All posts by Joseph Doubtfire

Rings of Engagement

image

Interested in the word ‘participation’ I asked Simon to elaborate on ways in which the word can be interpreted and the value of the individual experience of the participator. He drew my attention to Suzanne Lacy’s rings of engagement, which in concentric circles transform the notion of different audiences into a diagram representing different groups’ level of interaction with a work of art. Lacy states that the ‘innermost circle represents those without whom the work could not exist’, the outermost circle being ‘audience of myth and memory’. I suppose, the question this poses (at least to me) is whether one could consider the perspective of ‘the audience of myth and memory’ as either part of the inner circle or a different diagramme completely, as although yes, the work could exist without their perspective, the work from their perspective could not exist without them.

Noticing from nothing

‘It is what people ‘know’ they experience when they encounter an artwork, even if they are not always able to say what it is that they know. This knowing ‘non-knowledge’ may open a few of the windows that have been closed by ordinary knowledge. […] This process is not only about what people ‘take away’ from a work of art, but also what they ‘bring forward’ in their experience of it.’

Wonderful Uncertainty, Raqs Media Collective

John Cage composed the piece 4”33 as a composition intended to force an unsuspecting audience to notice; in lieu of actual music each listener would begin to tune in to sounds that surrounded them; consequently each listener’s experience would be completely unique and each individual would, in turn, leave with a different account of the work. Richter composed his Cage series of paintings to similar effect; this is a series of work in which abstraction exists as the catalyst for possibility, the work can be interpreted infinitely. Presenting ‘empty’ work, Cage and by extension Richter as the composers create works in which they themselves do not dictate the listener/viewer’s experience. What the listener/viewer then brings forth or takes becomes wholly engrained in what the work is (at least, in an individual sense). Does one interpret the cracks in the paint or the texture of the canvas? Should one read into the colour or the composition? These questions are left unanswered by both Cage and Richter and thus are only answerable by whoever encounters the work and in what capacity they experience it.

Cage (1) - (6) 2006 by Gerhard Richter
Cage 1 – 6, 2006, Gerhard Richter www tate.org.uk

Similarly the scholar’s rock, although it has no known creator, exists and is valued because of the possibilities it poses. The object in it’s abstract nature has the potential to become, or signify, absolutely anything to its viewer. It’s presence, solid and object-like, is in itself far more tangible than the likes of Cage’s 4”33, knowledge particularly regarding the object’s history is not certain at all. The jagged formations and entwining surfaces have been preserved for their thought provoking, mediative qualities and many of them have in fact been titled, on account of their resemblance to other objects. These objects of natural beauty and wonderment have been preserved  specifically because their finder (of thousands of years ago) saw the importance to do so; in the first instance they have no solid idea or concrete concept, and exist almost exclusively for the purpose of interpretation. Craig Burnett, who curated Structure & Absence describes the rocks as objects that ‘sustain the play between observation and imagination’.

Lingbi stone on old hardwood stand China, Qing dynasty (1644-1911) www.henry-moore.org

These processes are involved emphatically with experience and share the notion of learning through noticing and having one’s eyes opened, as opposed to being taught, lectured, or engaged in a didactic process of viewing.