-
The Manual: Parts and LabourCo-curated by John Chilver and Brighid Lowe14 November - 14 December 2014Osan Museum of Art, OsanThrowingEuyoung HongIn the exhibition, Parts and Labour, co-curated by John Chilver and Brighid Lowe, a particular condition of art-making is given to artists. The condition includes written instructions for the production of a work of art which are to be followed by using only the materials listed in the instructions, which are provided by the curators of the exhibition. A work of art should be made by the conceptual labour of the artist and the physical labour of others who participate in making art. The instruction of the artist is acted on and completed by the others. In the process, the artist plays a role as legislator. Specifically, in minimalist and conceptualist works; for example, Michael Asher’s Sculpture Project (1977, 1987 and 1997) and Michael Craig-Martin’s An Oak Tree (1973); this legislative role of the artist has been significantly considered, expanding the meaning of conceptual participation in the art-making process and finding a new material possibility of the idea behind the work. In these particular given conditions of art production, I intend to present a new installation work, titled Throwing for the exhibition. For the construction of the work, a set of instruction is proposed:1. All materials on the list are used except for a bottle of red wine, a round mirror and balls. Use only one item if there are more than one of the same item.2. Prepare a measuring tape, masking tape and a protractor in addition to the given materials.3. Choose a place within the exhibition space and mark the place with a piece of masking tape.4. Select an item from the list randomly.5. Stand on the marked place with an object and throw it.6. Measure the distance between the starting point and the place where the object has fallen.7. Calculate the distance divided by 10.8. Measure the new distance from the starting point and then move the point by turning through an angle of 30 degrees clockwise from the first flowing direction and mark this with a piece of masking tape. 9. Once you have placed the object on the marked place, remove the masking tape. The object becomes a new starting point for completing the next action on the next object.10. Continue to apply the rule to each randomly selected object.Mostly, an artist has a conceptual and material plan before he or she begins to work and thinks about how his or her idea and work turns out at the end in relation to the given space. For example, for Richard Serra, to build a model is an important part of constructing his large-scale sculptural installation. However, in this exhibition, it is not easy to have an image of a completed piece beforehand. An artist makes an instruction on the basis of a list of materials without the material experience of the actual objects. This indicates that the artist is required to actualize his or her imagination about the given materials, such as their sizes, colours or weights in a certain way. In addition, the artist has is restricted by the extent to which he or she is physically participating in the process of the production of art. There is also a time limit to the construction of a work of art. Every work of art is allowed to be constructed only within a total of two person-labour-hours, no matter whether the work is complete or not. This time limit can definitely be related to a certain aspect of performance. These shared restrictions may help viewers to easily discover different conceptual and material reactions between 20 participating artists through their outcomes. In the exhibition, an instruction acts as an essential factor that maximizes the visualization and materialization of differences. In the particular condition of the exhibition, a performative installation work, Throwing explores the construction and distribution of principle through the material and immaterial relationship in the process and result of art production. It focuses on the idea of the verb, specifically, the act of throwing. In the project, objects cannot be identified simply as residues of a particular activity, as throwing does not result in a significant physical transformation of the given objects. Rather, the act of throwing rearranges established spatial relations, functions and meanings of the objects. It changes not only our traditional understanding of objects as nouns; which are considered as having strong solidity, immobility, physicality, isolation and objectivity; but also objects’ social roles and relations. From a socio-political perspective, the movement, relationship and transformation of objects are affected and even controlled by the capitalist mode of production. In the realm of capitalism, the mode of production is considered an important factor, which changes and determines not only productive forces, but also the relations of production that make production function and cause the plan to be systemized in a certain way. This mode of production cannot be reduced to material production; rather, it is a broader concept, which includes the concept of reproduction, consisting of the act of circulation, distribution and consumption. In the contemporary condition of globalization, specifically in the course of the transition from Fordism to post-Fordism, the mode of production has been changed, in particular from the state mode of production to the flexible mode of production. [1] Stuart Elden sees the state mode of production, as focusing on three important elements, initially described by Lefebvre: (1) managerial and administrative, (2) the power of protection and (3) the power of killing. [2] The state mode of production is based on the logic of monopoly, in which the state as a political unit intervenes in the economy to protect large-scale monopolistic planning from that of private agents, by fixing a legal framework within which large developers can have a priority, to operate effectively. It is centred particularly on manufacturing. By contrast, in the disposition of globalization, the globalized system of production is not always matched by a globalized consumption pattern. This is because different income levels and types of consumption are constantly fragmentized and polarized into a particular condition of production. Therefore, rather than a monolithic production system, led by the limited dominant, the new mode of production tends to be flexible and globalized in many sectors by making products cheaper and circulating them more easily and efficiently for consumers all over the world. Whereas the state mode of production has a tendency towards the production side of the operation, which is led by the limited dominant groups of people in society and aims at redistribution, based on the system of social classes, the flexible mode of production focuses on the diversity of consumers, who vary depending on their income levels and the sites that they relate to. On the basis of different consumption patterns throughout the world, the production process and its method are strictly subordinate to the social, cultural, economic and geographical conditions of the site. In this interpretation, the contemporary system of space, therefore, operates in the logic of flexibility, which seeks to reconfigure existing labour relations and production systems in relation to different social, economic and geographical contexts. The fragmented condition of consumer markets and the expansionary nature of capital flow are considered to be two key factors in the shift of the mode of production. The force of flexibility stimulates the decentralization and differentiation of production systems, as capital constantly seeks to enhance its value and profitability by externalizing and distributing itself through specified production lines. A new form of space can constantly emerge, resulting from the expansionary nature of flexible production systems and the fragmentation of consumption. In the process, public and private sectors work in partnership, as the flexible system of production enhances the interdependence of different forces, relations and sites. In this changing condition of capitalist production, objects are produced, changed and move according to the logic of capital. Objects are essential for the accumulation of capital, because they become a basis for not only the circulation of capital, but also the process of production and distribution during a given period of time. The production and arrangement of objects is, therefore, subordinated to the flow of capital, which constantly seeks a profitable condition of spaces in order to absorb surplus capital. In other words, if an existing value and system of an object fails to absorb surplus capital, this means that the object is degenerated in the market, for example, the products of Nokia and Motorola and many others. In this account, the system of objects in the space of capitalism has been formed and transformed in an uneven pattern of geographic development, whereby the ephemerality of objects becomes an essential condition for the construction and expansion of a profitable space in terms of the logic of capital, rather than part of an equal development of all the spaces. Degenerate objects and the spatial relation and system of the objects usually have a long period of time to increase in value and catch up with their rival producers by restructuring their production systems and relations. The increase of the value of an object can be proved only through its survival in the space of market. In relation to objects in the system of capitalist production, Throwing constructs a new spatial system of objects, which is resistant to capitalist orders, and which includes the system of gallery or museum and art collection. Through the action of throwing, the spatial arrangement of objects produces a certain form of movement and relationship in the space. In particular, the weight of objects and the strength of human physical force – which have been relatively ignored in the capitalist value system – are essential factors in determining the distance and direction of the movement of the objects. These factors of movement act as two contradictory forces: the one that is for gravity and the other that is against gravity. In this complex relationship between different forces, throwing does not simply free the object to go wherever it may, but creates a particular pattern and trajectory of movement and relation. The action becomes the art. Rather than functioning as the resultant objects, the objects form, change and reorganize the given space in and through a new spatial principle. The activity of throwing may invade spaces of other artworks in the exhibition space. Throwing as an expansionary yet violent force produces a new continuity between disconnected and fragmented elements by forging a new relationship between a new force and a different existing spatial system. The relationship between an artist’s legislative role and an object’s spatial function can be seen as a main engine of systemizing a new space, which makes a critical reaction to the monopolization and hierarchization of objects and spaces in the logic of capital. In the process, an existing space can be transformed into a new one at a given point in time, not simply because the objects relate to different material and immaterial forces, but also because the value and system of the objects are affected by the change in the logic of space, that is, throwing. Through this process, a new space can emerge. [1] David Harvey, The Condition of Postmodernity: An Enquiry into the Origin of Cultural Change (Oxford, Blackwell Publishers Ltd., 1990) 141-172.[2] Stuart Elden, Understanding of Henri Lefebvre: Theory and the Possible (London, Continuum, 2004) 224.
-
PenumbraBermondsey Project Space46 Willow WalkLondon SE1 5SF18 - 27 October 2012Layering spacesby Euyoung Hong In the exhibition Penumbra, the exhibition space is allocated to each of eight artists to work their projects for one day each. Rather than gathering eight different complete works into one exhibition space by dividing that space into eight fragmented spaces, over the course of the eight days, each artist enters the space that is occupied by another work, produced in the previous day. The principle of the exhibition is to allow the works of art to intrude upon each other conceptually and physically. This intervention of work occurs sequentially. Accordingly, the exhibition works gradually accumulate in the same place until the end of the project. The method of collaboration with artists in this exhibition is, therefore, different from usual. For example, in other exhibitions, there is often a preliminary process of negotiation that necessarily condenses different ideas and elements into a certain single form of consent before the event. Apart from the agreement of each artwork interfering with, and being interfered by, the other seven, there are no detailed plans for the exhibition. This implies that the artists themselves will, of course, find it difficult to know what would happen on their own project day; and it is impossible to have a complete idea or plan before the show. The exhibition, therefore, is composed of the processes of creating works of art, rather than complete pieces of work. This blurs the boundary between the artist’s exhibition space and artist’s production space. The last day of the project is open publicly. Viewers will, at first, encounter the final layer of space that is completed by eight artists. At this level, it will be difficult for viewers to distinguish an artist’s work from another, as they are completely intermingled. Merging an exhibition space with an artist’s studio need not to be total chaos; rather it can be a means of visualizing a work of art, particularly one that experiments with and materializes the possibility of contingency. The practice of art acts as a new connection between objects, people and ideas and can transfer everyday space or objects into an aesthetic relationality. This final layer of space cannot be identified merely as a pictorial image; rather, different elements constantly interact with each other in and through the gap between different layers of time, ideas and relations.The exhibition space is a complex kind of space, and intermingles the various functions of space, not only for exhibiting a work of art, but also for other purposes such as holding a workshop or seminar. Because of this multi-functional aspect of the space, an artist can find unexpected objects in the space already; such items as a ladder, office chairs, or tables, which cannot easily be found in other exhibition spaces. For the first of the eight artists participating in the exhibition, the unoccupied exhibition space itself becomes a given condition for creating a work of art. Considering the particular condition of the space, I decided to present a temporary foldable space - called Waiting Room (2012) - which is composed of two sets of foldable steel frames and vinyl sidewalls and ceilings. This temporary spatial construction is frequently used in South Korea for various purposes, such as street shops, temporary outdoor offices and waiting rooms outside restaurants. Such foldable spaces are much more economical than constructing actual buildings. The foldable space can also be easily moved and removed. In the project, I use this temporary spatial construction as a waiting room, in which different chairs are placed, facing each other along opposite walls. Some of the chairs are collected from the exhibition space. The others come from different places outside. In real life, when we enter a waiting room, one can see people who are waiting for the event that they expect to occur. The space is often divided by people, because people tend to make a group or groups for chatting or simply waiting together in the space. This spatial division, formed by people, definitely relates to the arrangement of objects, such as chairs, tables and partitions. A particular spatial arrangement generates a new rule, whereby people occupy the space in a certain pattern and behaviour. This temporary space territorializes itself through its complex spatial operations. On the one hand, it operates as a generative site that not only encounters different things and ideas, but also allows a new event to occur. On the other hand, it becomes a space that suspends people’s further actions. In my work, space is crucial, not because a work of art necessarily occupies a particular place, but because a work of art is produced in an interrelationship with the space. Space becomes a fundamental factor that determines the territory of a work of art. From a spatial perspective, Waiting Room is political, because it presents a ‘suspended space’ that allows flows of people in the space and at the same time experiences a delay of an event or decision that the people expect to occur. Layering as a constant process of de-territorialization can be an essential method for activating this suspended space, in the sense that it does not accumulate different spaces and elements in a historical order, but is an act of blurring existing boundaries and borders, through which different forces and powers can encounter and produce something new. It deals with a place of complexity, which is in constant movement from one form to another, rather than the idealist account of a permanent settlement or protection. This construction occupies a position that layers differences, such as a presentness with a delayed future, the private with the public and the valid with the invalid. This is a shared yet closed space.
-
by Eva Diaz (Assistant Professor, History of Art and Design at Pratt Institute)2007Picture the interior of a corporate office, say IBM in its heyday in the 1950s or 1960s. As an extreme example of bureaucracized space, you probably can visualize it even if you haven’t actually seen it. Picture a vast area populated by endless rows of uniform desks, a seemingly limitless expanse made brightly sterile by fluorescent fixtures ensconced in the depressingly regular grid of a drop ceiling. Next, envision a domestic interior, a living room for example, primed for a Met Home spread, every object tidy, ordered, pleasantly asymmetric, every chair standing to attention, each vase, lamp, and tchotchke intentionally placed with a compulsive eye for display. These are environments in which presentation has calcified into predictable pattern. With these sites in mind, imagine them detonated, unearthing a new order in disturbance?picture fragments of chairs held magically aloft, pieces of desks and armoires clinging to walls, phones forcefully jammed inside drawers, dangling their tangled cords like so much unkempt hair. Picture the corporate-designed and the interior decorated intermingled and exploded, caught hovering in mid-blast with a stroboscopic camera, frozen in the midst of catastrophe. This fragmented place could be as Alice found it in her fall down the rabbit hole, with cupboards and bookshelves mischievously adhered to walls in an awry parallax of the world as previously experienced. Such a rearrangement possesses the menace of other, recent and cruel alterations of space, however?the attacks upon the World Trade Center in 1993 and 2001 come to mind. As embodiments of corporate office culture and capitalist efficiency, their violently destroyed interiors (though shielded by the hulking modernist towers) perhaps experienced a comparable instant of dislodgment before pulverization. Or, this new off-kilter space may bring to mind the aftermath of Katrina, in which the domestic was ferociously reordered and inverted, whole homes floating off their foundations as their bobbing contents drifted away into limelight of publicity.In Euyoung Hong’s recent sculptures a similarly aggressive rethinking of objects and interior space occurs. Hong scatters and suspends precisely sliced wedges of furniture throughout the gallery space, creating moments of unexpected repetition, say, when corners of a desk have gathered together in an improbable wall-bound sequence of jutting triangular promontories, or when an end table is sutured to another and suspended mid-room in an odd upended hybrid. Chairs, like hyper-magnetized objects having finally surrendered their independent resolve, are ripped asunder and charge toward a single point in a jumbled cluster of legs protruding chaotically from the wall. Eerily, each object is blanched to match the stark walls, as if coated in the dust cloud of a massive explosion or exposed in the ionic flare of a white hot nuclear blast. * * *In the early part of the 20th century, composer Eric Satie called for new musical forms “which will be part,” according to his great advocate John Cage, “of the noises of the environment.” Given the length of some Satie’s pieces, such as the more than 24-hour composition Vexations, his music was intended as background for other events; Satie’s plan was to create “furniture music… designed to satisfy ‘utility’ requirements.” If it was barely recognizable as music, if it blended in with the innocuous furniture, only then would his compositions possess the “power to irritate” and to “despise art.” Reflecting upon the career of filmmaker Luis Bunuel, literary theorist Michael Wood noted that attempts by avant-gardists to conceive of a rigid order, of straight-laced furniture as a foil for a revolution in music, in fact serve to set firm points of opposition and fixed codes to transgress. In this manner, transgression misrecognizes the intractable problem of the symbolic order: that it’s always changing, and sometimes with a perverted rationality. The tendency to dissolve the category of art into functionality, “life” defined by its utility, in turn creates a life gone sterile with its reduction to pure use value. To Satie the furniture is a constant, a backdrop to mimic in its overlooked ubiquity. But what if the furniture rears up and wants to transgress too, if it tires of playing the straw man of conformity to the rebellion of actions around it? What if objects and background aren’t fixed tableaus upon which to act out change, what if they are recognized as part of a process of revolutionizing outmoded forms, and indeed bring attention to the ubiquity of form in our surroundings, bringing “background” to prominence in a move that was the promise and technique of modernist design? Hong’s disorienting spaces may at first appear as imagined, as a visual enactment of the condensed and displaced logic of dreams. Yet in the detritus thrown up by Hong’s catastrophes a demand for redress is made by the recently outmoded objects that are the kibble of landfills. The quaint and obsolete cord-bound phones now supplanted by wireless networks, the mock Chippendale clawed chairs or pseudo Federal-style bedside tables that are the fixtures of thrift stores and cheap motels, the “functional” desk whose emulation of modernist design stopped at the point of uninspired austerity; this junk has been given the dignity of weirdness, has been chopped and rearranged so that its uselessness and ugly bad design acts like a beacon, a warning from the virtually disposable objects of our culture that they are still replete meaning and strangeness. This stuff, the normally unattended to backdrop, insists on being seen as charged with intention, as created and ordered with certain interests and certain quick profits in mind. The way we create objects and organize spaces is a corollary to the way we arrange our society?never neutral, always constructed. For Hong slicing open these disregarded objects unlocks insights into the way our habitual use of space can be estranged toward a close attention to the appearance and organization of form, so that new forms can be created that represent our ever-changing symbolic order. Here the music doesn’t become like the furniture so much as the furniture creates a punk cacophony of its own.*Eva Diaz is an art historian and writer. Her Ph.D. dissertation at Princeton University, titled “Chance and Design: Experimentation at Black Mountain College,” was advised by Hal Foster. Diaz was on the faculty of the Whitney Museum Independent Study Program from 1999-2008, and she was recently the curator at Art in General, a non-profit contemporary arts space in New York. She has taught art history at Sarah Lawrence College and Parsons The New School of Design. In fall 2009 she joins the faculty of Pratt Institute in New York as an assistant professor of contemporary art.