The definition of an object is:
'Something material that may be perceived by the senses'
We discussed the formal properties of objects and added some extra to the list:
Balance, Height, Weight, Form, Material, Opacity, Surface, Mass, Colour, Scale, Smell, Taste, Texture.
Beyond the list we discussed: Identity, Function, Place, Transformation, Representation, Value, Affordance (the ability to use, ie handles etc).
The above items were just some of the artists given as examples for this workshop.
Joseph-Kosuth. One-and-Three-Chairs. (https://www.moma.org/learn/moma_learning/joseph-kosuth-one-and-three-chairs-1965/) is probably one of the best known. It is often quoted as an example of how an artist explores the meaning of an object, the physical shape, an image and a description. Which one is the ultimate observation of meaning of a chair. Can one exist without the other? If we had the description but no object we would have to create our own image of how it looked, was built, its function. The same can be said of the image. Is this enough to understand the object, how can it be, it's a 2 dimensional image of a 3 dimensional object.
Meret Oppenheim's 1936 Fur-covered cup, saucer, and spoon (https://www.moma.org/learn/moma_learning/meret-oppenheim-object-paris-1936/) is an object that has been changed. It's clearly a cup, saucer and spoon but the look, feel, texture and probably smell and taste of the Chinese gazelle fur will be very different to a ceramic version. A surreal image from a surreal time but it does question the formal properties of the object and challenges the viewer.
Louise Bourgeois' 1994 Spider (https://www.tate.org.uk/art/artworks/bourgeois-spider-al00354) is clearly a spider, not to the scale we expect or would like to encounter. Neither is it spidery in touch being made from bronze and granite. The egg hanging underneath the spider gives further meaning. Bourgeois discusses how it is to represent her mother and the feelings she had to her. She also wrote a poem ‘Ode to my Mother’ (‘Ode à ma mère’) just after she had made this sculpture that reflects those feelings.
Nud Cycladic 3 by Sarah Lucas, 2010 (https://www.tate.org.uk/art/artworks/lucas-nud-cycladic-3-t13451) has bodily form but is not a body. The colour, the shape, the mass, the surface all look as though they are representing the body or bodily parts, whether external or internal is for you to interpret. The curation of it on a breeze-block plinth makes it even more brutal in appearance, there is little delicacy about the piece but there is beauty in the shapes, folds and composition.
For this workshop we were described an object but never told what it was. The descriptions were vague but gave elements of detail. As each instruction was given we drew more detail onto our unknown object and noted down the detail. On completion we were then to construct the drawing into a 3D object but with very limiting material. Foil, clingfilm, string, sponge, card and tape.
I then decided to take the object which I felt had become quite sculptural and potentially architectural and see how it would look in a completely different environment. I did consider it as a piece of sculpture in a landscape but then looked a London skyline to see how it might work amongst the other buildings.
Comments