Joy
Christensen
Position
Paper
Nov.
1, 2006
�So
Many Styrofoam Dots
In his essay The Origin of the work of Art
Martin Heidegger makes the statement that art lets truth originate. Applying
this statement to a personal experience, I recently found myself on a 10-foot
ladder suspended over a gallery, gluing colorful styrofoam balls into a corner with a glue stick. This
was the task assigned to me when I responded to the call for help installing
work for Tom Friedman at the
Tom Friedmans work traditionally involves
materials (besides what he collects from his own body), which could be
purchased at any convenience store. He chooses objects that everyone every day,
but tend not to over think, such as toothpaste, tin foil, soap, yarn, or even
dollar bills. The goal then becomes to remove these things from their intended
purpose and turn them into art by way of obsessive manipulation. The resulting
objects are surprising to viewers when they identify the original material; the
time and effort put into the manipulation of the material, and relate it to
their own use of that material in their own daily ritual. Heidegger is
immensely concerned with what he terms the thingliness
of an artwork. He also takes steps to segregate those things that serve as
equipment and those things which function as art. He says,
equipment shares
and affinity with the artwork insofar as it is something produced by the human
hand. However, by its self-sufficient presencing the
work of art is similar rather to the mere thing which has taken shape by itself
and is self-contained. Nevertheless, we do not count such works among mere
things. As a rule it is the use-objects around us that are the nearest and the
proper things. Thus the piece of equipment is half thing, because characterized
by thingliness, and yet it is something more: at the
same time it is half artwork and yet is something less, because lacking the
self-sufficiency of the artwork. Equipment has a peculiar position intermediate
between thing and work, assuming that such a calculated ordering of them is
permissible. (p. 154-155)
Since Friedmans art relies on the viewers
identification of his materials as things from a former life of use-objects,
Heideggers segregation becomes complicated. But Friedman removes the utility
from these objects and forces them to, as Heidegger would call it, loose their
equipmentality and serve an entirely different
purpose. So maybe the truth in Friedmans work actually relies on his
manipulation or working these materials; his work as creator.
Heidegger states, If
there is anything that distinguishes the work as work, it is that the work has
been created. (p. 181) and The workly character of
the work consists of it having been created by the artist. (p.183) Another question unanswered for me concerns the fabrication
of art works. Many artists do not fabricate their own work. It is common for an
artist custom order work from other sites, many times never actually
constructing a work in their own studio. In the case of the Friedman installation,
many interns like myself were used to accomplish the
time consuming gluing that was required. Thankfully Tom Friedman was present
for much of the installation, although, it would not have been outrageous for
him to send directions and/or an assistant to see that things were set up to
specifications. Locating the origin of the work of art seems much more
complicated the farther the artist is removed from the fabrication of the
artwork. While I was the one gluing the styrofoam to
the wall, it gave the construction of the artwork integrity to have Friedmans
own hand start off the progression, and know that he had himself done this many
times before.
The object in contemporary art is becoming
harder and harder to identify.Many artists are no
longer concerned with creating objects at all; instead the goal becomes
creating the conditions for an experience within the viewer. The production of
the work moves beyond the artist to the spectator, relying on their conception
to form the final content of the work. In the case of Friedmans work, this
takes the form of a playful discovery or surprise about how each work was
constructed. A seemingly simple object becomes newly perceived as the result of
obsessive craftsmanship, accomplished with household objects. The thing, be it
a toothpick, a piece of chewing gum, a cereal box, is taken out of its original
function and manipulated to the point of utter confusion. For this reason, I
would say that the origin of the work of art, which Heidegger desires to
pinpoint, very much rests within the viewer. Friedmans work especially relies
on the viewers impression. The work of intricately carving a bust into an
aspirin pill would be lost with no audience to appreciate it. So, I might be
tempted complain about my work in the gallery corner as mundane. Except, the
only other option for work is on the opposite gallery wall, which every other
student is busily working to completely cover with plain white styrofoam balls. Ill keep the
colored ones. Besides, for reasons still more confusing to me, I love the
results of this work. I am repeatedly looking down in wonder at this beautiful
row of colored dots, and not really being able to figure out when my
appreciation for this work appeared, or when I started to find it beautiful.
All quotes taken from:
Heidegger, Martin The Origin of the Work of
Art, from Basic Writings, Ed. David
(pp.141-203)
All images:
http://kemperartmuseum.wustl.edu/Friedman.html