Say that you are presented with two forms. The first form is a sculpture of a woman. It has fairly correct proportions with flowers decorating the hair and intricate details that awe’s the viewer. The second piece is a canvas patterned with paint globs, small pieces of trash, and snail shells. The person who hands you these pieces tells you that they are both fabulous works of art. Most people would think the person was either joking or had lost their mind. Both these pieces are however considered art nowadays. It is the way they were made and the intent of the artist that makes them so different. This new kind of art that creates all sorts of odd pieces is called process art and is mostly about the making of the piece, not particularly what you end up with. Process art has become a big deal in art because it engages the viewer. The viewer can be included in many ways with process art because there are so many different types. Different types of process art can include making a statement, instilling a piece with meaning by using keepsakes, continuous repetition of a form, meticulous and time consuming procedures, involving others in the actual making, and plenty more. As long as the piece makes the observer see not just the end product but also the way the piece was made and possibly the feeling put into the piece it can be categorized and process art. There are many good points about process art and many bad ones. These can change a lot depending on who you are talking to. Process art is fun for some viewers because they like to feel included in the making. It also started a whole new art movement that made the US more of a part of the artistic community throughout the world. A pro about process art that I really believe in is that since it puts an artistic spin on the making of certain things maybe it will leak over into the architecture and world around us making the US more beautiful and interesting to look at. Some process art can be made very fast unlike masterful artistic pieces so it would be plausible to use it in the structuring of cities. Earlier I said that the pros and cons of process art will differ depending on who you are asking so I am sure that many people will disagree with my feelings on the cons of process art. Process art in my mind is more of a personal activity than something that should be considered a great work of art. The process art pieces I do like usually have an end product that looks beautiful or interesting, and that shows the artist obviously has skill. So a con of process art is that a large amount of it I do not consider art. Other cons about process art are that it takes up space in museums, and that the artist puts in a lot of effort for something that might not look pretty at all. This can also be a pro because it widens the amount of people who can be successful artists to include some who can’t make a great work of art. Art that is not process art also has pro’s and cons albeit very different ones. Pros include the amount of practice and skill an artist can gain from learning to paint, draw, or sculpt. The end piece is a show of the artist’s skill and to someone who doesn’t do art the process is a mystery that can never be figured out. Each piece is also meant to look a certain way, evoke certain emotions, and add to the beauty of a room. Some cons of this art are that since people who aren’t artists don’t understand the way it was created they can’t relate to it and won’t get as involved. Pictures and such are also not the most exciting thing to look at and can’t be touched or interacted with. Process art includes so many different types of art because a process in an art piece can be done in so many different ways. People’s opinions on what art really is also effect whether or not process art is considered art. Its meaning can also change with each viewer so perhaps the finished piece is just something to stimulate thoughts. No matter what, this new way making art is definitely beneficial to the creator if not others because it gives them something to care about and express themselves through.
Process to Product The relationship between artist and material, the translation from idea to object, is one that can create an intimate bond between the artist and their work. The process of creating, at times, goes unnoticed by audiences and critics. Hours of time, energy, and labor might be spent creating a sculpture that, when finished, looks effortlessly built. While viewers may gaze upon the sculpture to recognize the conceptuality, formal beauty, and visual pleasure that they receive from it, they may never know of the time and moments that went into the creation. Like a seductive affair, the relationship between artist and work can be one of complete secrecy; leaving outside viewers blindly unaware of the intimate relationship that was once alive. So, what happens when the act of creation, the process of production, becomes the central element within a sculpture? Working on a process sculpture, almost every element within creation appears to change. Artistic language, relationship with the material, conceptual frame of mind, and plans for final presentation can completely change when creating process oriented artwork. The mental shift that process art causes for both the audience and artist is one of undeniable importance. Process artwork is the physical product of an act. One could also say that process artwork is a representation of human interaction with material. It is not artwork where the act of creation remains hidden behind smoke and mirrors and the product stands alone to be gazed at, but it is the physical representation of time spent executing an act. Be it Janine Antoni’s perpetual gnawing at blocks of lard and chocolate, or Richard Serra’s ability to make steal bend like spaghetti, process art is the product of an interaction between artist and object. With that in mind, one must explore the drastic change in dialogue that process art creates, both between audience and artist, as well as artist and artwork. Art can be considered a visual means to communicate a concept, a physical offspring of the artist, but when the product comes second to the process how does the dialogue change? One key way that the dialogue can change is in the importance of the formal elements of the final work. Consider the process artwork by Janine Antoni titled Gnawed. Gnawed is a multi-dimensional sculpture consisting of one 600lb block of chocolate and one 600lb block of lard that were set up in a gallery for the audience to view through a glass wall. After gallery hours were over, Antoni would gnaw away at both blocks, but when gallery hours occurred the blocks would remain stagnant. From the chunks of lard and chocolate that she gnawed away, 130 lipsticks were made, from the lard, and 27 heart shaped candy boxes were made, from the chocolate. What remains within the gallery that Gnawed occurred is devoid of advanced formal skill. The gnawed blocks do contain texture, but formalism is not the priority of Antoni’s work. Like a meal half finished, the blocks represent the act of biting and the memory of Antoni’s presence, not the formal skill of sculpture. This begs the question, within process work does formal advancement sometimes get pushed aside? Another aspect of process work that creates analytical tension is the question of how and where to display the work. If Antoni’s work was all about the act of gnawing and remaking the material into objects, then what’s left after her time with the material is nothing more then the discarded remains of the act. The preservation and display of the work removes it from its process and therefore isolates it into stagnation. Once the artist is finished with the process should the artwork live on, or can it only live as long as the process continues? The work is so dependent on the artists, and the act, that it seems disjunctive and contradictory to preserve such active living work. However, one must then look at artists such as Richard Serra. Richard Serra’s work, process driven, can stand alone without the knowledge of process. Found in a gallery or a museum, any visitor could pass through a Serra work and appreciate the visceral environment without any knowledge of process. Perhaps Serra should not be considered a true process artist, because his work can be fully appreciated without any understanding of process. It is a very loaded act to display process work because by displaying it one is removing it from the process. The work becomes a preserved memory of an act once it is displayed. Yet one questions if the memory, the visual remains, serves as an important physical means of re-living the process, or if it is simply contradictory to freeze process in time. Another interesting element that can define process art unlike any other form of art is time. Looking at Cai Guo-Qiang, time completely dictates his work. Working with fireworks and gunpowder his artwork is completely time based. Where the Mona Lisa will stand forever, hung in a museum, for perpetual revising and digestion, Cai Guo-Qiang’s firework displays last minuets, and can never truly be experienced again. To watch a fireworks display, or to witness the gunpowder activation, of a Guo-Qiang artwork is a time based experience. His work is about the moment, and while a picture of it can be taken, that moment can never truly be preserved or revisited. The time based experience of process artwork could mean that some process artwork could be considered exclusive. If I can never make it to a Guo-Qiang fireworks show will I ever be able to fully comprehend the work? If I never witnessed the daily change in size and shape of Antoni’s blocks will I ever be able to comprehend the process of gnawing? Process art has a life, and when that life is over can those who did not interact with it ever fully digest the work, or are they simply experiencing the leftovers? On the other hand, process artwork provides a sense of reality and solidity to our technology based world. In a time when every art image can be found on the internet, videos can be shared across the world, and people miles apart from each other can instantly talk, perhaps process art provides a grounded sense of reality. If process art has a life, an expiration date, then it serves as a reminder that not everything is at our finger tips to experience when we please. Perhaps the main point of contemplation when discussing process art is: should art that is centered around an act, art that is active, be displayed in a gallery once that act is over? To create process art is to remove the smoke and mirrors from sculpting. The elements of construction, the actions that make the work, are all integrated into the conceptual presentation of the work. With this shift from object to act comes a shift in how the art communicates to the audience. Issues with display, time, audience and artist interaction all change when an artwork is process oriented. Process art provides a means to create a direct umbilical cord from artist to audience by replacing the art object with an act.
When thinking about process, I think of the work involved in getting to an end result. Naturally, we go through various process' throughout the day, whether they are domestic, or work and school related; we have certain routines and ways we work towards a finished goal. In art making, process comes in many forms. With the artists we have been studying, where process becomes the work, there is a fine line that the artist draws between that process and the finished piece. I find that process becomes a integral part of the finished pieces, because I feel that is were the idea truly lies.
Process becomes the act of exploration. As artists, we are on a constant journey of exploration, which becomes the process by which we are able to create finished works. With an artist such as Richard Serra, as he developed his ideas about the materiality and physicality of steel, he is involved in the process of exploring multiple ideas, and ideas that have steadily built upon each other. Though his process seems hidden by the sometimes subtle gestures that his work is making, the involvement of the amount of time it takes to make his pieces, and the engineering that takes place to bend steel as he does is staggering.
After reading a book on Vito Acconci, I started thinking about art in a different way, that heavily focus on process. In many of his works, he begins with an almost poetic idea. That idea is then translated into interactive and performance based works. These works cause the viewers, or Acconci's own actions to become a process by which the work is made. He goes through the process of acts where he assigns himself a set dialog within himself and the work that he follows. The physical work is the process of acting out these ideas, and the final product is your conclusions that you draw from the end of the piece.
By thinking about how he works, I have become more interested in working out situations in the world that either I or the viewer interacts with to stimulate a reaction. My process thus becomes an integral part of the piece because the end work becomes a indicator of the events that lead to that end point. When thinking about this in terms of this project, my idea is that I will take a down tree, and replant it upside down. When you are viewing the piece, you will not see me interacting with the tree, just the finished piece in the ground. However, what comes into question, and what becomes most interesting to me, is for the viewer to question the process of how the tree got there and why it might be upside down.
By questioning the work, the viewer investigates the process by which the tree was harvested, and replanted, taking it though a new life cycle. Through this, the viewer is hopefully able to uncover the process and realize that many of the intentions of the work are uncovering the process by which the tree got there, which will then open up further questions of final product.
It requires a lot of the viewer to go through the process of exploration in a piece of artwork, because so much of us simply wants to view artwork for its visual aesthetic. However, I think there needs to be a balance between process and the visual component of a work. I believe the work is very strong when there is something that captures your attention at first by its visual, whether that it is questioning how it was made, or simply finding the work beautiful. But I think that successful work is able to take that initial draw, and use it to bring the viewer into the world of the process, and work towards a more realized understanding of the work, rather than just an initial reaction. That requires of the artist to leave enough visual clues for the viewer to work towards a more enlightened end reaction.
Analysis – Process Artwork The denotation of a group of art called “process” says, first of all, something of the nature of art as a whole. Art – allegedly the purest form of expression – seems that it can completely lose sense of its nature as expression. To complete an action understood as art does not make it artistic. Art as a term can drift away from its ideal meaning. It is an action that culture has attempted to define to a point, whittling away its broad arms of possibility in effort to master it. Art defined lies in tension between conceived notions of what has been and what it could be. I imagine that those who coined the term “process art” were making a claim as to the tradition of art along with indicating what they felt was most prominent in their work. Art, to them, had shown itself to stray away from the making itself, and be reduced to a formula. Simply painting and simply sculpting as the masters had done was a limited notion of art. To create process artwork, for these artists, is to be principally concerned with the creation itself, rather than the result. From this perspective, I think work that is process-central has a greater tendency to stray from artistic tradition. To say that you are more concerned with the creation of the art has no bearing on what kind of final product emerges, yet it does seem to say that much artwork does not share this concern. Much of this artwork does not seek to leave any final artifact at all. Joseph Beuys’ “Explaining Pictures to a Dead Hare” is only remembered through its photographs, almost innocuously, along with Ana Mendieta’s “Siluetas,” which are somewhat staged for the photograph, but clearly more concerned with the physical contact occurring between the artist and the objects. Other kinds of process work result in work far beyond the scope of traditional artwork. Jackie Winsor’s work displays a near-obsessive interest in her objects, with many natural earth works that quickly attain monolithic size. Tara Donovan’s microscopic focus allows her to erect massive worlds of tape, pencils, glass, and straws. Work from these ladies demands the extended gaze of their audience. So it is seen that works identified in this vein cross the spectrum of artwork-as-object, yet all are concerned with the experience of the creation. This intensity of experience may or may not translate onto the audience, but I think that if it does the potential for impact is far greater than that of other types of work. With this submergence into the interest of artists-as-individuals, either alienation or accord is found. An audience member who works on the assembly line seeing “Indigo Blue” will have a greater reaction than might a rural American. A 60’s hippie will likely feel a kindred spirit with Mendieta. But I think that in an age where art is growing more sensational and technology driven, the impact of such earth work is diffused. Every artistic paradigm falls into and out of “style,” and it seems that the individuals within those paradigms, in process work especially, are at a higher risk of either greater relevancy or greater estrangement from audiences into the future. As I’ve noticed, the artworks that are concerned with process are singularly unique, and impossible to replicate. Since the works are grounded in the moment of conception, that moment isn’t transferrable anywhere else. The moment of the artwork is static, responding to a unique set of conditions that aren’t reproducible. This can be true of most any art, but is particular to process work. Joseph Beuy’s Actions appeared and disappeared, and his work derived from theories on social sculpture emerged to meet a particular need for the community. Other artists must say that they respond to their work and their situations, yet process work doesn’t seek to launch from that position. It remains in that responsive stage until, and in that way really doesn’t have a defined end. The edges of its frames are a result of the need to end, rather than to have an end. As I have begun to work in this process-centered aesthetic, the artwork has become very personally centered. I am not as concerned with the process of making the art as I am with my own reaction to that process. I am tempted become extremely sensitive and reactive. I strike out after possibilities to sense something new in the objects I interact with. The work ends when that exploration has ended. Process work postures art as a state of being rather than an action once performed. It begins and ends as every action must, but is symptom of a consuming, persisting desire to explore. It resigns the artist as supreme, and relinquishes control to the object interacted with. The artist is guided along a line of inquiry. I believe process work shows much more evidence of that interest. The keen and inquisitive eye of the artist is itself magnified in the works.
To begin with, I sketched. I have found in the past year of art-making that the page is the best forum for my ideas to initially voice themselves. As it came to making process based work, I knew that the page could only serve to voice, and no further.
The subject that I first imagined I would want to work with is what I stuck to: the earth. I wanted to use soil as a sculpting tool. Knowing I wanted to work with earth, I began to consider what ways were feasible for manipulating earth, and knew I would need other materials. I thought, perhaps, I could freeze earth and stretch it slowly out of the ground, but this was too delicate and timely a process. Finally I settled on working with the dirt under and around a tree. I think that this dirt is special because it is seen in direct correlation to the health of the tree. In the Bible there is a parable told by Jesus on various types of ground, and the suitability of those grounds to grow plants in: hard soil, soil over rocks, shallow soil, and fertile soil. I read this during the time we planned the project, and knew I was interested in this relationship between earth and tree.
In the project I focused with the individual’s engagement with the soil. I started out digging around the tree with a shovel and pickaxe, yet quickly stopped this because I saw how these tools indiscriminately destroyed everything they were set to. If I wanted to truly engage with the intertwining of these objects – soil and roots – then I would need to use a discriminate tool, such as my own hands. I was excited to work this way, because what drew me to artists such as Ana Mendieta and Joseph Beuys was their non-typical tool use. Mendieta used her hands, and Beuys really didn’t often have a standard tool. Both inserted their bodies into their work, and I did the same with my work. With my fingers only, I had to scrape dirt away at the surface level. I could not pierce the ground. Touching every level of the dirt was almost like peeling back pages of a book; it involved time, study, and discretion as to how much pressure to apply to each pull so as to not upset the delicate root system. I was shocked at how difficult it was. Penetrating more than 6 inches required a full body effort. I distained this demand, but grew to accept it as a proper to my process.
After several hours at this labor, I stepped back from my work and realized how little the area was that I had excavated. Stepping closer and gazing into my tenderly dug pit, however, proved its uniqueness. Nowhere else will you see such a hole, where roots are allowed to remain, extending into air where they used to feed from the soil. The hole I dug, when completed, stretched in a 2 ½ feet radius around the tree. After getting to this point I returned to all the major roots and attempted to clear away as much dirt as possible, in order to reveal as much of the roots as I could. Digging on my hands and knees made me consider the significance of my gesture, just as Mendieta’s gesture in “Body Tracks.” I was bowing to the tree, as in worship. I observed all the little roots spreading out from the larger ones, mimicking their shape. These roots worked together to feed the large body of the tree, much like members of a church. Acting as one of these members, I took the dirt that I had gathered from my excavation and laid it atop the tree. Religious followers often build sacred places, where they offer imprecations to their deities. Digging up the dirt was a sort of negative sculpture, where I was simply exposing something that was already there. Creating this mass of dirt at the branching point on the trunk was my way of contributing to what was already there, in much the same way people feel they need to add to nature and lay their mark on it. After I finished this construction, I took the remaining dirt and placed it in piles around the pit. I considered these mounds as columns, which grew to be an important architectural mark for early churches. Cathedrals were the largest structures in any city, and their columns were necessary to support the greater structure. Yet in my work they are simply marks of an invisible structure, demarcating the sacred space.
I believe the weakness in my work is the perspectival leap that it demands. Looking at the scene I have created, there is a chance one will not understand the process that went into making it. It is a relatively small assemblage for the amount of time that went into creating it. This work would be more effective if it was at a complete removal from any trace of civilization, because the human hand would be magnified. In the context of the surrounding development, it is made inferior. But if one is to remove it from the surrounding context, I believe it carries strong impact.
Process based art is highly conceptual and can be defined through Richard Serra’s Verb List. Acknowledging the process of creation in all its stages become more of the focus than the finished product. Jackson Pollock’s series of drip art are excellent examples of this. They may seem as though an unskilled individual could have done them, but the art and thought involved in the piece is far more impressive than just paint splattered on a canvas. When one views the pieces, they cannot help but think about how the piece was created. Especially if they are being critical of the piece, they are noticing the strokes, line, color, and dripped paint that went into the creation, whether or not they are overtly weighing these aspects. Beyond the paint and canvas, the process artist may consider the fact that Pollack stretched the canvas, and hung it up, and lit the piece at a show art. This was an act of defiance, and retaliation against the previous generations of art. Roth in Understanding Architecture puts this action best, saying that “each generation thus rejects its fathers and…tends to think of the work of the previous generation as barbaric”(page 89). By being a process artist, or when creating process art, one goes beyond merely making an image, the experience of the piece and the feeling that one gets when they encounter it is monumental to its conceptual success. Non-process art is usually self explanatory, and the narrative in the piece may exist separate from the rest of the world, the viewer will probably read them the same way. This type of art can take place in a vacuum and may read the same way as it would in a gallery. Process art more often must be considered contextually, in its physical placement, in terms of materials, and in terms of time. That is not to say that other forms of sculpture do not do the same thing to the viewer as process art, but while Michelangelo’s David may be impressive, both in scale and creation, the piece does not consider anything beyond the biblical story and itself. One may be able to get a full read of a non-process piece, like David by seeing a series of pictures, but the pictures do not do anything to enhance the experience. Process art is much more impressive and the read can be much different when viewed in person. There is a lot lost in the translation between seeing a video of Nam Jun Paik’s Electric Superhighway and seeing it in person at the Smithsonian. Process pieces may only be able to be displayed in specific locations, based on size or concept. Richard Serra’s large metal pieces, like Charlie Brown need a huge area to be set up and to be experienced by the audience. The piece helps to frame the space around it, these are similar considerations as employed in architecture, but hoping that unlike most architecture, the piece will be dynamic and unique enough that the structure and the space around it will be consciously considered. In some piece such as Richard Serra’s Hand Catching Lead, the artist’s intent helps the audience to view the scene, and be beneficial to their fully understanding and appreciating the piece. A viewer may not think that a video of a hand attempting to catch falling lead is art, but once they realize that the piece focuses on this repeated practice, and understands that this is an often neglected reflex of ours as human beings, they may be able to appreciate the video as a work of art. One is not able to fully without understanding Pollack and art at the time, one is not able to fully comprehend the significance of this art. Process based art is a movement that has blurred lines of what is considered art versus craft, and changed the way that artists approach and relate to their pieces. Art used to be something that only the intelligent could do, painting during the Renaissance and the mixing of paint took a whole science, the form of expression is taken from its high pedestal and brought to the level where the regular person can understand and create it.
Roth, Leland M. "Understanding Architecture", 2007
Process Art Analysis
ReplyDeleteBy Kate Brown
Say that you are presented with two forms. The first form is a sculpture of a woman. It has fairly correct proportions with flowers decorating the hair and intricate details that awe’s the viewer. The second piece is a canvas patterned with paint globs, small pieces of trash, and snail shells. The person who hands you these pieces tells you that they are both fabulous works of art. Most people would think the person was either joking or had lost their mind. Both these pieces are however considered art nowadays. It is the way they were made and the intent of the artist that makes them so different. This new kind of art that creates all sorts of odd pieces is called process art and is mostly about the making of the piece, not particularly what you end up with.
Process art has become a big deal in art because it engages the viewer. The viewer can be included in many ways with process art because there are so many different types. Different types of process art can include making a statement, instilling a piece with meaning by using keepsakes, continuous repetition of a form, meticulous and time consuming procedures, involving others in the actual making, and plenty more. As long as the piece makes the observer see not just the end product but also the way the piece was made and possibly the feeling put into the piece it can be categorized and process art.
There are many good points about process art and many bad ones. These can change a lot depending on who you are talking to. Process art is fun for some viewers because they like to feel included in the making. It also started a whole new art movement that made the US more of a part of the artistic community throughout the world. A pro about process art that I really believe in is that since it puts an artistic spin on the making of certain things maybe it will leak over into the architecture and world around us making the US more beautiful and interesting to look at. Some process art can be made very fast unlike masterful artistic pieces so it would be plausible to use it in the structuring of cities.
Earlier I said that the pros and cons of process art will differ depending on who you are asking so I am sure that many people will disagree with my feelings on the cons of process art. Process art in my mind is more of a personal activity than something that should be considered a great work of art. The process art pieces I do like usually have an end product that looks beautiful or interesting, and that shows the artist obviously has skill. So a con of process art is that a large amount of it I do not consider art. Other cons about process art are that it takes up space in museums, and that the artist puts in a lot of effort for something that might not look pretty at all. This can also be a pro because it widens the amount of people who can be successful artists to include some who can’t make a great work of art.
Art that is not process art also has pro’s and cons albeit very different ones. Pros include the amount of practice and skill an artist can gain from learning to paint, draw, or sculpt. The end piece is a show of the artist’s skill and to someone who doesn’t do art the process is a mystery that can never be figured out. Each piece is also meant to look a certain way, evoke certain emotions, and add to the beauty of a room. Some cons of this art are that since people who aren’t artists don’t understand the way it was created they can’t relate to it and won’t get as involved. Pictures and such are also not the most exciting thing to look at and can’t be touched or interacted with.
Process art includes so many different types of art because a process in an art piece can be done in so many different ways. People’s opinions on what art really is also effect whether or not process art is considered art. Its meaning can also change with each viewer so perhaps the finished piece is just something to stimulate thoughts. No matter what, this new way making art is definitely beneficial to the creator if not others because it gives them something to care about and express themselves through.
Process to Product
ReplyDeleteThe relationship between artist and material, the translation from idea to object, is one that can create an intimate bond between the artist and their work. The process of creating, at times, goes unnoticed by audiences and critics. Hours of time, energy, and labor might be spent creating a sculpture that, when finished, looks effortlessly built. While viewers may gaze upon the sculpture to recognize the conceptuality, formal beauty, and visual pleasure that they receive from it, they may never know of the time and moments that went into the creation. Like a seductive affair, the relationship between artist and work can be one of complete secrecy; leaving outside viewers blindly unaware of the intimate relationship that was once alive. So, what happens when the act of creation, the process of production, becomes the central element within a sculpture? Working on a process sculpture, almost every element within creation appears to change. Artistic language, relationship with the material, conceptual frame of mind, and plans for final presentation can completely change when creating process oriented artwork. The mental shift that process art causes for both the audience and artist is one of undeniable importance.
Process artwork is the physical product of an act. One could also say that process artwork is a representation of human interaction with material. It is not artwork where the act of creation remains hidden behind smoke and mirrors and the product stands alone to be gazed at, but it is the physical representation of time spent executing an act. Be it Janine Antoni’s perpetual gnawing at blocks of lard and chocolate, or Richard Serra’s ability to make steal bend like spaghetti, process art is the product of an interaction between artist and object. With that in mind, one must explore the drastic change in dialogue that process art creates, both between audience and artist, as well as artist and artwork. Art can be considered a visual means to communicate a concept, a physical offspring of the artist, but when the product comes second to the process how does the dialogue change?
One key way that the dialogue can change is in the importance of the formal elements of the final work. Consider the process artwork by Janine Antoni titled Gnawed. Gnawed is a multi-dimensional sculpture consisting of one 600lb block of chocolate and one 600lb block of lard that were set up in a gallery for the audience to view through a glass wall. After gallery hours were over, Antoni would gnaw away at both blocks, but when gallery hours occurred the blocks would remain stagnant. From the chunks of lard and chocolate that she gnawed away, 130 lipsticks were made, from the lard, and 27 heart shaped candy boxes were made, from the chocolate. What remains within the gallery that Gnawed occurred is devoid of advanced formal skill. The gnawed blocks do contain texture, but formalism is not the priority of Antoni’s work. Like a meal half finished, the blocks represent the act of biting and the memory of Antoni’s presence, not the formal skill of sculpture. This begs the question, within process work does formal advancement sometimes get pushed aside?
Another aspect of process work that creates analytical tension is the question of how and where to display the work. If Antoni’s work was all about the act of gnawing and remaking the material into objects, then what’s left after her time with the material is nothing more then the discarded remains of the act. The preservation and display of the work removes it from its process and therefore isolates it into stagnation. Once the artist is finished with the process should the artwork live on, or can it only live as long as the process continues? The work is so dependent on the artists, and the act, that it seems disjunctive and contradictory to preserve such active living work. However, one must then look at artists such as Richard Serra. Richard Serra’s work, process driven, can stand alone without the knowledge of process. Found in a gallery or a museum, any visitor could pass through a Serra work and appreciate the visceral environment without any knowledge of process. Perhaps Serra should not be considered a true process artist, because his work can be fully appreciated without any understanding of process. It is a very loaded act to display process work because by displaying it one is removing it from the process. The work becomes a preserved memory of an act once it is displayed. Yet one questions if the memory, the visual remains, serves as an important physical means of re-living the process, or if it is simply contradictory to freeze process in time.
Another interesting element that can define process art unlike any other form of art is time. Looking at Cai Guo-Qiang, time completely dictates his work. Working with fireworks and gunpowder his artwork is completely time based. Where the Mona Lisa will stand forever, hung in a museum, for perpetual revising and digestion, Cai Guo-Qiang’s firework displays last minuets, and can never truly be experienced again. To watch a fireworks display, or to witness the gunpowder activation, of a Guo-Qiang artwork is a time based experience. His work is about the moment, and while a picture of it can be taken, that moment can never truly be preserved or revisited. The time based experience of process artwork could mean that some process artwork could be considered exclusive. If I can never make it to a Guo-Qiang fireworks show will I ever be able to fully comprehend the work? If I never witnessed the daily change in size and shape of Antoni’s blocks will I ever be able to comprehend the process of gnawing? Process art has a life, and when that life is over can those who did not interact with it ever fully digest the work, or are they simply experiencing the leftovers?
On the other hand, process artwork provides a sense of reality and solidity to our technology based world. In a time when every art image can be found on the internet, videos can be shared across the world, and people miles apart from each other can instantly talk, perhaps process art provides a grounded sense of reality. If process art has a life, an expiration date, then it serves as a reminder that not everything is at our finger tips to experience when we please. Perhaps the main point of contemplation when discussing process art is: should art that is centered around an act, art that is active, be displayed in a gallery once that act is over?
To create process art is to remove the smoke and mirrors from sculpting. The elements of construction, the actions that make the work, are all integrated into the conceptual presentation of the work. With this shift from object to act comes a shift in how the art communicates to the audience. Issues with display, time, audience and artist interaction all change when an artwork is process oriented. Process art provides a means to create a direct umbilical cord from artist to audience by replacing the art object with an act.
Analysis of Process
ReplyDeleteWhen thinking about process, I think of the work involved in getting to an end result. Naturally, we go through various process' throughout the day, whether they are domestic, or work and school related; we have certain routines and ways we work towards a finished goal. In art making, process comes in many forms. With the artists we have been studying, where process becomes the work, there is a fine line that the artist draws between that process and the finished piece. I find that process becomes a integral part of the finished pieces, because I feel that is were the idea truly lies.
Process becomes the act of exploration. As artists, we are on a constant journey of exploration, which becomes the process by which we are able to create finished works. With an artist such as Richard Serra, as he developed his ideas about the materiality and physicality of steel, he is involved in the process of exploring multiple ideas, and ideas that have steadily built upon each other. Though his process seems hidden by the sometimes subtle gestures that his work is making, the involvement of the amount of time it takes to make his pieces, and the engineering that takes place to bend steel as he does is staggering.
After reading a book on Vito Acconci, I started thinking about art in a different way, that heavily focus on process. In many of his works, he begins with an almost poetic idea. That idea is then translated into interactive and performance based works. These works cause the viewers, or Acconci's own actions to become a process by which the work is made. He goes through the process of acts where he assigns himself a set dialog within himself and the work that he follows. The physical work is the process of acting out these ideas, and the final product is your conclusions that you draw from the end of the piece.
By thinking about how he works, I have become more interested in working out situations in the world that either I or the viewer interacts with to stimulate a reaction. My process thus becomes an integral part of the piece because the end work becomes a indicator of the events that lead to that end point. When thinking about this in terms of this project, my idea is that I will take a down tree, and replant it upside down. When you are viewing the piece, you will not see me interacting with the tree, just the finished piece in the ground. However, what comes into question, and what becomes most interesting to me, is for the viewer to question the process of how the tree got there and why it might be upside down.
By questioning the work, the viewer investigates the process by which the tree was harvested, and replanted, taking it though a new life cycle. Through this, the viewer is hopefully able to uncover the process and realize that many of the intentions of the work are uncovering the process by which the tree got there, which will then open up further questions of final product.
It requires a lot of the viewer to go through the process of exploration in a piece of artwork, because so much of us simply wants to view artwork for its visual aesthetic. However, I think there needs to be a balance between process and the visual component of a work. I believe the work is very strong when there is something that captures your attention at first by its visual, whether that it is questioning how it was made, or simply finding the work beautiful. But I think that successful work is able to take that initial draw, and use it to bring the viewer into the world of the process, and work towards a more realized understanding of the work, rather than just an initial reaction. That requires of the artist to leave enough visual clues for the viewer to work towards a more enlightened end reaction.
Analysis – Process Artwork
ReplyDeleteThe denotation of a group of art called “process” says, first of all, something of the nature of art as a whole. Art – allegedly the purest form of expression – seems that it can completely lose sense of its nature as expression. To complete an action understood as art does not make it artistic. Art as a term can drift away from its ideal meaning. It is an action that culture has attempted to define to a point, whittling away its broad arms of possibility in effort to master it. Art defined lies in tension between conceived notions of what has been and what it could be. I imagine that those who coined the term “process art” were making a claim as to the tradition of art along with indicating what they felt was most prominent in their work. Art, to them, had shown itself to stray away from the making itself, and be reduced to a formula. Simply painting and simply sculpting as the masters had done was a limited notion of art. To create process artwork, for these artists, is to be principally concerned with the creation itself, rather than the result.
From this perspective, I think work that is process-central has a greater tendency to stray from artistic tradition. To say that you are more concerned with the creation of the art has no bearing on what kind of final product emerges, yet it does seem to say that much artwork does not share this concern. Much of this artwork does not seek to leave any final artifact at all. Joseph Beuys’ “Explaining Pictures to a Dead Hare” is only remembered through its photographs, almost innocuously, along with Ana Mendieta’s “Siluetas,” which are somewhat staged for the photograph, but clearly more concerned with the physical contact occurring between the artist and the objects. Other kinds of process work result in work far beyond the scope of traditional artwork. Jackie Winsor’s work displays a near-obsessive interest in her objects, with many natural earth works that quickly attain monolithic size. Tara Donovan’s microscopic focus allows her to erect massive worlds of tape, pencils, glass, and straws. Work from these ladies demands the extended gaze of their audience.
So it is seen that works identified in this vein cross the spectrum of artwork-as-object, yet all are concerned with the experience of the creation. This intensity of experience may or may not translate onto the audience, but I think that if it does the potential for impact is far greater than that of other types of work. With this submergence into the interest of artists-as-individuals, either alienation or accord is found. An audience member who works on the assembly line seeing “Indigo Blue” will have a greater reaction than might a rural American. A 60’s hippie will likely feel a kindred spirit with Mendieta. But I think that in an age where art is growing more sensational and technology driven, the impact of such earth work is diffused. Every artistic paradigm falls into and out of “style,” and it seems that the individuals within those paradigms, in process work especially, are at a higher risk of either greater relevancy or greater estrangement from audiences into the future.
As I’ve noticed, the artworks that are concerned with process are singularly unique, and impossible to replicate. Since the works are grounded in the moment of conception, that moment isn’t transferrable anywhere else. The moment of the artwork is static, responding to a unique set of conditions that aren’t reproducible. This can be true of most any art, but is particular to process work. Joseph Beuy’s Actions appeared and disappeared, and his work derived from theories on social sculpture emerged to meet a particular need for the community. Other artists must say that they respond to their work and their situations, yet process work doesn’t seek to launch from that position. It remains in that responsive stage until, and in that way really doesn’t have a defined end. The edges of its frames are a result of the need to end, rather than to have an end.
As I have begun to work in this process-centered aesthetic, the artwork has become very personally centered. I am not as concerned with the process of making the art as I am with my own reaction to that process. I am tempted become extremely sensitive and reactive. I strike out after possibilities to sense something new in the objects I interact with. The work ends when that exploration has ended.
Process work postures art as a state of being rather than an action once performed. It begins and ends as every action must, but is symptom of a consuming, persisting desire to explore. It resigns the artist as supreme, and relinquishes control to the object interacted with. The artist is guided along a line of inquiry. I believe process work shows much more evidence of that interest. The keen and inquisitive eye of the artist is itself magnified in the works.
Intention Statement – Process Artwork – “Temple”
ReplyDeleteTo begin with, I sketched. I have found in the past year of art-making that the page is the best forum for my ideas to initially voice themselves. As it came to making process based work, I knew that the page could only serve to voice, and no further.
The subject that I first imagined I would want to work with is what I stuck to: the earth. I wanted to use soil as a sculpting tool. Knowing I wanted to work with earth, I began to consider what ways were feasible for manipulating earth, and knew I would need other materials. I thought, perhaps, I could freeze earth and stretch it slowly out of the ground, but this was too delicate and timely a process. Finally I settled on working with the dirt under and around a tree. I think that this dirt is special because it is seen in direct correlation to the health of the tree. In the Bible there is a parable told by Jesus on various types of ground, and the suitability of those grounds to grow plants in: hard soil, soil over rocks, shallow soil, and fertile soil. I read this during the time we planned the project, and knew I was interested in this relationship between earth and tree.
In the project I focused with the individual’s engagement with the soil. I started out digging around the tree with a shovel and pickaxe, yet quickly stopped this because I saw how these tools indiscriminately destroyed everything they were set to. If I wanted to truly engage with the intertwining of these objects – soil and roots – then I would need to use a discriminate tool, such as my own hands. I was excited to work this way, because what drew me to artists such as Ana Mendieta and Joseph Beuys was their non-typical tool use. Mendieta used her hands, and Beuys really didn’t often have a standard tool. Both inserted their bodies into their work, and I did the same with my work. With my fingers only, I had to scrape dirt away at the surface level. I could not pierce the ground. Touching every level of the dirt was almost like peeling back pages of a book; it involved time, study, and discretion as to how much pressure to apply to each pull so as to not upset the delicate root system. I was shocked at how difficult it was. Penetrating more than 6 inches required a full body effort. I distained this demand, but grew to accept it as a proper to my process.
After several hours at this labor, I stepped back from my work and realized how little the area was that I had excavated. Stepping closer and gazing into my tenderly dug pit, however, proved its uniqueness. Nowhere else will you see such a hole, where roots are allowed to remain, extending into air where they used to feed from the soil. The hole I dug, when completed, stretched in a 2 ½ feet radius around the tree. After getting to this point I returned to all the major roots and attempted to clear away as much dirt as possible, in order to reveal as much of the roots as I could. Digging on my hands and knees made me consider the significance of my gesture, just as Mendieta’s gesture in “Body Tracks.” I was bowing to the tree, as in worship. I observed all the little roots spreading out from the larger ones, mimicking their shape. These roots worked together to feed the large body of the tree, much like members of a church. Acting as one of these members, I took the dirt that I had gathered from my excavation and laid it atop the tree. Religious followers often build sacred places, where they offer imprecations to their deities. Digging up the dirt was a sort of negative sculpture, where I was simply exposing something that was already there. Creating this mass of dirt at the branching point on the trunk was my way of contributing to what was already there, in much the same way people feel they need to add to nature and lay their mark on it. After I finished this construction, I took the remaining dirt and placed it in piles around the pit. I considered these mounds as columns, which grew to be an important architectural mark for early churches. Cathedrals were the largest structures in any city, and their columns were necessary to support the greater structure. Yet in my work they are simply marks of an invisible structure, demarcating the sacred space.
I believe the weakness in my work is the perspectival leap that it demands. Looking at the scene I have created, there is a chance one will not understand the process that went into making it. It is a relatively small assemblage for the amount of time that went into creating it. This work would be more effective if it was at a complete removal from any trace of civilization, because the human hand would be magnified. In the context of the surrounding development, it is made inferior. But if one is to remove it from the surrounding context, I believe it carries strong impact.
Project 1- Process Art Analysis
ReplyDeleteProcess based art is highly conceptual and can be defined through Richard Serra’s Verb List. Acknowledging the process of creation in all its stages become more of the focus than the finished product. Jackson Pollock’s series of drip art are excellent examples of this. They may seem as though an unskilled individual could have done them, but the art and thought involved in the piece is far more impressive than just paint splattered on a canvas. When one views the pieces, they cannot help but think about how the piece was created. Especially if they are being critical of the piece, they are noticing the strokes, line, color, and dripped paint that went into the creation, whether or not they are overtly weighing these aspects. Beyond the paint and canvas, the process artist may consider the fact that Pollack stretched the canvas, and hung it up, and lit the piece at a show art. This was an act of defiance, and retaliation against the previous generations of art. Roth in Understanding Architecture puts this action best, saying that “each generation thus rejects its fathers and…tends to think of the work of the previous generation as barbaric”(page 89).
By being a process artist, or when creating process art, one goes beyond merely making an image, the experience of the piece and the feeling that one gets when they encounter it is monumental to its conceptual success. Non-process art is usually self explanatory, and the narrative in the piece may exist separate from the rest of the world, the viewer will probably read them the same way. This type of art can take place in a vacuum and may read the same way as it would in a gallery. Process art more often must be considered contextually, in its physical placement, in terms of materials, and in terms of time. That is not to say that other forms of sculpture do not do the same thing to the viewer as process art, but while Michelangelo’s David may be impressive, both in scale and creation, the piece does not consider anything beyond the biblical story and itself.
One may be able to get a full read of a non-process piece, like David by seeing a series of pictures, but the pictures do not do anything to enhance the experience. Process art is much more impressive and the read can be much different when viewed in person. There is a lot lost in the translation between seeing a video of Nam Jun Paik’s Electric Superhighway and seeing it in person at the Smithsonian.
Process pieces may only be able to be displayed in specific locations, based on size or concept. Richard Serra’s large metal pieces, like Charlie Brown need a huge area to be set up and to be experienced by the audience. The piece helps to frame the space around it, these are similar considerations as employed in architecture, but hoping that unlike most architecture, the piece will be dynamic and unique enough that the structure and the space around it will be consciously considered.
In some piece such as Richard Serra’s Hand Catching Lead, the artist’s intent helps the audience to view the scene, and be beneficial to their fully understanding and appreciating the piece. A viewer may not think that a video of a hand attempting to catch falling lead is art, but once they realize that the piece focuses on this repeated practice, and understands that this is an often neglected reflex of ours as human beings, they may be able to appreciate the video as a work of art. One is not able to fully without understanding Pollack and art at the time, one is not able to fully comprehend the significance of this art. Process based art is a movement that has blurred lines of what is considered art versus craft, and changed the way that artists approach and relate to their pieces. Art used to be something that only the intelligent could do, painting during the Renaissance and the mixing of paint took a whole science, the form of expression is taken from its high pedestal and brought to the level where the regular person can understand and create it.
Roth, Leland M. "Understanding Architecture", 2007