Proposed project title

Practice Based Research	MaMMID
20^th November 2003	Darren Stevens
Supervisors: Steve Thompson & David Smith

Critical Analysis

Spectator image composition

ABSTRACT

This will basically consist of the whole paper reduced to a summary (to be completed).

New Chapters

Add comments to the minimalist history below

Interactive art

Critique of history

self-reflexive study

Methods problems

Proposal actual outcomes (what went wrong, how could it be improved, also what went right)

Chapter on my views of history (self-reflexive) – mention subjective catch 22

Aims of the project

(It is not the system itself that creates the artwork that concerns me at the moment, but the ability to show all or some of the images and how)

This research project intends to question certain areas of artistic subjectivity in regards to image selection and composition of artworks which are analogous to the Minimalist and Serial Artworks of the 1960s.

Within this research study there is an intention to question and conclude the nature of the artist own subjectivity in view to the ability for the removal or restriction of subjectivity for image selection or composition.

A precedent to the nature of subjective removal can be seen in earlier Minimalist Serial Art and through most notably Sol Lewitt contentions that ‘To work with a plan that is preset is one way of avoiding subjectivity.’[1] and ‘This eliminates the arbitrary, the capricious, and the subjective as much as possible.’[2] This study follows the earlier contentions within preset systems but centres upon decisions taken by the artist within the presentation stage in view to the controlling influence of image selection, or a ‘point of reference’.

Reductionism – remove myself subjectively

The ‘point of reference’ will be taken to be the interactivity against participation of the spectator or user, in this sense it is the user who is now set the task of image composition through either conscious or sub-conscious participation. It will be seen that the user now continues the aim of the artist, to remove any superfluity from the artwork, in this sense the artist himself.

Questions related to the nature of interactivity against participation within art are now raised as well as the nature of authorship and audience. This study also questions the continuation of the Reductionism evident in Minimalist art as well as Modernist theories[3] towards attaining the essence of a concept.

“…in the process of self-definition, an art form would tend toward the elimination of all elements that were not in keeping with its essential nature”[4]

The research study is a progression from previous research through modernist and minimalist reductionism towards a greater level of control or elaboration of elements inherent within the artwork. In this regard, elements from previous research that have been deemed to be superfluous (through attaining greater control of all elements) are restricted or removed entirely.

These areas of present concern may solve or restrict key elements or aspects of previous artworks but it is foreseen that new areas of concern will appear taking the work in unforeseen directions. It is within the encouraged restrictions placed on relevant aspects of the artwork that it is hoped a narrowing of the subject of observation will be achieved and hence closer to the essence of self sub-consciousness.

Brief overview of the proposed project

reduction – systems - interaction

Reductionism

This research project is in itself a continuous self-reflective study on the subjectivity of the artist, in view to composition and selection of image, and what is inherent or essential in an artwork.

“Minimalism’s apparent simplicity is the result of rigorous focusing, the elimination of distraction.”[5] (Tate, 1989, pp. 7)

This study follows a theory in accord with the American Minimalist Art movement and most notably Serial Art of Sol Lewitt (b 1928) of the 1960s in view to the inclusion of the Reductionist concept, where by the artist either reduced or removed conceptual or visual elements, for instance the arbitrary or aesthetics from the artwork, to allow the artist to fully explore their ideas[6]. In this sense Minimalism necessity is in the control of all or as many variables as possible that are essential to the art work, reducing the actual art object to a level of less self-importance[7], therefore revealing the heart, or base meaning of the art without distraction. Hence in accordance with this theory, this research study removes physical and theoretical elements that are deemed to be, in regards to the ability to base an element in theory, arbitrary or superfluous to the artwork, resulting in images of enhanced visual simplicity.

The reductive element is most noticeable in the form of the art object, which are composed of manufactured mass produced units, hence allowing for each element to be identical and of equal value within the art work[8]. THIS COULD BE EXPENDED In view to Sol Lewitt, the reduction to the cube format and its repetition within the same artwork allowed him to explore systematic and repetitive variations, which eventually lead to ‘Serial Art’[9].

The existence of reductive theory can be seen within aspects of both my previous work and current work, that is within the elements so far deemed to require reduction or restriction. The final result can be seen to be the culmination of the removal of non essential elements and the elaboration of essential elements implying the essence of the subjective idea.

In attempting to discovering the essence of the solution, it is now felt that the artist, in certain regards has become extraneous to the pursuit in view to the selection of which outcome to present, and so a level of reduction is imposed on the artist thereby removing the artist from this decision, hence the elaboration of a point of reference or decision maker.

In view to this research study the point of reference is neither wholly artificial nor separate from the spectator, but involves both through a means of real time image capture and spectator participation (who shall now be termed ‘users’). In this sense it is the user who decides on the image composition, or in a better view spatial relation, through either conscious or non-conscious participation. The user is now set the task on deciding the image to be viewed through their physical actions, therefore completing the aim of the artist, to remove any superfluity, in this sense the artist.

Pre-set Plans

This research also follows a secondary theme of Serial Art in the elaboration of pre-set plans or systems, the inclusion of such allows an artwork to imply a level, in regards to composition, of objectivity[10] within the artwork. This will be evident in the planning and development of the resultant artwork as well as within the final image which will imply the inclusion of a restricted plan or system hence illustrating both what is within and outside of the system.

‘There was always the idea of getting back to square one. For me, it just became a method to elaborate on. When I finally got to the simplest kind of thing – the cube or the solid cube… I naturally had to make elaborations…Everybody naturally reduces to what they think is the most pertinent thing and takes that and elaborates on that’[11] (Garrels, G., 2000, pp. 116)

Minimal or Reductive art is reduced to its bare minimum, but through reductionism comes the necessity to elaborate on or introduce elements that systematically order and unify[12] the composition or create a high degree of control, for this Reductive Artists used simple mathematics (number systems) or grids.

Here mathematics should not be thought of as the inclusion of complex mathematical theorems (mathematics per se) but viewed as simple number systems. For the level of mathematics incorporated by artists is based on either simple arithmetic or number systems[13]. In this sense it is more of a means to an end in order to clarify the unity of the composition, rather than to solve or portray complex mathematically concepts. Hanne Darboven stated following her work with mathematics and permutations that ‘…everything is based on numbers…Numbers in permutations, in progressive, symmetrical, and mathematical sequences…I find this fascinating, being pretty ignorant of mathematics’.[14] (Garrels, G., 2000, pp. 63). In this sense it is more of a means to an end in order to clarify the unity of the composition, rather than to solve or portray complex mathematically concepts, for even a simple set of rules can produce a high level of complexity.

‘…what was important was that viewers intuitively realized that something other than personal choice was operative’[15]. (Colpitt, F. J. 1997, pp. 64)

Perhaps the greatest reason for the inclusion of mathematics, was in the reduction of the artists own subjectivity[16], for once the mathematical plan is set, the work is created irrespective of the artist aesthetic and conceptual choice[17] while at the same time remaining grounded in the reality of external factors or existing facets of representation.[18] So in view to Lewitt’s permutation sequences, the necessity for personal[19] and compositional[20] decision making is removed.

‘Using complex basic forms only disrupts the unity of the whole. Using a simple form repeatedly narrows the field of the work and concentrates the intensity to the arrangement of the form. This arrangement becomes the end while the form becomes the means.’[21] (Lewitt. S, 1967, pp. 835)

In view to the inclusion of the grid within the artwork, the artist was now able to unify the picture plane through the creation of a system of identical and contiguous modules[22] and allows for order to be established out of the apparent chaos[23]. Hence allowing the standardised placement of units within a unifying whole and their relationship to one another within the artwork to be emphasised. THIS COULD BE EXPENDED, SEE FURTHER NOTES

Pre-set plans (for which mathematics is included) in this case has lead to an expansion of output from an idea or artwork, in that multiple solutions or possibilities are now available following from a pre-made system. This has hence lead to ideas analogous to Minimalism and in particular Serial Art, in that multiple images are now given as both solutions and the final artwork. The final artwork can now be either a representation of a complete collection of outputs in one image as with Sol Lewitt[24], or one of many objects related to the same system as with Donald Judd[25].

‘Some plans would require millions of variations, and some a limited number, but both are finite. Other plans imply infinity. In each case however, the artist would select the basic form and rules that would govern the solution of the problem.’[26]

Whether all permutations are illustrated within one artwork or through a series of artworks, the necessity to create or finish the complete plan illustrates the artists wishes that the works are not whole until they exhaust all known possible alternatives[27]. This is best illustrated through Lewitt’s ‘Variations on three different kinds of cubes’ which was initially thought to be finished or ‘whole’ in 1967 only to be found that certain permutations had been left out several years later. Upon this Lewitt completed the work in 1974.

In contrast to the presentation of all permutations, Lewitt has on occasion exhibited incomplete works derived from sequential plans, notably ‘Two open modular cubes/half-off’ 1972. In this Lewitt does not attempt to show all known permutations of a series but to illustrate ‘the most poignant (simple, basic, intelligible)’[28] (LEWIS, B. et al, 1989, pp. 19). In this case, Lewitt seeks to ‘…suggest, implies or points to the central idea of the whole series’[29] (Colpitt, F. J. 1997, pp. 64), which is the mathematical system underlying the work. Hence from this it is the seriality in itself which is both the generating force behind the piece[30] and the conceptual basis for the work itself. Instead of fully representing the full series, the work implies the concept of seriality. The object clarifies the idea.[31]

John Simon and his piece ‘Every Icon’ (1997) take the idea of representing all known alternative outcomes through a singular object a (large) step further. ‘Every Icon’ automatically generates every possible permutation of black and white squares on a 32*32 grid. In this case the artwork is a representation of all possible outcomes from a pre-set closed plan (there are a known limit to the amount of outcomes), though the time scale of the piece will range over hundreds of trillions of years before all possible image alternatives will have been generated. Whether an image at any one time is of any value to us at our present time is doubtful though this does offer the concept of images that move into and out of our consciousness both past, present and future which are recognisable and cultural value laden. But the fact remains that every possible outcome can be generated (though it probably never will due to it’s time length) from this establishment of rigorously defined parameters. What the above artwork demonstrates is that even through a simple set of predefined rules a high level of complexity can ensue.

What we now have here are three alternatives to the idea of serial or systems art, Sol Lewitt and present all in one piece at the same time, Donald Judd presenting all through several independent pieces and John Simon presenting all in a linear sequence, alternative after alternative, in one piece (the time element here being irrelevant). This research project postulates another approach to the idea of presenting all known alternatives, that being the user who decides consciously or sub-consciously which image to present through their interaction with the singular piece. All alternatives can be presented depending on the user’s interactions, though it is not the idea that all outcomes are presented but the ability for all outcomes to be presented through one piece that is the focus of this research. In this regard it is the singular outcome created by the user that this research project is investigating.

Interactivity

I will now discuss issues related to Interactive Art that I feel are relevant to this research project.

‘Each viewer will create a new and different work depending on their involvement, understanding, and transformation into a position of power.’[32]. (Molina, A, 1998, pp. 94)

Art now allows the active participation of the viewers in regulating the artwork[33] in the final presentational stage, hence the viewer is given a degree, or greater degree, of control in what they visually perceive in the art. In return the artist no longer creates autonomously but through a now radical shift begins to give up control of the work[34]. The potential of the interactive medium allows for the empowerment of the spectator as opposed to the artist[35], this therefore opens up a new role for the artist. ‘The viewer can now metaphorically cast a vote which influences the state of the piece at any given moment’[36]. (Molina, A, 1998, pp. 97) It is at this level that I conceive of the ongoing concept of the reduction of the artist and the promotion of the user in presenting or deciding upon the presentational image.

‘…where the locus of control is with the audience completely, the audience member or participant must make choices in order to see any performance at all. Without choices being made, the initial image will be all that the viewer sees.’[37] (Ascott, R. ed. 2000., pp. 2)

Through the use of technologies that allow for the creation of artworks which provide or allow expression through individual participation, an audience’s choice can help to shape or democratise the experience of the artwork, especially given that the artwork can be seen as incomplete without audience participation[38]. This is most important in relation to this research project, for without the active participation of the viewer, the artwork present a blank screen.

‘…the interactive artists designs a framework that contains the potential for the creative experience of the participant.’[39] (Ascott, R. ed. 2000., pp. 4)

What is inherent with interactive art is the increased responsibility of the viewer within the exhibition framework of the artwork. The viewer no longer reacts passively but actively as well, in some artworks, active participation is a requirement to see the art at all[40]. In cases like this, prior to viewers conscious choices, the only element of the artwork that existed was the artist prepared space or materials both containing the potential for the artwork[41] for at this point the artwork is awaiting the interaction of the viewer, as Sita Popat has contested, the ‘…art does not exist until that interaction takes place’[42] (Ascott, R. ed. 2000., pp. 2). In this method of art production the viewer, through conscious choices, is now involved with the creation of the artwork as well as it’s following conscious experiences.

Indeed it has been noted that the framework is only a means to an end and the ‘artwork develops by itself through the interaction of the visitors and the inherent evolutionary process of the work’[43]. The artist has now no longer complete control of the work, but has now given up control of the presentation of the final image, the public now bears the responsibility for what it sees[44].

‘…interaction is a case of freedom and limitation, of the personal and collective search for establishing and voluntarily accepting codes of behaviour.’[45] (Shanken. E. A. , 1997)

From the above, interactive art is seen to be a source of increased freedom to the viewer, but there are limits to this freedom for it is neither total nor absolute but through negotiation[46], a course of defining what and how the individual can interact with the work, the search for defining ‘…acceptable codes of behaviour’[47] (Shanken. E. A. , 1997). Interaction in this sense is through defined limitation where only such viewer actions can create a response from the artwork and acknowledged by the viewer as a correct method of interaction, random elements having been removed[48]. Unlimited possibilities having been removed, the interaction is through limitations, or defined possible outcomes, for through limitations meaning comes to the work, limitless being boundless[49].

‘…where reflection and individual involvement are permitted, the participant is empowered with a sense of ownership of the artwork, encourages understanding and appreciation.’[50] (Ascott, R. ed. 2000., pp. 1)

It is evident from this that the relationship between the viewer and the artist has now moved through a significant shift where the artist now creates the framework for the artwork, instead of the completed product, which contains the potential for the physical interaction and hence the creativity of the viewer. Both the artist and the viewer now have a greater understanding of each other through the medium, the artwork itself.

Whether or not such interactive works can be fully regarded as truly interactive in regards of a reciprocal behaviour between the artwork and the viewer or as participatory artworks, could be established from the final exhibition of the works and the public interaction/participation that occurs. Simply fulfilling the given – known by the artist - outcomes of an artwork may not be completely interactive but participatory, though unknown emergent behaviours by the viewers through the artwork can lead to a greater reciprocal interactive behaviour. In this sense it is the behaviour during exhibition that could determine whether a work is participatory or interactive.

Proposed methods UNDERTAKEN

The previous research project allowed me the use and hence gain experimental knowledge of video tracking, (camera tracks an object via a computer processor), and a level of computer processing that allowed for a limited degree of user enhanced computer image composition.

The research project did inevitably discover problems or flaws in the method of camera, computer usage and my own level of programming, but in view to the positive results gained did allow for the removal of the artist in the final stage of image composition (or outcome presentation). Image composition results were fleeting to say the least, but did lead to the idea of user enhanced 2D image composition.

It is therefore in this sense that the current research project will follow, hence the use of computer, image capturing software and computer processing to a final image will be the method of practice based research and final presentation, while a self reflexive and contextual study will be the theoretical written study.

Use of image capturing software through a web cam.

Image manipulation software.

Final image processing and output software.

It is hoped that all can be achieved through Director MX, or a composition of software.

Methods Outcomes

problems with the programmer

problems with the software being older version, nothing upto date at the moment

Possible outcomes of the project

It is hoped that the end product will be a computer based user interaction program (web cam, computer, image projection) where the artist creates a greater level of self redundancy within the image selection/compositional stage of the artwork, hence emphasising the use of systems in regards to both overall concept and user image compositing.

In view to the textural research outcome, the text will theorise on the self-reflexive methodology and contextualise both the minimalist or reductionist community and user interactive arts community.

It is also hoped that further elements will be found that could require reduction or greater constraints in order to remove nonessential elements within a work and as an end result the generated artwork will go some way to discovering the essential elements or concepts that are driving the creator.

Outcomes Achieved

What outcomes have come about from this research project?

Resources available / required for your project

Library (textural research)

Internet for secondary textural research

Internet for Lingo programming and Director software instructions

Director MX, wish to work in Os X

Web cam Director MX software (Xtras)

Web Cam

Computer projection equipment

Computer programming using Macromedia Director Lingo to enable web cam image processing (computer recognition of user physical movement), 2D image composition within set predefined limits and image presentation.

USB extension cables if necessary

Proposed bibliography and research materials

BATCHELOR, D. 1997. Minimalism – Movements in Modern Art. 1^st edn. London: Tate Gallery Publishing Ltd.

BATTCOCK, GREGORY (ed.). Idea Art: A Critque. New York: E. P. Dutton. 1973. Essays on conceptual art, body art, earthworks.

BATTCOCK, GREGORY (ed.). Minimal Art: A Critical Anthology. New York: E. P. Dutton. 1968.

BURNHAM, JACK. “Alice’s Head: Reflections on Conceptual Art,” Artforum, February, 1970.

COLPITT, F. J. 1997. Minimal Art The Critical Perspective. 3^rd edn. Seattle: University of Washington Press.

CORNOCK, S. and EDMONDS, E. 1973. The creative process where the artist is amplified or superseded by the computer. Leonardo. 6, pp.11-16.

FIFIELD, G., The search for interactivity continues, Art New England, 5 August September 2002.

FIFIELD, G., Virtual Public Art: The newest forum for public art: the internet, Art New England, 4 August September 2000.

GARRELS, G. ed. 2000. Sol Lewitt A Retrospective. 1^st edn. New Haven, London: Yale University Press.

HARRISON, C. and WOOD, P. ed. 1995. Art in Theory 1900-1990 An Anthology of Changing Ideas. 3^rd edn. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.

JUDD, DON. “Black, White and Gray,” Arts Magazine, XXXVIII (March, 1964).

MEYER, J. 2001. Minimalism Art and Polemics in the Sixties. 1^st edn. New Haven, London: Yale University Press.

MURDOCK, ROBERT M. Modular Painting. Buffalo, N.Y.: Albright-Knox Art Gallery, 1970.

ROSE, B., American Art since 1900, New York London, Holt Rinehart and Winston, 1975.

TOWNS, S., The Systems Aesthetic, Exeter, Exeter College of Art and Design, 1979.

MEYER, URSULA. Conceptual Art. New York: E. P. Dutton, 1973.

WOLLHEIM, RICHARD. “Minimal Art,” Arts Magazine, XXXIX (January, 1965).

Harvard Bibliography

NAME, A. year. Title. 1^st edn. place of pub. publisher.