Flashmobs as Institutions

I’ve been thinking about how flashmobs have become an institution in their own right. Yesterday I received an invite to a flashmob due to be scheduled at Liverpool St between 18:24 and 18:28pm – this one in the form of a London Freeze:

Flashmobs are something I’ve watched over the net with interest as they pop up here and there, but I’d never actually been involved in one, so I decided to take part. I couldn’t decide whether to go as a participant or as an observer and film it, but I figured there would be plenty of footage around on the net afterwards, so I sent the message round to friends and headed for Liverpool Street.

On arriving about 15 minutes before it was due to start, I felt I could tell who already knew what was going to happen and was there for the purpose of the event. There were plenty of the average businessman watching the board waiting for his train, but even 15 minutes beforehand there were people starting to hang around as if they were waiting for something, shifting about, looking at their mobile or checking the time repeatedly. More and more people started to turn up with cameras. I don’t think you would have noticed anything out of the ordinary if you weren’t aware something was about to happen, but if you were you could guess who was there for the purpose. People started congregating over the barriers to watch…what? A couple of minutes before 18:24 rows of cameras started to pile up on the level above…

I hadn’t thought too much about how I was going to pose but I suddenly started to wonder if I should pose with the camera on as if about to shoot a picture or what. A few seconds before 18:24 I just started to pace along and at 18:24 on the dot, froze – mid-pace, coffee in hand aiming towards mouth…

Four minutes is one hell of a long time when you are doing absolutely nothing except breathing…I’d set my mobile to go off at the start and end times so I’d know from its buzzing what to do, but (being a moron) it hadn’t occurred to me time to sync this with the clock on the wall – so it was vibrating away in my pocket mid-freeze, which was interesting but not quite what I had planned. I see now that that is exactly why every bugger in Liverpool Street was checking their mobile and the clock endlessly the few minutes before…next time…

As my mid-pace had stopped with me looking away from the clock I had no idea how long I’d been there. However at about 2min 30 I noticed the woman in front of me had planned hers so that she appeared to be taking a photo of her two friends who were smiling merrily away at the camera – but looking at her LCD I could see the time running, and she was actually videoing it, what a great idea…

I spent most of the 4 minutes wondering if the general public were actually even noticing what was happening. People kept on milling around, but this is London, and a busy station at rush hour at that. Who in London ever speaks to a stranger, looks them in the face, pays attention to them, or even says ‘excuse me’ instead of barging on through? Or indeed finds it anything out of the ordinary if people don’t move out of their way or just look slightly odd? Odd doesn’t exist in London.

It wasn’t until 2 and half, maybe three minutes that anyone started to notice and the only way I could tell was that the station had gone quiet and people had stopped barging through. I guess as they noticed more and more and more ‘oddness’ they started to look around them and see that it was everywhere. They stopped yelling into their mobile phones for a minute or two, stopped marching along and pushing through, just for a minute…

And then it was all over – the clock turned, we finished off what we had started doing 4 minutes ago, and a hundred or so little voices poured together to make one big cheer before we all quickly ran away back into our Wednesday night.

There’s already a news story on it here, videos here and here.

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

Research

So that’s my personal research into a flashmob. You can’t get more direct research than in actually being a part of it. But since then I’ve been looking more into the history of flashmobs – where they came from, where they are, why they are – and why I see them as an institution now.

Perhaps the most well-known flashmob was the Freeze at Grand Central in New York, probably because it is one of the highest-viewed videos on youtube and because of its presentation more than anything – in fact its organiser, Improv Everywhere, claim it wasn’t a flashmob at all but just one of their ‘missions’ which they claim to be ‘pranks in public places‘, and that this was something they did well before flashmobs became well known.

Definition

So what exactly is a flashmob? Wiki defines it as “a large group of people who assemble suddenly in a public place, perform an unusual action for a brief time, then quickly disperse.” Webster’s dictionary defines it as “a group of people who organize on the Internet and then quickly assemble in a public place, do something bizarre, and disperse“.

The sudden strangeness of it is the key, as well as the ’secrecy’. A large number of people doing something suddenly at the same time, and then just as suddenly disappearing again. Flashmobs spread by text and by email just hours before the event. They don’t even have to be doing anything unusual in itself – just the fact that 200 all of a sudden WANT to buy a first class stamp in the same place is adequate. It just makes it that bit more bizarre having so many people at once. But most flashmobs are faintly bizarre. They come in many types – doing something, or not doing something. Silently dancing, asking strange questions, singing, suddenly freezing.

History of Flashmobs

The most recent in London before yesterday was the Rick Astley flashmob on April 11th when 300-400 people descended on Liverpool Street at 17:59, some in masks, counted down to 18:00 then all sang ‘Never Gonna Give You Up’, which thinking back to my teenage years was weird in enough in 1987. This was part of a series of Rickrollin’ events which aren’t flashmobs themselves but are well worth a mention – Rickrollin’ involves web links redirecting to good ol’ Rick’s music vid. As an April fool’s joke this year various media companies and websites did this, including YouTube who rickrolled all of its featured videos on that day.

More recent Flashmobs have included Mobile Clubbing at the Tate Modern Turbine Hall on 12 October where hundreds of people turned up with their ipods, and at 7:01pm all started dancing to their own beat:

There’s also a video here

This is a form of Silent Disco as to anyone without the ipod everyone is dancing away to silence. Mobile Clubbing started in 2003, founded by Ben Cummins and Emma Davis, who also run Pillow Fight Club, another version of flashmob where everyone appears (with a pillow) at the designated time and has said pillow fight. These don’t instanly disperse at any set time though, they go on until the job’s done, so they’re different from a standard flashmob in that respect.

Another mobile disco is archived here, from the 11th October 2006 at 18:24 (seems a popular time). This came with a set of Rules:

This was said to be a multiple flashmob happening at the same time in Madrid, New York and Paris.

The first Global Flashmob was also London Flashmob 4 on 25th October 2003, the Rules for this one are here.

It is claimed the first flashmob was planned for Manhattan in May 2003 by Bill Wasik, senior editor of Harper’s Magazine, but was unsuccessful after the shop it was planned for was tipped off. The first successful flashmob was organised by the same man and is known as the love-rug mob of June 3, 2003. More than 100 people converged on the 9th floor rug department of Macy’s department store, Manhattan. They had originally met in 4 pre-arranged bars, where they were given further instructions just before the event began. They then suddenly gathered en-masse around an expensive rug, and if questioned had to reply that they all lived together, made purchase decisions as a group and were shopping for a “love rug”.

Later flashmobs included 200 people flooding the lobby of the Hyatt hotel in synchronized applause for 15 seconds, and an invasion of a shoe boutique in Soho by people pretending to be tourists on a bus trip.

The point in Flashmobs

Wasik claims he created flash mobs as a social experiment to poke fun at hipsters and highlight conformity, how the masses deperately want to be in the in-crowd or “the next big thing.”

It is claimed flashmobs were inspirted by the arts and social movements of the 60’s.

Flashmobs as a Social Institution – Performance Art, Collaborative Art

I chose flashmobs for their resemblance to an institution despite this supposed anti-conformity. I see it as a form of performance art, collaborative art. It is not clear who is the artist, who are participants and who is the viewer. The whole event is the art. It wouldn’t exist without the viewer, without the participants and without the organisers, it is a collaborative piece, and in this way it is more than the sum of its parts. it needs all parts to actually occur, but even so any specific part is replacable. There is no identity to the specific performer or viewer. Also it is open to anyone – you don’t need to be ‘an artist’. ‘ a performer’ – anybody who wants to can join in and be a part of it – and any one who wants to create an event can do so. It reminds me of Nicholas Bourriaud’s remarks in Relational Aesthetics – once people are involved in a collaborative work they are no longer spectators, they are contributing. The audience, artist, organisers, anyone at all are on the same level and are of equal value, there is no separation between artist and audience.

Speaking to my mother after the event her first question was ‘But why?’ But this seems to be a question in any form of art, but why not? For the fun, for the sheer hell of it! Looking at other people’s answers to this question on the net I got the following:

“It works because there is no ideological point behind it”

“It’s just about doing something fun,”

“The point is that there is no point, we do it for fun, we do it because we
can.”

“I get the impression that it’s a performance art piece, but I think that more than that it is just supposed to be silly in the way that performance art is supposed to be.”

“just some geeks having fun,”

X: “What is the game all about?” Y: “I have no idea, they are stuck in time?”

“a lot of people now spend a lot of their lives behind computer screens talking to and exchanging messages with people, often close friends, who they never see in person”

“This is a way of evolving that computer social interaction back to reality,”

“technology makes it much easier to contact the community and get it moving. It could mark the start of the largely unseen net population realising the latent power of its millions of members.”

It’s about fun, it’s new and fascinating and hilarious, and it’s about the way the internet has changed our lives – we ‘know’ people we have never met in our lives, we can communicate in a second. But it can be used as a tool as well. Bill Wasik’s original aim was in a way political – poking fun at the conformers. But it attracts such attention it can be used to make a statement too. Shutdown Day are planning a version to try to see how long we can manage without a computer to make a statement.

Back to Institutions – the wiki on Institutions says:

“Structures and mechanisms of social order and cooperation governing the behavior of a set of individuals. Institutions are identified with a social purpose and permanence, transcending individual human lives and intentions, and with the making and enforcing of rules governing cooperative human behavior. The term, institution, is commonly applied to customs and behavior patterns important to a society“

Social order and co-operation. Transcending human lives and intentions. Rules governing co-operative human behaviour.

It is a completely social thing. It is about behaviour, co-operation and rules – and about transcending these – it being more than the some of its parts, and parts being exchangeable. Back to Bourriaud – it is about breaking down boundaries between positions, and becoming a thing-in-itself.

Some links:

http://www.flashmob.co.uk/

London FlashMob

http://www.smartmobs.com/

Wiki

The Grand Central Freeze

World freeze

Pillow Fight Club

Bill Wasik

Improv Everywhere

Freeze London new item

Freeze London vid

Rug Love news item

Mobile Clubbing vid

Mobile Clubbing at Tate

Various London Freeze vids

Rickrollin’ news item

Flashmob news item

Flashmob news item

Flashmob news item

Shutdown Day

My Life Story

Horns are blowing, confetti is flying and frontman Jake Shillingford is sparkling in the spotlight, kicking the air and breathing life into a six year old concept band

I first came across the band My Life Story by chance on Saturday 27th July 1996 – on The White Room in a flat above a doctor’s surgery in Fulham. At the age of 22 I was awestruck – captivated by the swooping, orchestral sound and the poppy, glam showmanship of the whole band – the bold, bombastic kicks and the big band soundtrack – but with lyrics representing the “shabby romance of modern life and modern London” – a total contrast to the endless Nirvana imitations of the time. Next day I had tickets to the show at Ronnie Scott’s and was on their mailing list. It was from there that I found my home in London really. It was the peak of Britpop and Camden was its hub. My Life Story revolved around London and, as everyone else at the time was, were Camden-centric, in some ways reminiscent of Covent Garden in the 60’s. It was more than the music, it was the whole arena – the time, the place, the music, the fashion, the drama, the style – the whole performance. My Life Story were also far more than their music – they were the style, the showmanship, the glamour – orchestras and suits; sparkles, tiaras and boas – and a 12 piece orchestra every night – at the same time drawing on the pop and outrageous pomp of Marc Almond, ABC, Dexy’s and The Teardrop Explodes – to Anthony Newley, Scott Walker, PJ Proby.

“Big Strings, Glam, all the things you’re afraid to admit, Anthony Newley, The Pale Fountains, Chapeau Melon et Bottes de Cuir, Scott Walker, Marc and the Mambas, Bond Movies, Jimmy Webb, PJ Proby on daytime TV, Les Bicyclette de Belsize, Dexy’s, Punk Rock, Southend-on-Sea v’s Venice Beach, The Teardrop Explodes, Phil Spektor, Ken Nordine, Writing poems on the District line, The Dice Man, Johnny Boy, The Prisoner, Boating Blazers, Jason King, Yes..Tommy Steele, John Steed, Dressing up on a Monday night and staying in just for the thrill of dressing up, Both Elvi, Girls with Boys, Boys with Girls, Girls with Girls, Boys with Boys.” – Jake on his influences

At the same time many around them were chasing similar themes – Menswear, Orlando, David Devant, Rialto, Posh…it was the right time for the glamour, the pop and the pomp, the pretentiousness, the suits, the glitter. Every fanzine wanted them. It was the time when I would do eight gigs a week. Even 12 years later, most of my friends I met through some connotation with the band, including my partner of ten years. My Life Story were an icon – What did they have that that drew so many in?

“There are classical violinists busting bow strings as they mosh their way through pop music. Horns are blowing, confetti is flying and frontman Jake Shillingford is sparkling in the spotlight, kicking the air and breathing life into a six year old concept band: My Life Story.“ Sean McManus

My Life Story were originally an indie-pop group formed around 1991 by Jake Shillingford, a one-time ice-cream van man and Essex boy – brought up in Southend-on-Sea by his artistic father, Alan Shillingford (a Pop Art-ist of the 1950s) as well as various babysitters from the art college (including a young Alison Moyet). Jake claims it was here that he first grabbed his love of pop – in the “riotously raucous” singles they would bring round in his childhood. Jake rebelled against his upbringing by quitting college with no art qualifications, and poured his energies instead into music. The prototype My Life Story pressed just a handful of copies of their only single, “Home Sweet Zoo” (which now fetches over £125 a copy), on Think Tank in 1986, before disbanding.

After moving to London and working as a DJ at Dingwalls in Camden and Blow Up in Soho, Jake was made redundant and headed for America, where the skeleton of My Life Story was born. Musing with friends over what thought was missing from music they came up with a list including “thought-provoking lyrics; big, bombastic sounds; a bit of show-offness; personality and pretentiousness“.

“I love pretentiousness, it’s what pop music is all about“.

Jake was a showman and his performance was about more than the music – he wanted the style, the scene, the icon. My Life Story had their own arrranger in Aaron Cahill and with Jake made huge, bold, orchestral arrangements, epic cinematic soundtracks, torchsongs – a cinematic sound, with a John Barry influence. Jake had difficulty recruiting musicians to develop these plans for orchestral pop songs however, and resorted to propositioning anyone with the right shaped instrument case he found on the Northern Line. (Source) Some hid behind newspapers, some walked away, but a few were curious enough to audition for him. By Autumn 1993 his band was created – My Life Story were a 12 piece.

“Much the same as in a screenplay, I try to exagerrate the lyrics and and give it a big carchase at the end. As opposed to just getting out of a cab. People respond to that”.

Still sticking to his ideals of huge orchestras and refusing to use artificial sounds, Jake also had difficulty in the studio getting a big enough sound for the orchestral idea in his mind. He resorted to setting up a pair of mics, moving the string quartet gradually further away, and layering the recordings to make it sound like an orchestra pit full of strings. Still this wasn’t enough for Jake who stated “Next time I want to get a full 66 piece orchestra in“. At this time they were spotted by Giles Martin, (son of Beatles legend George) and offered free studio time. It was here that their debut single Girl A, Girl B, Boy C was born – released on Mother Tongue and both NME and Melody Maker’s Single of the Week – “a tale of a bizarre love triangle with a big band soundtrack…All foxy horns and horny foxes“. This was followed in 1994 by two more singles – Funny Ha Ha and You Don’t Sparkle (in My Eyes); an EP (the Mornington Crescent Companion); a track (Under The Ice) on a flexidisc; and in 1995 what was to be their last release on Mother Tongue due to its demise in 1996 – their debut album Mornington Crescent – “homage to London Transport’s notorious Misery Line” – littered with references to the times and the places of the band’s (and their fans’) lives in Camden – Mornington Crescent being not only the stop next to Camden on the Northern Line, but also where Jake worked at the Camden Palace (now KoKo); and Angel also on the Northern Line. It reached number two in the indie chart in February 1995. On the cover was Big Ben and inside 12 oil paintings (one for each song) all by Jake’s father, Alan. As did all My Life Story’s records, the vinyl version also had a message etched on each side in the runout runouts :

“A: You are never given a dream…

B: Without also being given the power to make it come true”

Mornington Crescent LineUp:—————-Golden Mile LineUp:

Jake Shillingford: Voice and Guitar————-Jake Shillingford: Voice
Harry Blue: Bass—————————Paul Seipel: Bass with Vocals
Helen Caddick: Keyboards——————-Danny Turner: Piano, Harpsichord
Jason Cooper: Drums and Timpani————-Simon Wray: Drums,Timpani
Bill Mowbray: Saxophone——————–Ben Spencer: Tenor/Alto Saxophone
Mark Bradley: 1st Trumpet——————-Mark Bradley: Trumpet

Roxanna Shirley: 2nd Trumpet—————Roxanna Shirley: Trumpet with Vocals

Ruth Thomas: Trumpet———————Becca Ware: 2nd Violin

Lucy Wilkins: 1st Violin———————Lucy Wilkins: Violin

Becki Doe: 1st Violin———————–Becki Doe: Violin

Rob Spriggs: Viola and Flute—————–Robert Spriggs: Viola

Oliver Kraus: Cello————————Oliver Kraus: Cello, Keyboards

My Life Story performed ‘A Month of Sundays’ at Dingwalls, with a different setlist for each gig. This was perhaps the turning point for them. In 1996 they were signed to Parlophone and released their single 12 Reasons Why. The newly acquired marketing and cashflow meant their popularity grew exponentially – they shifted overnight from indie music paper faves to mainstream radio and TV appearances including Radio 1, The Big Breakfast, TFI Friday, The White Room, Live And Kicking, The Bob Mills Show, GLR and more. They toured endlessly over the next two years including an unforgettable New Year’s Eve gig at the Hackney Empire in 1996 and the landmark election-night gig at the Astoria in 1997, which included a swingometer to decide the next song, and a guest appearance from ABC frontman Martin Fry. They released four more singles and an album that year – all four singles were released as dual format with different b-sides on each to encourage the collectors. One of them (Sparkle) was a re-arranged, re-recorded version of the original ‘You Don’t Sparkle (In My Eyes)‘ from Mother Tongue. The album was released with a Valentine’s Day gig at ULU. Whilst the album was well received it appeared more produced and packaged than the original Mornington Crescent era tracks – and the double (in the case of 12 Reasons, triple) releases, and blocky artwork gave it a less personal, more commercial feel. My Life Story’s fanbase were hardcore however and many still collected two of every release and followed them round the country (and beyond), even forming “My Life Story Sunshine Tours” and meeting up with other members of the mailing list (this was before the internet had really taken off). It was live that My Life Story were still spectacular – the cascading strings and trumpeting brass; the high kicks from Jake and cheeky smirks from the Crow; the teasing from the strings, the numbers thrown out into the crowd to 12 Reasons by Rox and the strings. The suits in white latex and sparkly silver, personally designed by Mr Gammon. Still the glitter, the confetti, the boas, the groupies played on.

Nowadays, Jake’s personal tailer, a Mr Gammon, takes care of his sartorial extravagances, supplying everything from the ‘little black leather Elvis numbers to ’suits like the ones John Steed wore in the Avengers’. Such attention to detail, coupled with the visual and musical shenanigans of a band the size of a football team minus the goalie, make My Life Story’s live shows quite an event.

It was short lived – there were problems emanating from the relationship with Parlophone, culminating with the cancellation of the release of You Can’t Uneat The Apple (which a promo was already in circulation for) and it’s sudden replacement with the far more regimented ‘Duchess‘. In 1998 they were dropped – some claim due to poor charting, others claim it was a change of management at Parlophone. As a parting gesture the label re-issued Mornington Crescent with extra tracks. Jake, Danny, Simon and The Crow took on a new member and signed briefly to Andrew Lloyd Webber’s offshoot business It Records. They took on a new more synth and guitar-led, 80’s-electronica influenced direction, releasing their third album ‘Joined up Talking‘ in 2000, now stripped down to a five piece. They still failed to chart and played their final three shows at Camden Underworld on 13th, 14th and 15th December. All three nights has different setlists with an acoustic set beforehand, following the shadow of their ‘Month of Sundays’ concept of 1995. The band then went their separate ways. Jake and Aaron Cahill launched their new project ExileInside in 2001, releasing an album in August 2002. Jake also went on to start a solo career without Aaron.

The band began by playing an unplugged set of ‘November 5th’, ‘Claret’ and ‘You can’t uneat the apple’. The main set included most of the third album and crowd-pleasers from the past such as ‘Suited and Booted’, ‘Sparkle’, ‘Motorcade’, ‘Penthouse in the Basement’ and ‘12 Reasons Why I Love Her’. “We’re not really splitting up,” joked Jake on stage, “we just like to see girls cry.”

As it had been at the Month of Sundays gigs, the final song in the main set was ‘Funny Ha Ha’, Jake’s riposte to cynical critics. My Life Story’s dying notes were from the final encore of the moving ballad ‘Angel’. A bootleg double CD of this concert is known to be in circulation.

My Life Story were part of the time and the place of Camden in the mid-90’s but with throwbacks to the 60’s. It all leaked into the sound and appearance of My Life Story as a band and as an icon of the time. At the peak of Britpop Camden was the scene to be in and My Life Story were a huge part of that crowd. Their output was more than the music – a performance of drama and showmanship, glamour and style, representing the shabby romance of modern life and modern London. Their fanbase was largely London-based and formed a loyal crowd. Whilst they always had this hardcore fanbase, their popularity soared when they gained the business hand to promote it, but was unsustainable without the marketing, the assets and the era. As Britpop moved on and the public were pushed to another category My Life Story found it impossible to compete.

Albums

Mornington Crescent (Mother Tongue Records – 1994)
The Golden Mile (Parlophone Records – 1996) UK # 36
Mornington Crescent (Parlophone Records – 1998 )
Joined Up Talking (it Records 1999)
Sex & Violins (The Best of My Life Story) (Exilophone Records 2006)
Megaphone Theology (B-Sides and Rarities) (Exilophone Records 2006)

Singles
Girl A, Girl B, Boy C (Mother Tongue Records – 1993)
Funny Ha Ha (Mother Tongue Records – 1994)
You Don’t Sparkle (In My Eyes) (Mother Tongue Records – 1995)
The Mornington Crescent Companion EP (Mother Tongue Records – 1995)
12 Reasons Why I Love Her (Parlophone Records – 1996) UK #32
Sparkle (Parlophone Records – 1996) #34
The King Of Kissingdom (Parlophone Records – 1997) UK #35
Strumpet (Parlophone Records – 1997) UK #27
Duchess (Parlophone Records – 1997) UK #39
If You Can’t Live Without Me Then Why Aren’t You Dead Yet? ( 1998 ) – Download-only single
It’s A Girl Thing (it Records – 1999) UK #37
Empire Line (it Records – 1999) UK #58
Walk/Don’t Walk (it Records – 2000) UK #48

Links:

Checkmate – Caroline Griffiths’ site
Twelve Reasons Why – Ricchard Harrison’s site
Sean.co.ukSean McManus’ site
mylifestory.com My Life Story official site
http://jakeshillingford.com/ – Jake’s solo site
Wiki on My Life Story

The Medium of Ideas – Conceptual Art and Beyond (pt. II)

So – Ideas as a medium. What I am trying to explore is that art (in whatever form or period) involves communication – it must involve mental processes – experiences, ideas, thinking, questioning, understanding. It begins as an idea in the artist’s mind and ends as an idea in the viewer’s mind.

Is it that today we are evoking different kinds of mental process? Pre-Renaissance art was reliant on the wealthy and was a ‘commissioned message’ – of power, status or beauty etc, in architecture and painting – religious messages, aristocratic messages.

(Without needing to go through the whole history of art) – more recently, since conceptualism, is it that it is a more active mental process? Instead of conveying a strict message, is it conveying a question – forcing the viewer to ask questions and reconsider their understanding of concepts. It is a form of active thinking. Sometimes it is the thinking. The artwork only exists when the viewer participates in the process – without the participation it is no longer an artwork, just an object. The viewer’s thinking – their active mental activity in questioning and reconsidering, is the artwork, rather than being the result of viewing the artwork.

I’ve tried to do the list-type research on conceptual art but nobody seems keen to define it. The commonest answers are along the lines of questioning the limits of art and artists, media, ideas and meaning eg – “not defined by medium or style but by the way it questions what art is”; “questions the traditional status of art as unique, collectable or saleable”; “Demands a more active response from the viewer – only truly exists in the viewer’s mental participation”. (Tony Godfrey, Conceptual Art, Phaidon Press, 1998)

I think the latter perhaps comes closest to my consideration of ideas as a medium – questioning, eliciting a response from the viewer so that they have to actively consider what they are viewing and its meaning – and whether their own beliefs and opinions are real, even what ‘reality’ is. But I’m not trying to look specifically at conceptual art here, I’m looking at ideas as a medium – which can (and must) go beyond the scope of specifically conceptual art.

Dibbets & Ruthenbeck’s “The Energy of a Real English Breakfast Transformed into Breaking a Real Steel Bar by the Artists Dibbets and Ruthenbeck” questions in this way.

Tony Godfrey discusses this in ‘Conceptual Art’, saying several questions are being asked implicitly in the work: “not just ‘what is a ‘real’ English breakfast?’ or ‘did this ‘really’ happen?’ but ‘what does ‘real’ mean?’“. It looks real but did it really happen? Did they really break the bar? Are they artists? Is this art? Which part is the artwork – the action of making the photo; the photo itself; or the ideas in your mind as you ask these questions?

Philosophy and art seem inseparable on this level. Both are intended to make you think. The art as a whole is the thinking. To remove the thinking (ergo the viewer) from the process is like having a letter without any writing in it. But even beyond that – do I have to have ANY physical object to have the art? Some work, eg Joseph Kosuth’s Titled (Art as Idea as Idea) series, exists whether or not the item in front of me exists:

Joseph Kosuth ‘Titled (Art as Idea as Idea) [Water]‘, 1966

It is not this particular photocopy in front of me that is the artwork – it could be replicated on any other photocopy or reprinted or written or conveyed in any other way – it is the concept, the idea, the thought that is the essential component in the artwork. This truly is beyond the visual. The medium is the idea, the concept or rather the mental action of you thinking and questioning. It doesn’t matter exactly what object in what place causes the thinking, it is the act of doing that specific thinking.

In the text within ‘Non-Anthromorphic Art‘, Kosuth states: “All I make are models. The actual works of art are ideas. Rather than ‘ideas’ the models are a visual approximation or a particular art object I have in mind. It does not matter who actually makes the model, nor where the model ends up”:

Joseph Kosuth, ‘Texts by Joseph Kosuth from ‘Non-Anthromorphic Art”, Lannis Gallery, NYC, 1967

This still seems a very narrow concept of ‘conceptual’ though. I’ve since found it in an online philosophy of art lecture as “an art of the mind rather than the senses” which seems more where I’m coming from with using ideas as a medium.

Many supposed ‘definitions’ such as “not defined by medium or style but by the way it questions what art is” are surely only categorising a single subject within the huge range of conceptual art, never mind thinking or thought as a medium. Art can act through ideas on any subject – it is about far more than questioning what art is, or the meaning of art – it is about questioning the meaning or belief or opinion or conception of anything…

On the same level as philosophy, it is about causing a hint of doubt in the viewer so that they consider other possibilities; they are no longer sure about previous certainties. In doing this they are constructing the art by participating in it themselves. On this level I cannot see any distinction between philosophy and art.

Philosophy can’t exist without a thinker – art as thought cannot exist without a thinker.

The Medium of Ideas – Conceptual Art and Beyond (pt. I)

I’m writing this in a field in Yorkshire as I am away for a couple of weeks, so this will be uploaded to the blog when I get home and will all be slightly out of synch.

I’ve been thinking a lot about what medium I should select to research for AE&EA and about the research process itself – what it should include what it shouldn’t, what is worth being included. The value of the project itself has been a major issue for me.

Firstly the research. We were told to go away and research each area in as much depth as possible and document it – ‘to find out everything there is to know’. It was still a very vague brief though, and given the impossibility of researching the infinite – and indeed documenting it online – I’m not seeing this as a valuable use of my time. So I’m not going to go out and research every fact and figure as any kind of list or encyclopaedia.

Instead what I will do is think, read, look, observe, interact, perform – and see what my thoughts are on the concepts of what I am looking at or producing – of medium, of institution, gallery, artist and publication. I could research the specific in detail but it is such a small part of the whole – and art being such a wide arena I don’t think it is necessarily a good thing to have detail on specifics. At least not yet. So whilst I will choose a specific medium, artist or whatever, I’m far more interested in it as part of a whole system, or as a general concept.

Which leads me to the first area I’m supposedly documenting my research on – a medium. After thinking endlessly about choosing a medium and looking at what it is, what it isn’t, what it is used for, why it used, who has used it ad infinitum and being no more inspired I have decided my medium is thought. Thinking, ideas. Communicating through ideas. My first interest at college is philosophy – or to be more precise understanding and ideas – and using art as a tool within this to gain understanding; and to communicate. Ideas are a medium for me, as well as an end result.

Last year I was told that art is about communication. There is always communication of some form intended in an artwork. This doesn’t seem to be the general view at my current college, but I don’t know if that’s through a lack of clarity or understanding or what. Regardless of my experiences last year, surely art has to be about the transfer or evocation of some kind of understanding, thought, idea or emotion in the viewer? Even without any original intent, there is communication as soon as the viewer sets eyes (or ears, or whatever else) on it.

If the viewer is not getting the message intended by the artwork then the artist wasn’t successful in their objective, it was ‘bad art’ – it could have been done better. But despite this – even if an artwork evokes the wrong message, or wasn’t supposed to have any message, it has to evoke a feeling or an idea of some sort in the mind of the viewer. Whether it is the appreciation of the beauty of a landscape, a message of power, beauty or status in a portrait, or political comment in contemporary art or anything else – it has to evoke some kind of mental activity in the viewer. Emotion, understanding, thought, idea – Descartes would label them all ‘thinking’.

However surely art today has gone beyond the evocation of idea or thinking, to using ideas as a medium. As Beuys said it has gone ‘beyond the visual’. Conceptual art. Relational art. Yoko’s Grapefruit. The philosophy of art. Philosophy as art…

This is beginning to sound confusing. Let me try to organise this a little more…

Institutions and Media

Whilst reading around other artists ideas on Nothingness – generally not so much the philosophy of Nothing but other peoples mimimalist references to it – I came across this this blog from someone in Australia. He has made parodies of different aspects of art. I mostly watched the mimimalist and postmodernist sketches, but one series he calls Blank Canvas (I, II and III) happen to be based around what I was thinking about the other day, and Ryman in particular.

His sketches are kind of funny and ironic – talking about how it takes years to gain the style, technique and skills to get idea in your head onto canvas and make a living from it – only to produce a sealed, readymade canvas and say it expresses everything he wants to say so it’s finished.

Parody or not it brought me yet again back to thinking how this is the way art is seen from the ‘outside world’, past the elite art-world ‘institution’, to what ‘the public’ think. They ‘know’ Tracey Emin’s bed or Damien Hirst’s cow ‘is art’ because they’ve been told it is by various institutions – but on the whole would they be able to tell you i) why it is categorised as art and ii) why it was made this way in the first place? What is the purpose behind it, and/or what is it trying to say? Maybe there’s both an internal and an external question there.

Institutionalist and capitalist theories aside, does etourist2’s parody-personality himself understand why Ryman decided to make his work how he did? OK so it’s a sketch, its meant to be ironic, but reading over the rest of his site (eg Nothing on a Grand Scale) he seems to be a painter with a major dislike for conceptual art.

(This brings up the categorisation again – people have departmentalised art for themselves and don’t like to give their labels away. The Stuckists don’t want to be in the same category as Damien Hirst. “It’s not Art with a capital A”. But highbrow, lowbrow, whatever label you apply to it the content is the same. The content expresses something to me.)

The paradox is he repeatedly keeps asking what the point is. But I could ask that equally about his paintings. What is the point? Are they supposed to be making a statement? Conveying some kind of message? Are they just there to look pretty on his wall or blend in with the surroundings? Are they to make him muchos $$$ off Joe Public? What is their ‘purpose’? Is he as guilty of interior design, (if that’s a crime) as he claims Ryman is?

Among the comments at the bottom of his page are:

“I often wonder how much the artist was paid for the “artwork” and think to myself, “why didn’t I do that, and make a killing?“

“Apparently this kind of art does speak to some artists enough to emulate it.“

“Yes I have seen that too, but just because they do it doesn’t mean it’s worth emulating.“

“I’ve seen it time and time again where some emerging artist has produced this kind of art for reasons that are beyond me.“

Interesting – “why didn’t I do that, and make a killing?“

“As an artist I don’t understand how anyone can claim to express anything through a blank canvas“. But why not? I can see what Ryman was expressing so if someone (eg etourist2’s parody), ‘doesn’t think you can express anything through a blank canvas’, is it that they don’t understand it? If so, is that because they expect the thing in front of them alone to give them information directly, with no thought and no background info? Or is it just that the work itself isn’t successful, it’s not communicating clearly what it was intended to, it’s just not very good art? More importantly does any art really communicate whatever its is intending to in just one object in a gallery?

Its good to make people think but you need something to start with. Then again, as ever my problem is that the object at the end is pretty meaningless, its the process you go through in researching and producing it and the reasons you did what you did that matter. This tends to not be available to the end viewer unless they follow you like a stalker…

“Apparently this kind of art does speak to some artists” – much art doesn’t speak to me, either for the reasons above, I haven’t understood the point in it, I just don’t ‘get’ whatever it is other people are getting. Or it can just be repetitive – for example minimalism has a point in its fundamental questions – but I don’t need eight thousand different examples of it making its point. Most conceptual art I don’t really need to even see to get the point. That isn’t to say I don’t find conceptual art fascinating – but I only really need the concept.

etourist2 says Robert Ryman has made a career out of painting surfaces white…the blank canvas as a ‘concept’ has been over done. Which is true as I said above – once you understand the concept it doesn’t need to be repeated. However does “it’s time to get back to actually painting something on the canvas” fare any better? Hasn’t that been done to death as well?

This is why I prefer philosophy – the ideas are the medium. Art is a tool I use to gain ideas, or to rearrange ideas to uncover new ideas. But my end result is always ideas, or understanding – or occasionally communicating ideas to other people, although it can be pretty narcissistic. But relating to “Apparently this kind of art does speak to some artists” – why don’t paintings speak to me? The vast, vast majority of them have no particular message, feeling or even look particularly interesting or attractive. When they do have a message it seems it could have been said more clearly, better or more ‘interestingly’ by some other method or medium. I just don’t ‘see the point in’ painting. Even painting that isn’t aiming to have any message. “Oh yes that looks nice“. Now lets move on.