Justifiable
Decision making in Regards to Spatial Relationships
Darren
Stevens
For
examination to the course of MA Fine Art April 2000
1998-2000
Summary
As way of a brief summary of the thesis to follow I shall
now highlight several areas that the discussion will centre on.
It is through the personal investigations that I have been
engaged with for the past several years that the work and this essay have
arrived at the present location, this investigation has centred around the
comprehension of Space/ Objectivity and the surrounding Environment.
This thesis will namely be focused on the process of
decision making in regards to both myself and the working process as a whole.
The thesis will contain sections on past, present and future areas where decisions
have and will play a prominent role in the working process of art creation in
regards to spatial relations.
The main topics of the discussion are in the areas of
Reductionism, Universalism, Absolutism, Philosophy, Conceptualism, Materiality
(Objectivity) and Cyber-Space. These areas will be discussed in view to present
issues relating to the conceptual processes involved and the future
developments envisioned by the present work itself, and related to past and
present approaches to art processes and production.
The approach to the following thesis is through a
philosophical viewpoint with extracts from artist quotes and art movements. The
reason for this approach to the thesis is for the high level of philosophical
elements in the working process for the formulation of the art work.
It is the hope of this thesis to gain, for both the reader
and author, a greater level of understanding in relation to the portray of
concepts, artwork and associated subjects in regards to the above issues and to
both the general presentation of Art and the meaning of Artist in the Post
modern era of Cyber-Space.
Table
of Contents
Site-Specific
Three Dimensionality and Shape
Colour
Universalism
A Formula For Construction
Random Choice.
Criteria Choice.
Relational Aspects of Both Random
and Criteria Choice.
Is Non-Referential Decision Making
Possible?
The Arbitrariness of any Decision
Making Procedure
Is Random Truly Possible?
Philosophical Issues Dealing with
Choice, Arbitrariness and Absolute Truth
Choice in regards to Post modern
Pluralism.
Will there ever be the possibility
of creating an Absolute.
The Use of the Internet.
The Present Working Procedure.
Aesthetics.
By way of an introduction to this discussion I wish to bring
to the forefront certain issues that I have been investigating throughout the
duration of the M.A. Fine Art course.
The areas that are covered within this discussion are as
follows:
á
The
investigation of the subject of Reductionism and its henceforth resultant
action. (The working procedure where Reductivism accounts for the eradication
of excess issues).
á
The
creation of Universalism and its therefore construction methods. (The wish to
create an all encompassing Universal image and the methods by for which its
achievement)
á
Internet
pros and cons including the degree of audacity required. (The limitations of
Cyber-art)
á
Philosophical
issues pertaining to the understanding of meaning through arbitrariness.(An
account describing the arbitrariness of our everyday actions)
á
Post
Modern concepts of Choice. (With the loss of the Grand Narratives, insecurity
reigns)
á
Materialism
(The eradication of Objectivity and Materialism)
Throughout this discussion I wish to outline a detailed
account for the advantages and disadvantages in relation to decision making
pertaining to the art work created, This will be produced through the above
areas and the following three chapters:
Chapter One, A general description of the working procedure
at hand.
Chapter Two, Philosophical issues concerning the working
procedure.
Chapter Three, Future decisions related to past subjects,
Relativism.
It is the hope of this discussion for the greater
understanding by both the reader and the writer of the artistic working
procedure in operation.
The initial visual impact on the viewer of the subjective
images varies extensively from the fundamental concept(s) that underlies the
whole of the working process. It is true that the compositions deal with
subjects ranging from choice, materialism, purity and simplicity/complexity,
but the primary influence stems from a simple desire to investigate, comprehend
and represent the relationships between two or more environments.
This curiosity, derived from relating spaces/places in
unison, is akin to the philosophical theory of Relativism, where the sum total
is in direct response to the encompassing environment[1].
Within this context the sum total being that of both human and environmental
interactions, no matter how insignificant the resulting relationship may be.
ÒIn spaceÓ, says Giacometti, Òthere is too much.Ó This too
much is the pure and simple coexistence of parts in juxtaposition[2].
The concept of ÔSpatial RelationsÕ derives from both the
complexity and simplicity, that humans undertake on a daily basis through their
physicality amongst their immediate environment.
New and increased levels of measurements compel us to
comprehend higher and greater aspects of subjective perception. Why ponder a
human physical movement of 186, 000km (arbitrary choice) as opposed to 5 metres
(arbitrary choice), surely within our world of progression we should ponder
both the lesser concepts as well as the greater, for what is the necessity to
comprehend only the greatest when both are of equal value?
It must be understood that the physical difference between a
movement of an arbitrary measurement of 5 m as opposed to an arbitrary
measurement of 186, 000km is that of immediate visual perception and not
through the abstracted concepts of physical representations as in maps etc.
As with the now shrunken world of telecommunications and
henceforth the revelation of the 1990Õs, the internet, resulting in the post
modern product of the ÔGlobal VillageÕ, couldnÕt the same be said, if not now
then in the near future, that we as physical objects exist and associate within
a physical Global Village? Human beings continuously relate with space/expanse
in order to interact with both the physical environment as well as other
humans, but since the avocation of flight, physical movements have now resulted
in both a formidable increase of speed and a reduction in time allowing
distance to either remain the same or expand at will.
Todays world results in distances being transcended in a
matter of hours if not minutes.
In order to fully explain all the conditions of the work in
view to reductivism, it is necessary for this section of the first chapter to
be further divided into three areas, as follows:
Site-specific - The move from physical reference to cerebral
reference.
3 Dimensionality and shape - The move from 3D to 2D and the
henceforth reductivism of unnecessary excess to the most basic universal
configuration.
Colour - Reductivism decision making in regards to colour
selection.
Ò...he must not paint little pictures of fragrant roses
since all this would be dead representations pointing back to life.Ó[3]
In the initial phases of art production images illustrating
the position in a figurative two dimensional interpretation are not uncommon,
but are predominately an elementary method of capturing the Ôessence of a
spaceÕ. Any figurative two dimensional image illustrating a recognisable scene
(landscape, seascape, cityscape etc) is not an unjust approach to the
illustrating of a scene but a procedure which fails to fully address the
underlying issues concerning with choice, decision making and justification of
a scene.[4]
Here aesthetics values arise into the initial decision
making process to such an intensity that not only is the place/situation a
concern but the viewing direction, viewing height, lighting conditions,
composition etc, each of equal and infinite possibility. Whether or not the
process is inclined to illustrate an expanse in a figurative or abstract
manner, which could easily be equated to either that of site-specific or
criteria reference, the real issue concerning the representation, is that of
the process of decision making as a whole.
ÒTo make a choice is to regard one set of considerations as
having more weight than anotherÓ[5]
The inclusion of this quote by Sartre, adds weight to the
dilemma, for any criteria that is imposed in order to choose one subject over
another is purely an individual act of affirming personal values as a universal
truth.
ÒYour values are not serious, since you choose them
yourselfÓ[6]
Once decision making is initiated, concerning the
justification of criteria, the dilemma of choice is confronted to such an
extant that progression is only valid through a non section of the one but a
full complete representation of the whole.
ÒTo say that it matters not what you choose is not correct.
In one sense choice is possible, but what is not possible is not to choose. I
can always choose, but I must know that if I do not choose, that is still a
choice.Ó[7]
In deciding to represent all possible outcomes I am stating
a viewpoint against the choosing of the singular. For the reason I advocate for
the full inclusion of all is towards a stronger procedure of justification
which can be placed on the whole as opposed to the singular.
The initial working process that developed the earlier works
was primarily focused on the theme/subject of site-specific, with the choice of
site being that of the exhibition site itself. This working process allowed
control of decision making to be temporarily transferred from that of the
artist/creator and consigned to the exhibition curators. Here the dilemma of choice
was momentarily dispelled, to a certain degree, allowing the initial action to
be transversed and progression onto further phases initiated. It must be stated
that this did not resolve the predicament but created a reoccurring issue
without a complete resolution and henceforth clouding future image production
and decision making.
The dilemma over the decision to choose one site as opposed
to other sites is also reflected within the dilemma of viewpoint (for at this
time, all was figurative and all figurative work will have at least one
viewpoint). What is the justification of one viewpoint over another? All carry
the same amount of significance depending upon the deciding factors, which is
again a self imposed set of values which do not carry any universal authority.
Viewpoint is therefore arbitrary and meaningless as a level
of measurement towards universality.
The predicament that was at hand at this point meant a
complete shift away from site-specific and physical external (to the
consciousness) references towards a procedure of subjective criteria induced
arbitrary arrangements. Henceforth resulting in the eradication of
site-specific towards the arrangements concerning Universalism and
Arbitrariness.
ÒThe square seems like the most perfect spaceÓ[8]
In regards to the transition from a site-specific motif, for
the arrangements, to that of subjective criteria lead configurations, this
resulted in an infinitude of options with no possible absolute truth to the
selection of one amongst the many.
The eradication of site-specific now meant a completely new
working procedure had to be acquired, this had to encompass the form/shape of
an arrangement. The objects henceforth created within this new working
procedure (of what is multitude) now resulted in both an influx of
forms/shapes, each of equal importance, and henceforth, viewpoints. The
resulting dilemma within the procedure, is now, not only what object but also
which viewpoint (therefore indicating three dimensions). The three dimensional
aspect therefore resulted in an indecisiveness about location of viewpoint
which again is arbitrary and in this sense surplus. Which therefore infringes
upon the decision making process, for it cannot be solved universally in
regards to a justifiable reason for inclusion. Hence the eradication of the
three dimensional motif allowing both direction and distance to be immediately
dispelled. For within the subject of two dimensionality, form and viewpoint are
both unattainable. Shape now becomes the deciding factor in any arrangement
within an image.
ÒAny idea that is better stated in two dimensions should not
be presented in three dimensionsÓ[9]
With the infinitude of possibilities regarding the composing
of a singular shape, again the dilemma of choice and decision making becomes a
deciding factor in any possible configuration. For example, how can a decision
be justifiable within the infinitude of possible shapes?
The resulting action, within any decision making process is
again through the means of reduction, and in regards to that of shape, the
reduction of shape to its most basic generic configuration i.e. in this case
that of the square.
ÒRyman, who said that one of the advantages of the square is
that, unlike the rectangle, it spared him the problem of compositionÓ[10]
The decision to reduce the configurations within and over
the image to that of a square is for the eradication of ratio, as for example
the rectangle, therefore scale is also removed from the conceptual environment.
Helping to reduce both the working process and the art work itself down to its
lowest possible denominator, allowing uniformity, purity and simplicity to
prevail as the most important stylistic attributes.
Both the resulting images and working process can now be
placed on an equivalent comparison to that of the 1960Õs art movement of
Minimalism. The following quote gives a good summary to the movements common
stylistic features in comparison to that of my own stylistic features.
ÔPredominantly rectangular and cubic forms that are purged
of all metaphor and meaning, equality of parts, repetition and neutral
surfaces. The ambition they shared was to create works of maximum immediacy
where the whole is more important than the parts, where relational composition is
suppressed in favour of an arrangements of simple orderingÓ[11].
ÒEverything that we see arose from the colour mass
transferred into plane, and volumeÓ[12]
Colour allows us to differentiate all physical objects from
neighbouring objects/planes providing us with a visual relationship with the
external world, for if there wasnÕt colour, how and what would we see?[13]
Therefore on a simple basis colour is a necessary aspect of
any two dimensional image, that which separates the object from its environment.
Colour is never pure, finite, absolute for there is never a single colour red
or blue, but a whole wealth of shades/hues that share a relationship together
under the concept of bluish, reddish etc. Therefore through justifiable
decision making colour is presented with an infinitude of possible options,
with neither being of any more or less advantageous than any other.
There is a solution to this, as with other areas of
reduction, colour can also be reduced, and in this case to black and white or
as with the initial works a pure black object with a white background.
ÒArt that is meant for the sensation of the eye primarily
would be called perceptual rather than conceptual. This would include most
optical, kinetic, light and colour artÓ[14]
This quote is in contrast to the actual final decision that
was taken within the work. As with justifiable colour selection, the move
towards black and white is a rational decision so resulting in the creation of
justifiable colour, that of no choice resulting in all choice. But as far as
visual subjects proceed, black and white creates an extremely poor relationship
in regards to its aesthetic values. Black and white are the rational
conclusion, but they are aesthetically an inadequate choice.
It can be argued that with the process of rational art
production, aesthetic decisions towards colour shouldnÕt be allowed to affect
the judgments of art works or future directions, but it can also be argued,
through the arbitrariness of art, that rational and non-rational decisions are
made in regards to art production by all artists, with the resulting
explanation being ÔfeelingÕ or ÔintuitionÕ.
Hence the move towards the inclusion of colour, be it
aesthetically arbitrary, within the artwork.
ÒIn conceptual art the idea or concept is the most important
aspect of the workÓ[15]
Through the process of reductionism, the resulting works now
closely resemble elements of influence towards both the Minimalist and
Conceptualist art movements.
ÒThe paintings are about nothing, but relations, orderly
relations, embodied in an impersonal and inflexible composition of strips. Like
numbers, they are morally and metaphysically neutral.Ó[16]
ÒConceptual art is made to engage the mind of the viewer
rather than his eye or emotionsÓ[17]
Through the demise of the site-specific motif, and in
general direct references (i.e. a direct action from a visual starting point),
a new approach to the creation of images is hence necessary. The approach to
this was to initiate work for all as opposed to the singular which henceforth
lead to a working procedure focused on the creation of the Universal.
Universalism, or absolutism, is a method of representing all
possible outcomes in respect to set restrictions so that no possible specific
singular issue is represented through the resulting images but through
universalism, all situations are of equal value.
The rational decision behind the move towards universalism
mirrors that of earlier decisions (within the work and this chapter), whereby
the reason for any singular choice for a specific is unjustifiable against that
of any further specifics, as explained in the following quote:
Ò...there can be no rational or objective grounds for
attributing greater weight to one consideration than to any otherÓ[18]
There is a greater accountability for the non-selection of
the singular and the representation of the whole as opposed to the arbitrary
selection of the one against the infinite. For the decision not to select any
one in particular is in itself a rational choice and decision that has to be
made and is equal in validity to a genuine singular selection, as with the
earlier quote within the section on Reductivism.
Ò...this sun, this window, this table is a truth in itselfÓ[19]
Universalism, within the procedure of representation,
doesnÕt confer the ability to present the infinite within any single image, as
with the platonic viewpoint to ÔTruthÓ[20],
for within a Post modern society how can the sum total be embodied by the one
when there are infinite variations? Universalism is only possible through a
mixture of philosophy from both Nietzsche and Sartre whereby there are infinite
universal truths each of equal status within set defining limits[21],
but the selection for anyone truth is arbitrary to that of any other.[22]
Looking now towards the current work, universalism is
present through the criteria of representing all possible outcomes, within set
limitations. Therefore the images exhibit a theme of presenting all possible
spatial relations between two or more objects in response to the predefined set
limitations.
Through the decision to remove all site-specifics from the
work and the move towards a more advanced level of reductionism and
universalism, the resulting images carry an increased level of visual
simplicity, conceptualism and variation.
ÒWhen an artist uses a conceptual form of art, it means that
all of the planning and decisions are made beforehand and the execution is a
perfunctory affairÓ[23]
The move towards the subject of Universalism and Absolutism
allows progression from the abyss of site-specific to that of the Universal,
but this progression comes with a drawback, that of arbitrary choice and
henceforth its attempted justification.
Since the philosophy of Nietzsche, universalism by its very
nature runs concurrently with the infinite, therefore an infinite, number of
possible spatial relations exists within each theme, for instances what could
be classed as the exact cut off point between two positions?
ÒIf the artist wishes to explore his idea thoroughly, then
arbitrary or chance decisions would be kept to a minimum. while caprice, taste
and other whimsies would be eliminated from the making of the artÓ[24]
Through this predicament it is necessary to select criteria
before any image creation is initiated, this though has to be extremely refined
to both narrow the scope of the work and to allow for image production to
commence and achieve its full requirement, for all artwork has to be in some
manner, produced in response to references (be it direct or indirect).
In order to acquire criteria, in respect of the fact that
direct site-specific referencing has been removed, it is necessary to observe
relationships from the objective/external environment and to henceforth adapt
the ideas in order to create predefining image restrictions. This then allows
for a universalism to be attained within the present criteria.
The criteria also creates, within the images, both an
initial beginning and completion position preventing the resulting images
expanding indefinitely. This is also combined with the consequence of infinity,
for without a criteria basis, where and how does the commencement of the
initial image production begin? The second reason for the predefining of criteria
restrictions is to compensate for the number of relationships that can be
generated within two or more objects.
For example:
If we had three objects all arranged on a horizontal line,
each with the capacity to move two spaces upward from its original position,
the total number of spatial relationships that can be produced from this
criteria is
3x3x3=27 possible outcomes
if the number was higher
5x5x5=125 possible outcomes, or 10x10x10=1000 possible
outcomes.
Each possible outcome having to be fully represented for a
complete universalism to be achieved.
Predefining the limits to be quite restrictive allows for
the reduction of possible outcomes, without this the resulting possibilities
could become quite ridiculous without being necessary. For again, why try to
comprehend a vast array of relationships when a reduced amount is of the same
intrinsic value.
In this sense, references and criteria together allow the
concept of infinite possible outcomes to be prevented.
A further explanation for the defining of restrictions to
the procedure of image production is to allow for the option of choice to be
included. If, as with SartreÕs theory of a specifiable situation creates a
solution[25],
predefining image restrictions were not included within the production
procedure, how would a choice be taken when confronted with infinite numerical
choices. In this case, preset limitations allow for the removal of the infinite
and the creation of arbitrary choice and henceforth image production.
There is a desire, though, to keep the relational aspect to
a minimum (that which indicates the greatest using the least possible), this
allows the reduction on the number of relational possibilities to a minimum
with the addition of maintaining the relational constraint within a justifiable
region.
For instance, what justifiable reason is there for selecting
56x82x3 as opposed to 87x129x5692?
There is no rational reason for the selection of one over
another, apart from the aspect of minimal requirement which is henceforth
criteria lead and as I will state later on in this discussion, arbitrary.
Simplicity is a subject that runs throughout the working procedure, therefore
the continual wish to maintain the minimal aspect with the work.
ÒThis free for all aboard and extremely diverse range of
activities known as conceptual art...was part of a widespread abandonment of
that unique, permanent yet portable (and thus infinitely saleable) luxury item,
the traditional art objectÓ[26]
In finishing this initial chapter on Spatial Relationships
the following will briefly detail the greatest advancement that the work has
seen over recent times, that of the move from reality to cyber-space.
The move towards art production via the computer, and in
this sense the internet, can easily be equated to another area of the working
procedure, namely that of reductionism, the subtraction of physicality to that
of cyber-space (non-physical reality). But it must noted that the decision to
progress into cyber-space wasnÕt taken in view to a rational choice of
universalism, but in this case to aid the publication/presentation of the work
to the public sphere and to both eradicate the objectivity of the artwork from
conceptualism and materialism within the art world.
In the first case, the dismissal of the gallery system was a
decision taken to allow control of the art works and the underlying concepts to
be placed back into the hands of the artist and not that of the gallery owners
of which the majority is material based. With control now resting with the
artist, all matters related to the publication of art are now also controlled
by the artist.
ÒOnce you know about a work of mine, you own it. There is no
way that I can climb into somebodyÕs head and remove itÓ[27]
With the move to cyber-space all concerns related to
objectivity of the artwork are withdrawn, for no physical product exists and
all responsibility to the artwork is also withdrawn leaving the work to exist
for itself and for each individual internet spectator.
ÒIn conceptual art the idea or concept is the most important
aspect of the work...Ó[28]
The artwork of today develops concurrently with consumer
commercialism, whether or not an artist is of any intrinsic value does not
depend on the quality of their artwork but on their self-promotion and
henceforth saleability to the buying public. It is not surprising though that
within the working process the reduction of the art object occurred at this
time, for through the work, concepts and ideas are the most intrinsic aspects of
the images and not its material (saleable) quality, as with the art market.
Through the use of computer and internet technology the work
can now be opened up to the possibility of millions of potential spectators,
all with the ability to critique the work directly to the artist. The internet
also adds flexibility to the work for with the addition of controllable gallery
viewing, spectator lead interaction is now a possible subject to progress the
work and its concepts to a greater public and value.
As way of a brief explanation to the following chapter it is
necessary to again further separate the chapter into two sections, as follows:
Concepts of Choice: Random Choice. A statement about Random
choice. Criteria Choice. A statement about Criteria choice. Relational aspect
of both Random and Criteria Choice Is Non-Referential decision making possible?
The Arbitrariness of any decision making procedure. Is The Concept of Random
truly possible?
Philosophical issues dealing with choice, arbitrariness and
absolute truth: Choice in regards to Post-Modern Pluralism Will there ever be
the possibility of the creation of an absolute?
Concepts of Choice
Random Choice
If we are to truly comprehend the concept of Random (if
indeed it does exist) then we must first understand what Random is. True Random
is the decision/action (which here implies both thought and relation) to
progress/move/transverse (indeed any directional movement on both a conceptual
and physical basis) in one direction/path as opposed to any number of further
progressive paths. But this progressive move must be in relationship to
Absolute Nothing.
Any procedure to incur a decision must first begin from a
set of ÔReferentialÕ issues related to a past subject or decision, for in any sense
how can a decision be produced if it is not in relationship to a given set of
values or a previous situation? Once referential issues have been
acquired/decided upon, or have resulted from a previous situation, then in
order to proceed to a given decision from those references it is necessary to
create a set of criteria in order to direct the decision and to infer certain
limitations to the resultant decision. Therefore in order to create a decision
in relationship to which direction to move within, both reference points and
criteria must first be created/imposed to allow for (in fact bring about in the
first place) a justifiable decision to be produced.
This is all well for the process of decision making in
relationship to a past situation which infers reference, but as regards to any
Random decision making procedure this does not allow for the true randomised
resultant element to be initial created. No referential decision making can be
employed in this procedure, for if it is allowed to effect the judgment in any
way then by the concept of Random it, will not be truly a randomised decision.
Therefore in this sense the concept of Random implies that referential decision
making must be first eradicated in order to allow the purity of Random as a
whole to remain.
Referential issues do allow for a most basic direction for a
decision to be advanced towards, but in order for a full and complete decision
to be produced it has to be made in relationship to a given set of criteria.
In this sense of the word criteria, I refer to the
limitations/processing order to which any decision making procedure can
commence, for if it wasnÕt for criteria how would any reference be converted
into a tangible justifiable decision? And in this sense, as follows on from a
previous paragraph, any issues that are inferred on to the process of random
decision making indicate that the decision taking is not in fact a truly random
decision but one that has resulted from the inclusion of objective elements.
Henceforth any random decision making procedure must not
contain any referential issues and criteria lead decision, for these Ôgo
against the grainÕ as with the any true random absolute decision.
What will at first appear as if I am discussing in
opposition to the previous statement, that of Random Choice, is, as I will show
later on, the second method of choice or decision making , and that is criteria
Choice.
Many times throughout the process of my working procedure I
have happened to mention the subject of criteria lead decision making, this I
point out happens because of the two complex methods of choice that I have
encountered throughout the process of comprehending relational spaces. It is
necessary in every case to differentiate between the two because each one
allows for a differing method and incorporates differing levels of control on
the henceforth choices made and work produced
As from the previous statement on Random Choice, I mentioned
the two underlying areas of choice that allow for the differences between
Random and criteria choice to occur, these are Reference and Criteria. Now
within the process of criteria lead decision making, and what will seem
apparent, is that in order to gain a decision both references and criteria must
first be fully acknowledged and then instigated in order to gain one or more
decisions. References in this case are acquired from the external world,
subjects that are related, in some manner or other, in the past tense to the
present concept and that allow for the present concept to be an amalgation of
the references.
With any decision that is taken throughout our day to day
living, is made in relationship to criteria, the underlying constants that
allow for us to come to a decision in the first place, and so in regards to
criteria lead decision making criteria is an extremely important element in the
process to the achievement of a justifiable resultant choice. For if it was not
for criteria the values for which we could choose would be endless and in fact
infinite, and so in this manner criteria allows for the scope of our choices to
be reduced to allow for a decision to be forth coming.
In this section I wish to show that the two above methods of
decision making are in fact one and the same. To do this I will answer several
questions.
Is Random choice possible?
ÔRandomÕ - haphazard, chance, uncontrolled, irregular.[29]
Ôat RandomÕ- not following any particular principle or
order.[30]
To answer this question it is necessary to fully understand
what random choice entails in a more greater level to what I stated above.
Firstly when deciding upon a random decision, a set amount
of variables must be in place in the initial phase, the reason for this is to
allow for a justifiable decision to be made. If for instance there is an array
of infinite possible choices from which to make a selection, how is a
justifiable choice possible from a meaningless range of infinite possibilities?
For in order to choose you must first limit the available options from which a
decision can be produced in order to create a meaningful decision.
An example to this is to choose, for instance, 6 numbers
(here an arbitrary choice) from 0 to infinity (I could also make this -infinity
to +infinity, but for the purpose of this example I have decided to limit it,
be it in a simple way to positive numbers), once this is done your first set of
numbers might seem (or not be it the case) to create a good spread of numbers
(random does not necessarily mean you will always produce a good array of
numbers for you might end up randomly choosing 0,1,2,3,4 and 5 which is a
possible outcome). But once you do this possibly 10 times you will start to see
that the numbers that you can choose from can, at will, get larger and larger,
but when viewed on an overall scale from 0 to infinity, they are all gathered
down at one end of the scale next to 0 for how can you ever get closer to
infinity. For no matter how high a number that you randomly pick it will never
really be any closer to infinity and so will not allow for your choices to give
a good and justifiable selection from 0 to infinity.
Therefore choosing no matter how many numbers from 0 to
infinity on a random basis is not possible.
Here is my first contradiction to the above statement, that
of a given set of variables, this therefore goes against the notion of Random
in its most purest sense when there are no defining elements, no set
restrictions, which is to say that Random is only in relationship to infinity
itself.
Therefore I can now state that to allow for a random
decision to be produced it must be first made in regards to a given set of
variables, a fixed set of possible choices. For instances a die can produce
random numbers only because it is in relationship to its six sides and
therefore numbers 1 to 6
I can henceforth state that Random decision making is only
possible in relationship to a given set of defining restrictions, which
therefore contradicts the notion of random (no restrictions) in its purest
sense.
If we are to produce results from a random decision making
procedure, it is inherent that any references, that could be taken in regards
to choice, should be eliminated from the process. This, we could then say,
allows for random decision making to be possible. But what I want to state now
is that in order to first choose, the decision on how to choose is first made
in reference to a past procedure or at the will of the creator to initiate
Ôsomething newÕ. Why, for instance, allow for Random choice as opposed to
Criteria Choice? The decision to move in one direction against another is still
a choice that has to be made in reference to a past event, henceforth
referential.
To use a die for example.
I wish to pick 3 numbers at random from the 6 numbers on a
die.
The numbers will fall at random as with the arbitrariness of
the die, but it is in the first instance that I choose to use a die as opposed
to any other method of decision making which results in the procedure being
referential in itself. For why use a die instead of a pack of cards for random
decision making? Both will either be arbitrary (this is out of the infinite
possible methods that could be devised for random decision making) or
referential. For you cannot randomly choose a procedure of random decision
making without first making a decision which isnÕt random and henceforth
justifiable, and as with an earlier quote by Sartre, even a negative choice is
still a choice in itself.[31]
I can here say that Random decision making is in itself
referential and therefore not truly Random.
As with any decision, be it Random or Criteria lead, the
wish to find a method of decision making, possibly justifiable, is in itself
arbitrary to any relational aspect of the decision to be made in the first
place. For any subject/aspect that is used in the process to acquire a system
whereby to choose has no true relationship to the method apart from the
justification that we ourselves impose on the subject[32].
We henceforth impose meanings on subjects and allow these subjects to interject
a decision for us that isnÕt truly universal to the external world around us.
A good example of the arbitrariness of our decisions has
been written about by Sartre, in which Sartre describes a situation where a
young French man is pitted against either leaving his aging mother and going
off to fight in the second world war (the man being the last of his motherÕs
immediate relations) or staying behind and caring for his mother. Which is the
stronger consideration, either fighting with his fellow countrymen for the
shake of his country against an aggressor and thereby possibly risking death or
to abstain from the war and staying with his mother for her shake as her last
relation? Which would be of the greater benefit?
During the text, Sartre points out that neither a Christian
doctrine (love thy neighbour) nor the Kantian principle (treat people as an end
not as a means) could help the young man to make his decision, and that in the
end no matter however much advice the young man receives he would still have to
make his choice on which principle to follow, and that is in consideration to
whether or not he decides to chooses to act on the advice in the first place.
From this example Sartre shows that no greater weight can be
attributed to either of the possibilities, and that it is purely a decision
that is made in relationship to our consciousness and not the external world,
as in the following quote:
ÒValues do not exist independently of our consciousness of
them, human reality is that by which value arrives in the world.Ó[33]
I now wish to briefly state that the concept of Random is
not necessarily a possible option that is available unless used under certain
constraints.
Throughout this chapter I have been discussing both the
concepts of Criteria lead decision making and Random lead decision making and
how at first they seem to be separate methods of choice. From this I then
proceeded to state that the underlying concepts that make Random are
fundamentally wrong when placed in considering to absolutism. I can hereby
state that true Randomness does not exist and that Criteria lead decision
making and Random lead decision making are but one and the same.
This statement comes about from the working process that I
have initiated in regards to the working procedure of my art investigations.
The reason that I have arrived at this decision, in regards
to the unifying of Random and Criteria lead decision making (which is evident
in the above text), is that in order to have any randomly picked constant it
must be first placed in relationship to its limitations.
For instance a die will only pick one number from six.
A pack of cards will only pick one out of 52. (both at their
most basic level)
As you can see through both examples the random constant has
been created in regards to its limitations. The die being only 1 from 6
possible options and the cards being 1 from 52. From this I can therefore state
that Randomness is only possible in regards to set limitations which are
created from both references and criteria and is therefore akin to Criteria
lead decision making.
ÔRandomness is only possible in relationship to set restrictions
and is henceforth Relative.Õ
ÔRelativism - a doctrine of relativity: the view that
accepted standards of right and good vary with the environment and from person
to person.Õ[34]
Ô...judgments can only be judged true or false relative to a
particular society.Õ[35]
An example of this is to regard a plant, some would say that
it grows in a purely arbitrary manner, but this is only seen when its relative
restrictions are dismissed, for a plant cannot at will grow downwards for it
has the restriction that it requires light in order to photosynthesis. Certain
restrictions are placed in order to allow for a degree of randomness.
ÒI find that its difficult to choose, to decide that one
things more important than the other. So what I try and do is to choose without
having to make decisions.Ó[36]
In todays age, how is it possible to make a rational
decision when there are no means by which to justifiable that decision.
Arbitrariness of will is inevitable within a pluralistic society, but this is
not to be taken necessarily as a misconceived concept. Gone are the days of the
constraining Grand Narratives, everybody now has a level of ultimate freedom,
though in regards to Relativism. Minority societies are now able to voice their
opinions and we as the receptive audience have the opportunity to pick and
choose what suits us best Ôat that momentÕ from a wealth of possibilities.
ÒArbitrariness is the pitfall of unlimited freedom. How can
meaning survive when nothing acts as a regulating principle within the practice
to protect whatever presuppositions and interests are involved?Ó[37]
But doesnÕt this result in a reduction of justifiable
meaning? From one choice to the next, each resultant decision can be different
from the next depending on the situation surrounding the decision, this is
henceforth in relationship to Relativism. But the deciding factors that allow
for a decision to be made in the first place can now be so arbitrary and
debased with no general grounding in cultural values that the final decision
can be completely divorced of any depth or universal meaning. This situation
might be political, monetary, practical or humanitarian or then again it might
come down to the weather or our emotional feelings. What this represents is
that of the arbitrariness and deterioration of our decisions in relation to the
choices presented. For we make up our values as we go along.[38]
With the death of the Grand Meta Narratives a void has
occurred where there once stood cultural and traditional values, for today
there are now no defining standards that help and secure us in our decisions.
And there is no point in looking towards God for the defining values to shape
both us and our secularised society, for following the Philosophy of Nietzsche,
God is dead. For in fact we as the defining influence (we are the sum of our
worldly decisions) make ourselves to be God by the creation of our own
individual worlds and moral values.[39]
ÒEverything is now permitted if God does not exist, and man
is in consequence forlorn, for he cannot find anything to depend upon either
within or outside of himself.Ó[40]
Pluralism with its extreme degree of freedom on offer has
now placed greater pressure on us to choose for ourselves and justify our
choices from the infinite abyss of alternatives with neither being of any
greater value.[41]
Òthe freedom from all determinants leads to an indeterminacy
so total that, finally one has no reason for choosing anything at all.Ó[42]
Will there ever be the possibility of creating an absolute?
Throughout the majority of this discussion I have mentioned
several times of my wish to make an Absolute or a Universal, all in
relationship to the singular parts of my working process. I have stated why I
wish to achieve this, for the ability to create one image to represent all
within a ÔregionÕ of meaning, but is this completely attainable? and if so in
what degree is it attainable?
In the first case what is a Universal? A Universal is a
method by which to represent all possible outcomes within a preset theme, in
one image. This may sound like a simple action to perform but the creation of a
Universal is not necessarily at first glance a simple concept.
Can a universal be found in relationship to everything?
Plato believed in the preexistence of the essence of an object. That which
exist before the first object and provides the defining principles for the
creation of the object in multiply quantities[43].
In this case the essence being the Universal. Plato's idea of the essence of an
object is akin to the idea of a Universal representing all possible outcomes
for a theme, but PlatoÕs idea of a universal is very limiting for it only
allows for a singular idea to accommodate an infinite amount of variations.
This therefore means that PlatoÕs idea is too broad to allow for the existence
of similar ideas, for it is either this or that, for there are no shades of
grey in PlatoÕs definition.
In response to PlatoÕs idea of a singular preexisting
essence of an object, NietzscheÕs idea of an infinite amount of universalÕs
seems to be more accommodating to the shades of grey. This idea is formulated
by the understanding that everything is a universal in itself and is inherently
different from the next no matter how similar two objects may seem.
ÔOnly in the invincible faith that this sun, this window,
this table is a truth itself, in short, only by forgetting that he is a
artistically creating subject, does man live with any repose, security and
consistency.Õ[44]
Henceforth any image/object created is therefore a Universal
in itself and only itself. But NietzscheÕs concept of Universalism allows for a
greater scope of images to be made, all within a universalism of their own. For
there are infinite amount of universals each in relationship to an infinite
amount of possibilities.
In order to create an image under the banner of Nietzschean
principles you must first devise a set of predefining restrictions to
henceforth allow for the universal to be created. This I stated earlier in the
discussion, for to allow me to make any image I have to first state the
boundaries that the image will be a universal within, anything else is
therefore not represented within this constraint and not universal.
In finishing this section on the possibility of an absolute
I now wish to briefly include SartreÕs ideas in to the discussion. There are
two main areas that Sartre adds to this discussion, that of existence proceeds
essence and arbitrariness.
SartreÕs Existentialism presents the idea that unlike Plato
existence proceeds essence and that we make our self up as we go along within
our daily lives
ÔMan is nothing else but what he purposes, he exists only in
so far as he realises himself, he is therefore nothing but the sum of his
actions, nothing else but what his life is.Õ[45]
Unlike PlatoÕs idea of a universal essence that predefined
the existence of an object/image SartreÕs concept dismisses this idea and
places the existence before the essence which is henceforth created through
reflection. This therefore also dismisses the idea of the existence of a
singular universal essence for any object/concept/image and allows for, similar
to the Nietzschean idea, Universals to be created for all ideas/concepts, an
infinite wealth of possibilities.
The only differing concept from that of Nietzsche is that of
the idea of Arbitrariness and the lack of meaningful value in regards to any
decision and, in this case, a universal possibility.
ÔThe very nature of SartreÕs Existentialism makes values
purely arbitrary and subjective.Õ[46]
What this all comes down to is that of the possibility to
produce a Universal but only in relationship to a predefined set of
limitations/restrictions and not by the means of a Platonic viewpoint that
there is a universal to represent everything, which therefore dismisses all the
possibilities of shades, for it is never purely ÔYesÕ or ÔNoÕ but somewhere in
between. This is also similar to the other philosophical concept of Relativism
which seems to be quite apparent here in that a Universal is only possible in
relationship to its predefining environment. For indeed everything is in
relationship to its surrounding environment, be it physical, mental etc.
The present chapter will now be broken down into the three
areas that I wish to talk about, these are:
The use of the Internet
The Present Working Procedure
Aesthetics
There are two main areas to an internet site dealing with
the presentation of art work, firstly there is the artwork itself, and secondly
there is the general layout/graphical design of the internet web page in
general. Now when it comes to the presentation of the artwork itself that can
be placed on to similar levels to the presentation of art in a physical
gallery, but when it comes to the overall graphic design of the site, the way
it looks if it is visually attractive, this presents a problem.
There are to be two differing paths that one can follow,
either the path to making the graphic design similar in many ways to the art
work presented through it (this though may not be very aesthetically pleasing),
or through aesthetical methods of graphical design which fully incorporate
computer image technology resulting in what could be a more visually pleasing
web site.
There is now a point that has cropped up in to the matter of
a web site, why bother with a pleasing graphical design in the first place when
you are only making a method of art presentation and not for example
E-commerce? Well in answering this question it should be pointed out that no
one likes looking at a badly designed site, for it has to be attractive for the
viewers to continue on the site. It is too easy to loose viewers on the
internet through bad web site layout.
The question concerning web design is which path do you
follow?
In answering this question in regards to the site that I
have created, after the production of countless graphical versions, is to
follow the path of aesthetical pleasure. This allows me to separate up the two
areas of the web site into, one, the method of presentation namely the web
site, and, two, the actual art works themselves. The reason for this, after my
discussions on ÔReductionismÕ is create a greater visual pleasure in viewing
the site for the internet spectators which could be placed akin to the
architectural design of a gallery itself or the interior design of a gallery
adding to the all-round gallery viewing experience.
Within the area of web design there is a greater level of
complexity than was previously thought, this complexity ranges from colour
configuration (colours are dependent on the computer used and the monitor for
viewing) to Operating system (Windows 95, 98, 2000 to Mac OS and Linux) to web
browser (the program that converts computer language into a viewable image).
This complexity hence results (because I do not have any monetary requirement)
in a level of forced arrogance, and also ignorance, to differing proportions of
internet users. For the problem is of how to gain the most amount of viewers
where a variety of differing components could be in use each altering the final
web site to their own ultimate viewing capacity.
It will be noticed that in the present situation the method
of decision making specifically through pre-selected criteria, has been removed
from the working process, thus leaving the pseudo-random decision making method
as the presiding subject within the working process. The reason for the
adoption of the Random, or Arbitrary, method is for the wish to move the works
in to a greater arbitrary level, to allow for the notion of Random as itself to
infuse the works and to allow itÕs qualities to be the deciding factor in the
creation of the images.
The decision has also been taken in regards to the
underlying factor that the whole body of work produced over the most recent
months has been produced with a level of arbitrariness covering the work. From
the decision on what colour to use and the initial use of the square, and hence
the present rectangle, to the overall relationship between each image,
arbitrariness has been present in the work. The henceforth move towards the use
of Random as an underlying concept is therefore not such a vast and expansive
move as was initially thought.
Through this move it is hoped a greater relational aspect
will be present within the relationships of the images, so that the
arbitrariness of each move to a further image will be eradicated to a more
integrated whole.
This is though against what I have stated earlier in the
discussion that the decision procedures of criteria lead and random lead as
being one and the same. In many ways it could be stated that what the move
entails is purely a transition to criteria lead randomness which is a true
statement, for as already stated random is only available through criteria lead
restrictions. It may also be thought that I am contradicting myself, this
though isnÕt applicable under the knowledge of arbitrariness, or intuition, of
artists decision and in view to Relativism.
A second recent decision that has been taken in regards to
the work is that of the inclusion of Ôsemi-physicalÕ works again, this being
primarily works that do not exist on the internet but in the external reality,
works that are focused on simple wall drawings. Physical in one sense but
cannot be removed
The internet has given me the opportunity to on the one
hand, continually exhibit, and on the other, works that do not take any
physical space but only exist in the realm of cyber-space which today
represents the infinitude of space. In this sense the internet has solved the
dilemma of the materiality of the object. This is the goal that I set out for
in the initial phase of moving to the use of cyber-space, the eradication of
the object.
But it is necessary at the present time to make the move, or
initiate a parallel move, back (or forward, be it the case) to physical
objectivity in order to expand the works in to the best most heightened form
for the presentation of certain images.
One of the main qualities that has been lost through the
initial move on to the computer as a mode of presentation is that of scale.
With the images presentable at any size on the computer screen they hence have
no relational qualities to the initial size in production. This though is not
necessarily the main problem but what it does lead on to is the lacking of any
scalable relationship to the spectator. For who knows how large the images are
but the creator and only in relationship to the size of the presentable
computer screen.
The final section of this chapter I wish to focus on the
added problem of decision making in regards to computer manipulation.
It is true that the use of computers does increase the ease
at which images/work can be produced (that is after the initial learning period
that is required for the use of the a computer) once it is understood the
method at which an image can be manipulated. But the problem that can be
associated with the use of a computer (which is similar to the non-use of a
computer) is the ability to have what seems an endless choice of image
manipulation possibilities that can be allowed to alter an image. This may
sound encouraging to the artist wishing to experiment with image styles or
image processes, but with the working process that I embrace, any style or
flagrant image manipulation is purely just superfluous to the work itself.
The life itself that the working processes breads is that of
purity and of restraint which is evident in the work itself, for any expansion
on the underlying concepts is at first obvious and then contrary to the
aspirations placed on the images. There is a difficulty in self-restraint in
this manner, for self-restraint in this sense restricts experimentation in the
fields of art presentation, but experimentation can also lead to superfluous
issues appearing in the images. It is evident from this that a level of balance
is required for both new work to be produced and excess issues to be at a
minimum, if there at all (that is if you can prevent your work from meaning
everything and anything at all).
But aesthetics when concerning computer technology does not
solely refer to the creation style of an image but also to the quality that can
be received by the spectators when participating in the internet web site
A second issue at hand with the use of both computer
technology and the internet is that of image quality. The process by which to
create an image can be said to be of a simple basis but the ability to convert
it to the necessary requirements for the internet and high speed transmission
do open up the image to a downgrading of overall quality. This can result in
the images appearing to be hazy or glossy. This consequence of the level of
compression used in the creation of the images (compression allows the image to
be passed from server to client computers at higher speeds) can result in the
images being of a reduced quality from the initial image.
Again here the resulting action is to create a balance
between the necessary levels of internet transmission speed, the predicted
audience and the level of quality required in the image when viewed by the
spectator. Here as previously stated a certain level of arrogance can be placed
into the quality of the images that the viewer will see, this is too allow for
the images to be of the highest level of quality even though the download time
of an image might result in being higher than is required or necessary to hold
the attention of the audience. Though there can be an element of certainty for
the web site and individual images when directed at a certain proportion of
spectators to remain with the web site image until it has fully downloaded.
In ending this account or discussion on the merits of
Spatial Relationships in regards to both Arbitrariness and Rational decision
making I will now conclude on several differing areas.
Will we ever really arrive at a complete Physical Global
Village? Well maybe our subconscious understanding of distance will one day,
but our actual physical awareness will never achieve this while we still have
to walk, drive or fly to move from A to B.
Reductivism is a wonderful method to achieve the removal of
excess issues in the working process, but it must be used with caution for
reductivism can be focused on every level of concept in the working procedure
which can henceforth result in a reduction to nothing, or a reduction to the
absurd. A base level of balance must be attained where further reductions do
not result in the destruction of the working process, for at that point what
else is there to do.
In regards to the understanding of Random, is there a
concept of Random that actually exists or is it purely a concept of our
imagination as with the example, Perfect etc. My own personal view on this is
that the concept of Random is of our imagination and that nothing can be
completely at random, for force or decision must be made in order to act, and
that therefore is not Random.
Simplicity or Banality? Many spectators of the artwork have
commented on the extreme banality of the images as a result of the level of
reductionism imposed in the working process. Simplicity of image is a matter
that I have been striving for within the work for there is a beauty attained
within the area of simplicity. But on the grounds of Banality, this is a point
that I am opposed to for the greater you reduce the greater the level of
understanding and concepts active in the work.
Why the search for truth in a world of Post modern
Hyper-Meanings, Pluralism and Eclecticism you may be asking. But then again why
not the search for a universal truth in regards to all, for this is what the
scientist are searching for, The Grand Unified Theorem. But really it is a case
of stability, security and the beauty of simplicity. The least possible for the
greatest availability. The base level of our own understanding. The search for
the singular out of the infinite, Arbitrariness is the answer.
It has been a personal aim to achieve the ability to attain
work from a cerebral manner as opposed to that of direct environmental
reference. The results of cerebral reference allow for conceptualism to be at
the forefront of the artwork and for the reduction of excess baggage, or
greater freedom of movement to be attributed to the working process and myself
as an artist.
In ending this discussion on what can still be called Spatial Relationships, it must be noted that after all the viewpoints and decisions and their henceforth justifications, philosophies and quotations, that the works basic underlying meaning, Ôraison dÕetreÕ