[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Formal Constraint



hello patrick-
i think with this idea you will get two very different positions. one whose
works are solely concerned with the methods of production, and one whose
works are concerned with the results. i've worked for years with formal
systems as a working process - i once saw the type designer jack stauffacher
speak and when he said 'rules equal freedom' i wanted to shout out 'amen
brother!'. for me, these kinds of formal process - such as with perec's
avoid, where he writes a book without using the letter e (or a, i can't
remember) - is such a wonderful idea - and such a wonderful way of working
as it forces you to continually re-think a natural word choice - as a
writer, every time you come up with a word that contains that letter you
must think up another that doesn't - a very different process of creation
than all words being good - it's a freedom from habits. with cage it is
about an attempt to take the self out of the work, with perec (and indeed my
own interests) it isn't so much about taking one out of the works as it is
about forcing one's process and intuitive responses into new territory.
while it can lead to an extremely rich process, i think it can also lead to
a crutch in terms of the result. artists tend to become enamored of a so
called good idea when they are working, and if you let it be simply like
dominos, you set the thing in motion and it falls how it falls - many don't
want to take responsibility for the fact that the ruins can either be
beautiful and/or interesting; or simply a mess. the arts have become so
enamored of a good idea (actually, it is usually a less than mediocre idea
bathed in the academic language of good ideas) - that one can make a very
uninteresting work seem interesting via the rhetoric that surrounds it
(hence i have a sign up in my studio that says 'generally a good idea is not
enough' :-). the interest in systems and structures for me are not only
about how they impact end result; but  also how these formal constraints
impact the process of creation. can you begin with formal constraints and
still arrive at a place of intuition - agnes martin's work is the clearest
pure example (pollocks' drip paintings you mention would be stretching it a
bit, but still i think inline with this thinking). perec's quote you use is
very similar to eno's work with the oblique strategies - and both seem very
different to me than cage's use of the i-ching. it is not surprising that
many of cage's works are more interesting as scores or ideas, because that
is the place where he was really unable to get himself out of the work, they
are the result of his own obsessive interests combined with the chance rules
and processes - they have his own idiosyncratic personality within them -
the disappointment comes when they are played by others  - i think cage was
best when he was still very much in it. for me, the best work of this kind
uses rules and strategies at its conception, but the final work has the
ability to transcend the process and can exist as something more than simply
an illustration of an idea or process. i was talking to someone yesterday
about william anastasi's subway drawings he did in the 70's - where he
simply closed his eyes and let the movement of the subway trains determine
the paths his pencil took on a piece of paper while he was riding the train.
the idea is interesting as a procedure for making a drawing- but the result
is stellar - these are really very beautiful drawings, and the process only
enhances the project. they would be kick ass drawings no matter how he made
them, but they kick a little more ass because of the process. for me, it is
all about that kind of balance so that the works can breathe a little. i
think a viewer or artist should be able to enter a work through only the
work itself, and then to be able to engage in a discussion with it
intelectually as a kind of second step. if you read schoenberg's letters,
you can see that his work is not ABOUT the 12 tone system - he simply
creates and uses the rules of the 12 tone system to bust his own ass
formally - he is still trying to write poetic works that deal the so called
human condition - he is just trying to do it within a formal system that is
challenging to himself and to his listeners. if you look at his paintings
you can see he is not simply the theoretical math guy people tend to think
of him as.... a lot of interesting conceptual art was done in the 60's and
70's from this point of view - and i think there you really get into the
debate of whether or not the result is as interesting as the process - like
another of anastasi's works where he recorded the sounds of his tape
recorder in a sound proof room, and then exhibited the tape recorder playing
a tape of the tape recorder. how important is the experience of being with
this work? i don't know as i've never seen it in person. i wonder if the
experience is simply a duchampian gesture about 'getting it' or moving away
from the modernist art experience - or if it is really about a listening
experience. alvin lucier's piece 'i am sitting in a room' is another really
wonderful work in this vein - and certainly transcends the idea in some ways
as it is a wonderful work to experience as well as talk about... the list
goes on of course! 
i hate to toot my own horn here; but christoph cox wrote a really nice essay
about cage's relationship to these kinds of formal rules alongside the
process of my own visual art for a catalog last summer - the essay is online
if you want to read it - he's a much better writer than i am in this dept.
http://www.inbetweennoise.com/coxessay.html
ok. enough rambling...

> 
>