Diaspar Was Not Always Thus

Eliasson ends with a nice comment about experience:

“Experience is about responsibility. Having an experience is taking part in the world. Taking part in the world is really about sharing responsibility.”

“Perfection in execution cannot be measured or defined in terms of execution; it implies those who perceive and enjoy the product that is executed. The cook prepares food for the consumer and the measure of the value of what is prepared is found in consumption. Mere perfection in execution, judged in its own terms in isolation, can probably be attained better by a machine than by human art. By itself, it is at most technique, and there are great artists who are not in the first ranks as technicians (witness Cézanne), just as there are great performers on the piano who are not great esthetically, and as Sargent is not a great painter.” (49)

This is one of the most difficult aspects of art-making – understanding that the technique and execution are ingredients and not the whole recipe (to continue the culinary metaphor). I am easily distracted by technique – printmaking and digital imaging being the known culprits. It is so easy to lose oneself in the process (often repetitive) of etching a copper plate or drawing with the pen tool in vector editing software. And this repetition and doing is incredibly necessary. It is what many artists speak of as meditative, calming, and even therapeutic. But – if the ultimate goal is to make art, I believe there comes a time when the artist needs to step back, perceive, and analyze – to start asking questions. This can be scary if not downright horrifying. Nobody likes to be questioned. It has that claustrophobic feeling of being interrogated – and who is ever going to sit down and interrogate themselves? But it is not interrogation, it is learning and, eventually, growth. By asking questions, we encourage the examination of our actions. There are many reasons why this is valuable. We throw out the obfuscating details and gather together the meaningful ones (unless, of course you intend to obfuscate). We realize that decisions we made while our noses were stuck to the plate or screen might have been made without taking into consideration the greater whole. Maybe, after stepping back and seeing your work, you realize it’s a completely different piece than you had intended. Whatever the case may be, stepping back and asking yourself some thoughtful questions is good practice. It can only make move you forward.

“To see, to perceive, is more than to recognize.” (24)

In other words, to know an object is what it is, such as a chair is a chair or a painting is a painting, is only recognition. Computers can already do this at the chemical level, but to perceive, is something more. Dewey explains that birds making their nests and beavers their dams is nothing more than the satisfying culmination of bodily and physical actions working together with the outside world (25). He sets man apart from the animals…

“The distinguishing contribution of man is consciousness of the relations found in nature. Through consciousness, he converts the relations of cause and effect that are found in nature into relations of means and consequence. Rather, consciousness itself is the inception of such a transformation.” (25)

And…

“Apart from organs inherited from animal ancestry, idea and purpose would be without a mechanism of realization.” (25)

We are naturally makers, but so are birds and beavers. We can perceive our actions and creations – and evolve our minds at the same time. So, next time you are making something (maybe art?), take a break after a while and truly perceive your actions. Your mind will thank you later.

Bibliography:

Dewey, John. Art as Experience. New York, New York: Penguin Group Inc., 2005. (Originally published 1934)