box because conditioned their interaction in order to reflect their interactions within the three characteristics.

- However they were concerned in leaving one side of the box clear because they felt people should have the same experience they had by touching and smelling it.

- The interventions in the box were a consequence of a gathering of people mainly friends around the box. As consequence of this they were tempted to think outside the box and analyze their experiences.

- There was a suggestion of making a suitcase, putting wheels, making a plinth, a skate board, walk it around the city, but they hadn’t the time to do that.

- The box had appositive effect on people making them work collaboratively and for a common interest.

- Some ideas were generated by the presence of the box in the place. In addition the box was placed in several places according to the needs and interest of the people that wanted to make use of it.

- The box itself incarnated the personality of a tourist that walks around without staying much time in one place but always trying to retain most of his experiences.

- The presence of the box was very prom eminent not only in the actual place but also in their memories as something that found a small corner in their conscious.

- Even though it was a short period of time with the box it was a good opportunity for them to be creative. One of the interventions was with candle works, a DJ stand, drawings and chiselling. All these interventions reflected individual instincts that pervaded instead of consideration. According to them this characteristic caused the awareness that the box was already part of them in some way but nevertheless it remained in some way a bizarre object but very appealing and receptive to everyone!

TBT 2009 - Comments about the Object: (user 5)


- First reaction was that it had a funny smell.

- The Box represented a distraction and an object that was very intriguing because its presence was very unusual.

- They used as a functional with several functions such as a seat and lather. They also wrote in the object with commentaries very intriguing about the purpose of the project.

- One of them asked what the point of the project was because there was a dialog very effusive about their beliefs.

- There was some investigation about how the box was made and why which resulted in several questions and debates.

- The debate was mainly about modern art and that led to several conversations about modern art.

- The box didn’t facilitate much communication between co-workers because they were already very close with each other. The box gave a new ambiance to the space because it enables them to be confronted by almost an alien that entered their lives for a period of time.

- In addition the fact that the environment of a working space was very restrictive they tried to make use of it in different ways.

TBT 2009 - Comments about the Object: (user 6)


- The surface is very appealing and beautiful, even inspiring, which let the ‘temporary owner’ quite perplex about the power of such feelings.

- The presence of the box was in some way quite unsettling. For instance the fact that the box didn’t open and still remains as a box.

- There was a feeling that the box even though was not destroyed it was in other hand vandalized by the multiple interventions.

- The intervention on the box was paintings that were similar to stamps. The paintings were small animals one of them was from Latin America, and in together with the paintings there was phrases written in Spanish and in English making reference to the paintings.

- The box presence was very stimulating because it had connotations with bad things such as ‘I am going to be boxed in’ or ‘they are going to take me away in a box’ associated with the image of death and coffins. In addition the temporary owner made reference to a poem that refers to being boxed in the Second World War[i]. On the other hand it was associated with good things such as presents or the Boxing Day when Christmas presents are opened.

- The box allowed a feeling of freedom that was only overcome after a few days since it was a kind of alien in their place. It was a slightly worrying for them to accept it because there was a sense of obligation to work with it. However after overcome the freedom allowed the temporary owner to even be ironic in its interventions.

- The result was in some way the imprint of a statement in the box of their egos while living with it. Nevertheless this attitude reveals a sense of identity by living their fingerprints quite literally or just metaphorically.

- The impact in the space was not much relevant because the house as they described was almost a building site, so it didn’t disturb any kind of harmony!

- In the end there was a slight affection by the box due to its presence even though if it was for a very short period of time.


[i] VII

Jumbled in one common box

Of their dark stupidity,

Orchid, swan, and Caesar lie;

Time that tires of everyone

Has corroded all the locks

Thrown away the key for fun.

In its cleft the torrent mocks

Prophets who in days gone by

Made a profit on each cry,

Persona grata now with none;

And a jackass language shocks

Poets who can only pun.

Silence Settles on the clocks;

Nursing mothers point a sly

Index finger at a sky,

Crimson in the setting sun;

In the valley of the fox

Gleams the barrel of a gun.

Once we could have made the docks,

Now it is too late to fly;

Once too often you and I

Did what we should not have done;

Round the rampant rugged rocks

Rude and ragged rascals run.

Song by W. H. Auden, 1941

Sunday, 19 April 2009

(Assembly) - The creator (part 3/3)

The Failure of the perfect trilogy:

 

·         The fact that the reshape of barriers has become a constant reality, the creator also feels compelled to lose even more. The spectators as well as the creator throughout the times have become more detached even when there are works that are interactive and request the participation of the spectator. However this is simply a lie because the barriers are not broken and there was not so far a dialog between the artist and the spectator, because always we feel distant to what the artist is making even though there is a community work.

The work can be the last resource to make that happen because there isn’t a truly connection that can sustain the conflicting relation within a trilogy that seems not to have an end. An infinite cycle which disturb our sanity!

 

                                (It can be seen by the arrows that there is an impossibility of approach, there is only a dot in the space that seems to conjugate the three elements but unfortunately is lost). In addition the memory that remains of the trilogy becomes also lost in space even though the aim of the trilogy is to reconnect them again. However not even the memory of time seems to remember that happening.

 

It doesn’t exist a possible approach. Even though that there is a subversion of roles the picture remains the same. For me this trilogy is recent because in the past there was this kind of connection between things such as the work but only as a mere vehicle that was appropriated, dissected, destroyed, raped and lastly murdered. So in order to create a kind of replacement, was created the work (the work that owns its own identity among the others that have already taken their place in the cycle) that was introduced in order to enable the creation of a perfect trilogy, but after all what is about this object/work:

I think it is relevant to say that as far I am concerned is the introduction of a complete new variable to the equation. This new variable had the intention to create a new approach but it didn’t work out because the three factors are still drifting apart. The object assumes in a pretentious way the new position of the modern artist. The object becomes then the center of the attentions. This in itself is a position that has its value but the artist doesn’t want to lose the recognition of his hard work! So he includes himself in a dialog where the variables become more subjective of what they already are, but the spectator is still the last one to receive the work having only as function to approve or disapprove as the conception of trilogy determines the space and time in a era where that doesn’t exist anymore. So as consequence we can take the conclusion that what interests in the end are the artists and his egos. In a way the spectator has become valuable to the artist only by the fact that he can SEE – probably the creator is blind! Of course he is not making something for himself alone but the creator want results and the spectators want conclusions! How is this possible if we are only changing the variables of the same equation in order to obtain similar results for different contexts! It doesn’t make sense but is the creator fully responsible for this!

I don’t believe in that because the spectator doesn’t make enough effort to realize what he is seeing but in the other hand why make an effort if the work want to take my senses away and my sensibility and replace them by something other from the originals that are strange to the spectator. Why should I put some effort if I am going to be used as Guiney Pig and also the result is not relevant for me but for the artist. So it can be easily realized why there is no possible relation besides anger!

The trilogy is in the end the product not of the artist but of a background that supports all the world of art. These identities that are behind the curtain are always resetting the scenario and the artist is only a little puppet that has only as function to read the text and play it. “The artist is the ultimate clown” Bruce Nauman. Why so much proposals and revolutions, if the result has always the same consequence.

I don’t want with this to make a proposal because the world is full of good intentions.

My belief is that the answer is not in the artist neither the problem is in the spectator.  It also isn’t in the dissociation of the trilogy. The dissociation of the trilogy would be the end of everything but also the start of something with biblical impact! Although there is a risen of a new understanding of what art can embrace such as other elements and other dimensions. I don’t want with this to say that there are elements from the past or elements that can make us sweat of joy when faced with something really remarkable. The people that think that this kind of emotion is no longer possible are very wrong about their conceptions.

Art has followed a path that made of the spectator the central factor. However he is still the little sheep lost in the open field looking for someone to lead him. I also don’t support the idea of recovering the time as a lost memory, however I don’t think that still exist in the days we live in. throughout times we were constantly overwhelmed by theories that had the intention of being an explosion of senses as well the lack of them! The history is not linear and the creators know that fact perfectly and that is why there are still creators otherwise they would be eliminated due to its flawless irrelevance. This is why the spectator is constantly vomiting what he is given incessantly. Maybe we are now facing a necessity but what king of necessity is this one that seems to be common to every creator and even the spectator. Therefore exists a mutual necessity that can be pictured as the negative and the positive of the photography terminology. So even though they have similar needs they don’t seem to have any success in accomplishing anything because they are constantly refusing each one so that they have their own attention instead of being overshadowed by the other!

This situation can be understood as a game that has as main rule to achieve supremacy in relation to the other. Despite these facts, we have to have in consideration that the spectator doesn’t have any word to say in this game. Its presence is itself enough to intimidate the artist! Therefore the artist is the only one that tries to create this game to win or lose it, according to its needs! What turns the game a bit confusing is the fact that someone doesn’t let the spectator enter the game but creates it from him! However the situation that we are facing is good because if the spectator would enter in the game we wouldn’t have art but instead television debates between two individuals discussion nothing relevant but still would be regarded as something extraordinary! What I want to say is that the artist doesn’t want to integrate the spectator but use it. (So far so good), But we have to remember that the spectator is not any idiot to let someone use Him/her because he wants! (He likes to feel dominated by an individual that doesn’t know!). Once again my intuition as creator is to realize that I am working with someone that doesn’t know most of what I am saying so is better to make him a picture to make him aware that we are in different beaches of the same ocean.  (Who is the one that has more influence upon the other?) I would say that is you as reader! (Different elements that come to complicate the equation don’t stop showing up, what disturbs its conclusion, but in the end no one anymore wants to see the result because we already know it) …  

Publicized by Pedro Lopes em 4/19/2009 06:53:00 pm
labels:

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)