READ MY JEWELLERY

My first post about Jewellery…Where to start as there is so much to say? I will begin the series which a theme that is core to my work: jewellery to signal one’s identity. I am perfectly aware I might state the obvious but sometimes it is worth putting together quotes, writings or projects about a theme and see what kind of picture is coming out of it.

I will start with the (not so obvious) question: why do we wear jewellery?

An attempt to classify the reasons we wear jewellery can be found in the paper written by David Poston in November 1994 to accompany the Craft Council’s exhibition: “What is Jewellery”?

According to his survey, we wear jewellery for:

·      Status

·      Alignment

·      Self

·      Spirit

·      Imposed identity

·      Functional purposes

The full map is the following (mind map made from David Poston’s paper)

In her Manifesto for Schmuck 2009, Marjan Unger makes another engaging description of the main current incentives for the making and wearing of jewellery:

·      “Jewellery as a signal to express one’s identity in a turbulent world dominated by globalisation

·      Intimacy, jewellery as a tool in personal relations and body adornment

·      The pure pleasure in decoration, including the simple shapes, the sensitive combinations of colours, the manifestation of joy in jewellery

·      The expression of things that matters in life like political or moral statements, care for materials, humanity […]

·      Memory […] personal meanings […] to remind of times forgotten…”

Lin Cheung confirms that when she says in the book “New Direction in Jewellery II” (Black Dog Pub Ltd, 2007): “Common to all the reasons why the women chose the pieces they did are thoughts about suitability, flattery, appropriateness and inappropriateness; who they are, what they do, who they want to be, their interests and what they say and want to say about themselves”. (p. 21). If we refer to David Poston’s map, Lin Cheung seems to locate the wearing of Studio jewellery as a mix of “self”, “status” and “alignment”.

This view seems to be shared as well in the cultural theorist Ted Polhemus’s lecture at the Koru2 International Contemporary Jewellery Symposium (see klimt02 website)  : “no human society has never been found which has no ornament (by which I mean simply some objects worn on or attached to the human body)... it is our unique inclination to decorate, adorn and transform our bodies which makes us special...”. He then explains that the meaning of ornament was inevitably social in nature “ a visual symbol of one's culture” and that in our post-modern world “our need is to find ornaments ...which visually advertise that which is special, unique and distinctive about us as individuals...a style statement”.  He thinks we live today in a world where there is unprecedented choice, a kind of “Supermarket of Style” and that the solution to the question “how do I find people like me?” is emerging in translating “our personal values, beliefs, visions and dreams into the language of style”.

Jewellery is a way of expressing one’s identity but we can even go a step further: it might be a kind of language as well. Actually, Polhemus says that the “most fundamental and most indispensable function of all forms of adornment is visual communication”. And “to decorate the body with found or specially crafted objects is to transform it into a meaningful system- a language”. Comparing the wearing of adornment to a language is an interesting view. Tim Dant in “Material Culture in the Social World” (Open University Press, 1999) states “we express ourselves as part of this society through the way we live with and use objects. Material culture ties us with others in our society providing a means for sharing values, activities and styles of life in a more concrete and enduring way than language use or direct interaction”. Clothes, and by extension jewellery, are so close to our body that they “become an extension of that body, an outer layer or shell with which we confront the social world”.

Both Ted Polhemus and Tim Dant speak about a visual language, a way of standing out from the amorphous mass and of confronting the outside world with objects (jewellery is one of them) people choose to reveal something about them. For Tim Dant, this is even a more concrete and enduring way than direct language.

To illustrate those writings I have researched projects that could support those theories. And I found three specific ones (I am sure there are many others) that are perfect illustrations of what we could call: “read my jewellery (and you will know who I am)”.

First project is the artist Mah Rana’s one called “Meanings and Attachments: a photographic and written report of people and their jewellery.” It explores and illustrates the concept that the decision-making process that leads us to choose and wear particular items of jewellery is not solely attributable to the design aesthetic and monetary value of the materials used to create the objects themselves. I am particularly interested in her project as to me her work poses precisely the question ‘Why do we wear jewellery”? By photographing real people with their jewellery the answers are not theoretical. They are anchored in everyday life 
and try to understand people’s instinctive attachment to meaning in jewellery and its role as a social signifier. It is amazing to see how jewellery seems to reveal or to complete people’s personality. The choice of colours, shapes, sizes communicate about them: imagine the blond lady in the first picture without her necklaces and you will have a completely different reading of her personality.

Here are some pictures extracted from  Mah Rana website :

Mah Rana “Meanings and Attachments”

Another project attracted my attention as well: it was an exhibition held by the Dutch Gallery Marzee in St Andrews, Scotland: twenty four guests with connection with the region of Fife were invited to wear jewellery selected by the owner of the Gallery according to the description they made of themselves. The jewellery was therefore supposed to speak for those people’s personality, activity, and preferences. One of the guests, a poet and novelist, wore a brooch and “was happy that somebody looked at my work and responded with this piece. It says something about me. It reveals something to me about me as well.” (Marzee Catalogue, Organised by Fife Contemporary Art & craft, 2009). Another one said: “It’s just beautifully austere, minimalist. It’s just absolutely me. I love it”.

This project, somehow similar in the outcome (a collection of portraits of people wearing jewellery) is very different to Mah Rana’s investigation. It is not about the everyday jewellery people wear, but about choosing a piece of jewellery for people you just know by the description they made of themselves, to speak about them. A very interesting film showing interviews of the participants accompanied the exhibition (Marzee website). In this film you learn that people felt usually very happy with Marzee’s choices and that the jewellery always matched one of the personality traits. But when asked what jewellery they normally wear and why, you learn that the only jewellery that really matters for them are wedding rings, pieces related to an event or of sentimental value  (being given by somebody, or having belonged to a relative).

So for those people, the first reason to wear jewellery is usually sentimental but when offered to wear a statement piece that says something about their personality, they find the experiment very interesting and exciting. And that is why I find Marzee’s project so fascinating for the Studio Jewellery community as it gives the tastes of how it feels to wear “statement jewellery”.

Gallery Marzee’s exhibition catalogue, St Andrews, Scotland Organised by Fife Contemporary Art & craft, 2009

The last example I would like to mention is the “Read my pins” manifesto of Madeleine Allbright. Appointed US Secretary of State, she realised the power of wearing a certain kind of brooches for certain events. It started when she was compared to an unparalleled serpent by the Iraqi press when criticising Saddam Hussein and decided to wear a Victorian serpent pin for the next visit. She then started to play with her brooches and pins to suit her mood, her intentions and to use them to make political statements. 

Her collection of 200 eclectic brooches has been exhibited at the end of 2009 at the Museum of Arts and Design in New York accompanied by a book written by Allbright herself. Her pieces, contrary to Marzee’s ones, are usually classical (fine jewellery with precious materials, stones and classical design) but what makes their statement is the connection made between the brooch’s theme and the event where she wears the piece. The jewellery becomes a powerful communication medium.

Madeleine Albright book’s cover: Read my Pins

So those writings, theories and projects put together give a very strong demonstration about the extraordinary power of jewellery to express someone’s identity. Read my jewellery and you will learn a lot about myself.

So next time you chose a piece of jewellery, try to keep that in mind…

HOWARD RISATTI: TAXONOMY OF CRAFT BASED ON APPLIED FUNCTION

“A theory of craft” by Howard Risatti is in my opinion an inescapable book for anybody interested in Craft.

I will quote the foreword by Kenneth R Trapp (former Curator-in-Charge of the Renwick Gallery of The Smithsonian American Art Museum) to give an insight of the content of the book:

“Considering the lowly status craft holds vis-à-vis other visual arts, arguing that craft is art is a courageous undertaking. In A Theory of Craft, Howard Risatti presents a thoughtful and careful argument that this is, in fact, the case, that craft is art. He has been developing the arguments presented in this book for over two decades. As his thoughts about craft took form and became clearer, the author struggled to find the appropriate organizational structure to address such thorny dichotomous issues as “function versus non-function,” “craft versus design,” “the artist as intellectual versus the craftsperson as object maker,” and “artistic content versus physical object.” As the reader will see, each chapter is written to address a particular issue, with chapter building on chapter, to the conclusion that craft is art. Drawing liberally on his scholarly background in artistic theory, in particular as it pertains to Modern Art, aesthetic theory, and other philosophical discourse, as well as casting an acute eye to contemporary culture, Risatti challenges many of the long-held stereotypes about craft that hinder a true understanding of the art form. His conclusions challenge us to reevaluate our ideas not only about craft but also about what actually constitutes a work of art.”

This book is so dense that I will probably come back to it later on. But I will start with a chapter that has attracted my attention: TAXONOMY OF CRAFT BASED ON APPLIED FUNCTION (pages 29 to 40).

I must confess that I didn’t know what a taxonomy was. But it is rather simple as it is actually the practice and science of classification.

So does it mean that the author will try there to be as “scientific” as possible about a possible classification of craft? This prospect raised my interest as I have always found that one of the problems of craft is that it is so multifaceted that it is almost impossible to define or classify.

So what is he saying?

First he is trying to review different classifications to see which one is the most relevant.

The most obvious is the taxonomy based on material: ceramics, glass, wood, fibers, metal…H Risatti explains that they are logical groupings but they tell us little about the objects as they can usually be included in several categories (a bowl can be in glass, ceramics, metal, wood, fibers…).

He then goes for a technique-based classification: turning, blowing, throwing, weaving… But the same conclusion arises: it doesn’t say much about the object.

Another classification could be a form or morphological one: you have 3D forms as cuboids and spheroids and 2D forms as rectangular, circular or ovoid.

But Risatti argues that none of the above provides taxonomy based on unique characteristics and that most objects overlap several sets at the same time. And all of them are unsatisfactory as they all approach the object from the point of view of appearance. But to gain an understanding of the object, Risatti says that “we need to connect the object’s purpose for being made to its function and the processes and materials employed to make it capable of carrying out its function.[…] And, understanding more fully function in craft objects is essential to our main concern - craft’s possible status as art - because fine art aesthetic theory has made function a central issue in denying an object the status of art.” (p. 32)

I strongly agree with H Risatti about the fact that function is a central issue in craft and applied arts. But I won’t discuss the status of art of an object here. What interests me most in his discourse is the kind of taxonomy that arises from his theory.

“Approaching craft from the concept of applied function helps us solve the problem that form, material and technique, as separate yet historically essential features of craft, pose for the field. Function forces us to understand them, not as discrete components, but as a constellation of interrelated elements residing at the core of the craft object.[…] a taxonomy based on applied function provides a basic, unified approach to the field. From the vantage point of function, crafts objects come together into coherent groupings showing craft to be a field of shared concepts, rather than a loose grouping of objects without common ground or share norms bound together solely by historical tradition.” (p.32)

That sounds very promising to me.

So what would those applied functions be?

Risatti sees three main functions and an additional one relating to architecture (as he considers architecture as an applied art):

•       Containers (such as bowls, jugs, vases, glasses, bottles, baskets, bags, boxes, trunks…)
•       Covers (such as clothing, quilts, scarves, blankets…)
•       Supports (such as beds, chairs, benches, tables, sofas...)
•       Shelters (for architecture) 

He has trouble trying to locate jewellery, tapestries, stained glass, mosaics and ceramic tiles and creates a hybrid concept of “adornment/decoration” that navigates loosely between craft and fine art. I am not particularly happy with his point about jewellery but I may come back to it in another article, as I don’t want to lose the trail of his demonstration of a possible classification based on applied function.

So instead of having an exhibition of ceramics, or wood or textiles, one can imagine a grouping around the function of containing for example. To contain means “to hold together, to hold in”. So what does a container do? Why do we need to contain? What are natural containers? Containing can be synonym of protection but can be associated with more negative ideas like restrain, control…What happen when a container doesn’t contain…

Those could be themes explored by some objects of the “containers” category.

And this is why this taxonomy based on applied function really interests me as it is one of the key element to understand the conceptual shift that occurred in what we can call “studio craft”. Risatti asks the question (that most people might ask themselves): “what is this contemporary craft object that is about function but does not actually function”? (p.285)

And his answer is really interesting: “Rather than an abandonment of the field, these non-functional Studio Craft objects are a contemporary exploration of craft’s particular sensibilities and concerns. Such works show that function need not be taken literally as it traditionally had been for an object to be identified as part of the craft field. Function can be abstract and metaphorical without the object necessarily loosing its identity because, even if abstract and metaphorical, function is still the subject matter of the work; it is still around function that the object springs forth into the viewer’s consciousness. This springing forth from function is an example of what it means for an object to be critical from within the field of craft”. (p.288)

To illustrate Risatti’s theory, I will use the work of Nicholas Rena, a ceramist artist I have recently discovered at the new Ceramics Galleries of the V&A. His work consists mainly of huge coloured vessels of architectural scale.

Here are some pictures from his  website. One shows his vessels and the other one shows the artist in a workshop and gives an idea of the scale of his work.

Here is Rena’s artist statement:

“For those of us making a certain type of ceramic vessel, one of the central metaphors in such work, which is perhaps too obvious to state, is that these vessels are empty.  It is a powerful metaphor - to produce a body of work about containment, which is intended to remain resolutely empty.  

They are empty because they refer to traditions of use that are almost lost: ceremonies or rituals, involving vessels, which were performed in common, such as baptism, anointment, invocation, blessing...where man and the material world fused.  

Perhaps these empty objects do have some function.  In a world dematerialising into an anti-physical one of text and images, of speed and noise, they sit heavy, thick and still.  Material trying to be as palpable as it can, reproaching a world going virtual”.  

I couldn’t have found better example of what Risatti says in his book. This artist works with the applied function of containment but claims that his work is empty (so the function of containing is distorted) and the message lays specifically in this denial of the function: it acts as a metaphor for lost traditions (like ceremonies where vessels were used) and the dematerialisation of our society. Function remains the subject matter of the work but it becomes abstract and metaphorical.

One should keep in mind this taxonomy of craft based on applied function as it gives the opportunity to understand a craft object not only according to its appearance but also especially through its function which is paramount to the majority of studio craft works today.

PLATO DE FRUTA BY TERESA MARGOLLES

Frieze 2010 again. In my quest for white objects I came face to face with a white plate displayed on a plinth.  I was of course wondering how such a common and plain object made its way to Frieze.

Picture Isabelle Busnel

The label was not helping either: “Teresa Margolles. Plato de fruta. 2004. Ceramic object, each different shape 1/5 + 1AP + Workshop proof”…

 

Picture Isabelle Busnel

Some words sounded however familiar:

Ceramic…

Each different shape…

Workshop proof…

I was wondering what kind of game was played here? Was the artist borrowing discourses from the Craft world? Claiming the authenticity of the hand made, the unique, the value of the material (ceramic)?

I started to do some research on the internet about the artist Teresa Margolles. What I found didn’t help at all and was even increasing my already high level of perplexity.

“Margolles work stands in close connection with the everyday realities of her home country Mexico, which has been dominated for years by drug wars between enemy cartels and where thousands of people fall victim to violent crimes every year. Her art can be viewed as an act of solidarity towards those who have died, as a vehement struggle against forgetting. In the last ten years, her art has revolved around the issue of what happens after a person dies and what death leaves behind. The artist deals with the social dimension of the dead body as well as the physical remains after autopsies, and the treatment of this subject as a taboo. Margolles uses substances such as blood, body fat or even water used to wash dead corpses not only symbolically, but also palpably, attacking human beings’ fears of contact in a subtle way.” (artdaily.com)

What on earth can be the connection between those statements and the white plate shown above? I then wrote to the gallery to ask them and they very kindly sent me an explanation: the work “Plato de fruta” was made in 2004 in collaboration with a ceramic studio in Mexico and the ceramic was mixed with water from the morgue….”

The artist had already used water from the morgue in several different projects. A text by Anthony Downey “Teresa Margolles and the Aesthetics of Commemoration” brilliantly describes the work of this artist. (Text by Anthony Downey).

In her project, En el Aire (In the Air; 2003) she used a machine for making bubbles that filled the entire gallery (see picture below).

Here is how A. Downey describes the scene: “Upon entering this space the viewer was greeted with an air of enchantment, the transient playfulness of bubbles being a reminder, perhaps, of childhood pursuits. The bubbles floated, descended and burst against the walls, floor and, on occasion, the viewer. The effect was beguiling and not without pleasure. Again, however, the accompanying text brought us up short:

Bubbles made from water from the morgue that was used to wash corpses before autopsy.

The dead are here present in the very water that cleansed their bodies before autopsy, the very same morgue water that now (albeit after disinfection) bursts against our skin. In blurring the distinction between the living and the dead – they both inhabit and to some degree interact in the same time/space continuum – Margolles repeatedly draws our attention to the pervasiveness of death in life and their oppositional symmetry: the fact of life in the face of death.”

Picture Google Images

Knowing the work of this artist, this “Plato de fruta” reveals now its whole dimension and its powerful message. 

But the display at Frieze was so non-explanatory that I had to do a lot of researches myself to understand what it was about. And I regret it because I think I would have received a punch in the stomach at the fair imagining using this plate made with water from the morgue to display my fruits... 

And it is why this piece is so strong in drawing our attention to the pervasiveness of death in life: we are facing a very common and comforting white ceramic plate which is in reality a disturbing object to commemorate death…    

SPOONS BY SIMONE TEN HOMPEL

Weeks ago I went to see an exhibition at Contemporary applied Art in London called The Stuff of Memory by the artist Simone Ten Hompel.

See exhibitions’ brief on the CAA WEBSITE

The exhibition’s flyer says: “Spoons. Bowls. Jars. Containers. These are the stuff of our daily lives: dependable and utilitarian; and we barely notice if they also carry the ghost memories of their own pasts disguised within form and function.

But Simone has noticed for us”

I was particularly moved by a series of 108 spoons hanging on the wall and by the poetry of the display. They were grouped by “paragraphs” of 3 or 4 spoons, and the light was projecting their shadow on the wall.

Exhibition at CAA. Picture Simone Ten Hompel. Courtesy of the Artist.

I looked at them many times from left to right and then right to left.  I felt those spoons had a story to tell but as I was left alone with them, a lot of questions came to my mind: Why 108? Why is this particular one grouped with this one? Is there a story with a beginning and an end? How can I be moved by spoons that are amongst the most common tools on earth?

And then I let the magic operate: they started to whisper to my ears. “I look fragile but in reality I am strong”. “Try to eat with me and you will have a lot of fun”.  “Me and my two friends have something in common but you won’t find it”. “I am clumsy but I am beautiful”…

And they were not spoons anymore. Every one of them had its own personality and its own story. And they were talking and chatting.

I personally found this series of spoons very strong and moving because it encompasses what fascinates me with Applied Art works:  spoons are originally meant to be used but here they have a great potential that goes far beyond functionality: they become poetic storytellers.

But I know Simone, and I wanted her to tell me her own story. I had the great opportunity to interview her specifically about this part of her exhibition and I thank her for her time. Here is Simone’s story:

WHY SPOONS?

Spoons are the first and last tools we use in our life. We start to learn to eat with them, (not with a fork or a knife) and the last thing you possibly eat is soup and that will be with a spoon. So a spoon is a metaphor for life and what happens in between and it allows me to explore that. Also it has the shape of the hand: a cup with a handle attached to it. Sometimes it is a shell and a stick and in some of my spoons, I make the junction between the cup and the handle quite obvious. Those are the two elements. It is a symbol for life. 

Photo Simone Ten Hompel. Courtesy of the Artist

WHY 108 OF THEM?

Why I have done so many?  Having done spoons beforehand, I have always done them in sort of groupings but the groupings were much tighter and here with that group I have done 108 of them which is a figure that can be divided or multiplied by 12 and 9. The dozen and also the figure 9 are sacred numbers in religion and have mystical connotation. ‘108’ is a Harshad number and thus makes it for me a figure that has personality. 108 then falls into groups that have a dynamic for debate or elude conversation among them.

HOW DID YOU DO YOUR GROUPING?

I started with some spoons and put them out and then I thought what was missing in them. Just not “any” spoon was made. Some are specifically made to fit into the sentence of its group. Also having to think about selling them within the context of a gallery, I had to make something that would operate in that way, a sort of compromise. If it had been a series where I absolutely didn’t need to think about that aspect, it would probably have been one piece. However the display would have been the same. In this scenario the audience was asked to make a choice of their own new sentence with their own memory and people were asked to select 3 or more spoons. And then the discourse continued with the remaining spoons with new sentences or paragraphs.

Exhibition at CAA. Picture Simone Ten Hompel. Courtesy of the Artist.

SO DID THE AUDIENCE REINVENT YOUR GROUPINGS?

They didn’t reinvent my grouping but because it was in the exhibition “the stuff of memory” they had to make their own association. It is likely that association was memory driven, but they had to ask themselves if this one goes with that one and usually stuff from the past came into their reflection.

SERIES ARE IMPORTANT IN THIS WORK?

Yes. Look at the whole series: the first one is a wire spoon and the last one is a thin cut out of a stainless steel spoon, a very fragile one.  So it sort of goes to full circle without being identical.

Photo Simone Ten Hompel. Courtesy of the Artist

WHERE DOES THE POETRY COME FROM? IS IT A REFLECTION ABOUT FUNCTION?

Not all of them are functional. Some are reflection about function. The poetry comes from what we bring into the spoons, like a kind of embody memory, possibly?

Spoons are essentially life enhancing tools and as far as I could tell it is a symbol of culture. With one of my spoon (which is made of two pieces, a front and a back) I am speaking of cooperation, balance, division and separation of function. They are operations that are negotiated and quietly democratized.

When we drink coffee or eat pudding we must likely have our odd collection of spoons in a drawer. If we own a complete silver set, we must likely like one particular size because it fits the mouth better than the others or has other personal reasons for being favored. So we are quickly building up a rapport and affinity with a tool like that. And why is that? The spoon itself is not only a tool of life enhancing quality but it represents the start of independency when we start to feed ourselves getting the liquid food from the plate to the mouth without direct contact or interference of the hand. It manifests notions of culture boundaries and their manners or etiquette.

Photo Simone Ten Hompel. Courtesy of the Artist

WHY ARE SPOONS HANGING ON THE WALL?

It goes back from where I come from:  not only farmers would have spoons hanging on a wooden rail for display, but also they were hanging them because they didn’t have cupboards at all... In addition, hanging the spoons allowed me to handle them and to keep them in the position I had chosen. The shadow on the wall is their own memory. It is almost like their conscience. This I will leave it for the onlooker to make sense out of it.

WHAT IS THE LINK WITH THE TITLE OF YOUR EXHIBITION: “THE STUFF OF MEMORY”?

There is a group in the series of spoons reflecting on, me making, that what I am making there and then. The spoons and other works in the exhibition are about all aspects of memory and how or what activates a memory. I am interested in the quest on how memory happens: where is it stored? What it triggers? Is it like a sign? Like a hidden path that you stumble upon or that you consciously seek out? All of a sudden, you find somewhere a kind of twig in a forest and you see there is a path. You follow it and out of nowhere, something hits you like the smell of your mum’s handbag from a far distance in your life. Is it truthfully perceived or subjectively sensed? It is a discovery, it is a journey, and it is unexpected. Depending on how much the audience is ready to let itself immerge into it. The exhibition is about that or it can just be taken as seeing objects, which may be read as a story. It can be very pragmatic as well as in the stillness of it hanging somewhere. It will suit me if people eat from it, make use of the stuff or take it as exhibition are taken?

Photo Simone Ten Hompel. Courtesy of the Artist

Simone Ten Hompel website

ANOTHER WAY OF ENJOYING ART FAIRS

Every year I drag myself to Frieze Art Fair. And every year I come to the same conclusion: I really enjoy it for the first 30 minutes and then I am slowly overwhelmed by what surrounds me: too big, too much to see, not enough explanation. I usually finish the exhibition as if I was running a marathon. It’s a shame.

Frieze is THE place where tribes of extremely powerful, rich, intelligent, well-educated art-related people of the entire planet gather… It is so intimidating. I don’t belong and everything is organised there to make you feel that way. So this year I tried to think about those feelings beforehand and decided to try a little experiment. I decided to pick up every WHITE artwork. Like a treasure hunt. And you know, what? It was highly fun and I really enjoyed Frieze for the first time.

But then I started to think about it. Why was it so enjoyable?

First and to be honest, because I picked up a theme that is important to me: white. But then, I think I enjoyed it because it had no sense whatsoever. No clever connection between the pieces, no sophisticated curating, no references to artistic movements or schools… Just something so simple that even a child can do it. Another way of enjoying Art Fairs.

So it gave me other ideas for next year. This year was about colour, but I might try by size (starting from the smallest one to the biggest one), by materials used (wood, steel, fabric…), by weight, by value (if the materials used are cheap or expensive) or location (hung on the wall, put on the floor, on a chair or table…). All those classification will probably be irrelevant and disconnected from the artists’ messages but it might give very different interesting angles to the exhibited artworks…

Here are my Frieze 2010 WHITE findings (Pictures Isabelle Busnel):

Thomas Houseago, Untitled 2010

Thilo Heinzmann, Aicmo 2009

Erwin Thorn, Inhaltsanalyse II, 1969

Erwin Thorn, o.T., 1964

Erwin Wurm, Mr Mutt, 2010

Daniel Sinsel, Untitled 2010

Don Brown, Yoko X (sitting), 2004

Matias Faldbakken, Remainder

Ugo Rondinone

David Shrigley, World one and World two, 2010

Markus Schinwald, Untitled (sacks), 2009

Manuela Leinhoss, Frame

?

Manuela Leinhoss

Donald Moffett, lot 020110

Callum Innes, Untitled n28, 2010

Florian Slotawa, SG07 1,2,3, 2010

Ugo Rondinone, Still Life, 2008

Silke Otto Knapp

WHITE

White fascinates me. This topic will come again and again in my blog in many different ways.

I am not the only one who is fascinated by the colour white… Just for the pleasure, here are some inspirational quotes:

The first of all simple colours is white, although some would not admit that black and white are colours, the first being a source or receiver of colours, and the latter totally deprived of them. But we can’t leave them out, since painting is but an effect of light and shade, so white is the first then yellow, green, blue and red and finally black. White may be said to represent light without which no colour can be seen.

Leonardo Da Vinci

It takes a great deal of courage to design in white and it also takes no courage at all.

I wanted my home to be totally pure, to be a statement that was honest and clean, straight from the heart, a dream. I wanted a place that would give me the feeling of floating. I wanted to come home and feel simplicity and peace.

Ralph Lauren

I have transformed myself in the zero of form and dragged myself out of the rubbish-filled pool of academic art. I have torn through the blue lampshade of colour limitations, and come out into the white… Sail forth ! the white, free chasm, infinity is before us.

Malevich

We should remember that to the physicist, black and white are not colours… Psychologically, however, black and white are colours because they produce sensations, and they have symbolic meanings as well as definite effects on visibility.

Louis Cheskin

Emptied of all extraneous detail and colour, whiteness stood for what was pure, modern and spiritual. In a period of political turmoil, they offered a new way of thinking about the world and Englishness.

 The Independent on Ben Nicholson

White has a great covering power. The whitewashed family does not question the bride’s blushes beneath the veil.

Derek Jarman

Whiteness is the most conceptual colour…it does not interfere with our thoughts.

Yoko Ono

Every citizen is required to replace his hangings, his damasks, his wall papers, his stencils with a plain coat of white (paint).

Le corbusier

This white light, purged from the angry, bloodlike stains of action and passion, reveals, not what is accidental in man, but the tranquil godship in him, as opposed to the restless accidents of life.

Walter Pater

And white appears. Absolute white. White beyond all whiteness. White of the coming of white. White without compromise, through exclusion, through total eradication of non white. Insane, enraged white, screaming with whiteness. Fanatical, furious, riddling the victim. Horrible electric white, implacable, murderous. White in bursts of white.

Henri Michaux (with Mescaline)