Stefan Peterson (Sweden) Dancing with myself, 2016
He wants to convince his wife that he’s not just a boring office guy, so he goes dancing naked in the woods taking pictures of himself.
Such a lovely non sequitur and a very productive way to enact something with very economic means, also exploring body movement, odd locations, sound and its absence, still and moving image – a lot of components that I am also trying to combine.
Inspiring overriding of disciplinary boundaries. Inspiring expansion of “what a dance (performance) could be”. Inspiring volume of the space where there is no optimal vantage point from where you could see it all all the time – which ties into my current project on perspective.
Gustav Metzger (b. 1926, Germany – d. 2017) Auto-Destructive Art, 1960
I am quite fascinated with stuff that self-destructs. Possibly, I am not even interested in destruction part per se. Destruction and construction are two sides of the same coin – you can’t make an omelette without breaking some eggs. And I am curious about the creative potential of destruction. Both on conceptual and on physical level. What do you make when your focus is on unmaking?
Ideally, my graduation work would self-destruct from examiner’s examination of it.
AGNSW attributes this piece to Art & Language although it also states that it is signed by Ramsden. I did not dig into reasons behind. They may remain secret to me as well.
A lot of interesting things are going here. Another take on the Black square. A question to what extent artist’s intention for the work can ever be known for sure. A question of how and by whom meaning of a work is created. A question of what and to what extent needs to be made accessible to the audience for an artistic experience to be had. A question of the difference between the content and the form. An epistemological condition of the artwork in general.
I am testing many of those aspects myself, so this is most relevant.
Ian Burn (b. 1939, Australia – d. 1993) Looking through a piece of glass, 1967-8
So, we are back again to self-referential works. I can only extrapolate and speculate why they were interesting in the 60s, and that is not so interesting for me. What is interesting is why I find them appealing today – in my present circumstances, regardless of the conditions of their making.
One new speculation is arising at the back of my head that it may be some unconscious opposition to contemporary attempts to make art “useful” for society at large by expecting it to deal with contemporary issues and reflect contemporary ideologies. Moreover, a lot of nonsense that is going on in the world may also be traceable to some kind of overthinking, of reading everything out there through interpretive ideological glasses, assigning excess meaning to things and then investing energy in fighting those self-created windmills. Maybe works that insist on their most direct – tautological even – reading, are offering a much needed escape or a wake-up call from it all? Maybe that’s why I am tempted to make them, too?