ESSAY - Systems are inescapable, art like any other field is subject to control.

Chelsea-Anne Salter

MA Fine Art (Full Time)

UCA Farnham 

2021-2022

 Systems are inescapable, art like any other field is subject to control.

While there is no generally agreed definition of what constitutes art, the nature of art and related concepts, such as creativity and interpretation, are explored in a branch of philosophy known as aesthetics. (Kennick, 1979) This essay will attempt to excavate the systems of art and how like any other field it is subject to control dictated by said systems, primarily focusing on the use of text, language and narrative-based works, as well as exploring the theories of systems and their associated aesthetics. For the sake of this essay, art can be dictated through several core elements in art, these include line, shape, form, space, texture, value and colour. (Esaak, 2019) It is a person’s job as an artist, through their creativity, to manipulate these elements, combine, compose and ultimately curate a work of art. It is impossible to avoid these elements as they make up the building blocks of an art piece and every work of art can be organised into these functions. What can be argued as the most important system of art is how the artwork is received by the audience, including physically viewed, compared to viewed in the audience's mind eye, heard through audio, or experienced through a sensation. Having said that within those borders the artist is free to test the boundaries, insert their influence or create a response, which will be explored through the work of Fiona Banner and Jackson Pollock. Additionally, this essay will excavate the themes of conscious thoughts, the role of chance and challenging control within “traditional” art to break free from systems or at its very least, structures in art. That is not to say any of the systems mentioned are degrading or limiting, rather they can help identify works of art in a gallery setting.

To begin this essay, the theory of systems must be explored to dissect and challenge it. By its Marriam- Webster definition, a system is” a group of interacting or interrelated elements that act according to a set of rules to form a unified whole”. (System, 2016) Leading on from this, the Theory of Systems suggests that “art exists and has existed in every known human culture and consists of objects, performances, and experiences that are intentionally endowed by their makers with a high degree of aesthetic interest.” (Philips, 2018) By this very definition, aesthetics plays an important role in the function of art, and since “art is in the eye of the beholder, and everyone will have their own interpretation” (Bucchianeri, 2011) it is almost impossible to gatekeep what defines this “system”. This is to say there is simply no one way of determining aesthetics. If it is true that art is valued by its meaning and function to be considered art, it’s important to also recognize the idea of art is not. Anti art for example consists of concepts and attitudes that reject prior definitions of art and question art in general. (Graver, 1995) while also birthing systems such as Dadaism, which unlike other systems, like Romanticism or Cubism, relies on chance. Following this, one could argue that anti-art and the separation from traditional systems of art, is in fact a system itself. By its very nature of having a label within the art world, it becomes subject to control like any other subject by having conditions to meet.  Although at its simplest form, art can be said to be a form and function of communication, whether directed towards the artist themselves, or the world around them. With no way to control the outcome, one could argue that systems are escapable. Jackson Pollock in his Autumn Rhythm shown in Figure One can be considered an example of breaking systems in regards to the randomness in which the paint falls. Inspired by his famous flicking and dripping of colours to build texture there is little control over where the pigment lands and reacts with the other wet paints. Additionally, the work of art which is the result of random choice (in this case dripping and throwing the paint) does not have any meaning and there is no key to decipher it. Though such a work of art may be esthetically relevant, the spontaneous associations of the observer have no connexion with the author.” (Kelemen and Putar, 1971) 

Contrasting with Pollock’s randomness, Manfred Mohr’s 1969 “P-10 (Random Walk)”, shown in Figure Two, makes a shift from structure to process further blurring the lines of system theory. While his work is considered algorithmic art, that is to say, created by an algorithm or system, it can be said that his works can fall under pseudo-randomness that is whose “values are generated, by a mathematical series of operations performed to produce a sequence of numbers that repeat with a long enough period to be effectively random, that is, free of pattern or bias”. (Lostritto, 2015) Supporting this, Mohr himself notes in an interview in 2012 that “Nobody, not even me can understand what’s going on, but that’s not the point. The point is that the system in itself is correct. It surprises me.” additionally he goes on to say that his “system” is in fact “arbitrary” since “it doesn’t matter where you start.” (Mohr, 2012). This supports the idea that whole a system may be present to begin an artwork, after enough repetition, the system becomes void, as the art ascends the ability to be subjected to control as it creates itself due to the influence of the algorithm in which it was born.  Mohr's use of computers and plotter drawings also taps into the influence of cultural development when it comes to language and systems. While Mohr’s “language” of the plotter drawings, he uses different algorithms to generate subsets of these structures, in order to break the symmetry and create new visual constellations. (Mohr, n.d) Comparing the two systems of aesthetics here, it can be suggested that both are subject to control, while Mohr suggests otherwise, there is a certain level of control that comes from the artist who, in this case, drips the paint and inserts the algorithm respectfully. 

While aesthetically different to Pollock, both artworks show a pictorial language that narrates their works. That being said the use of geometric shapes and repetition can place both Pollock’s and Mohr’s work into the subgenre of “Systemic Art”. Cointed by Lawrence Alloway in 1966 to describe artists who composed abstracted paintings (Chilvers and Glaves-Smith, 2009), "Systemic Art" describes a type of abstract art characterized by the use of very simple standardised forms, usually geometric, either in a single concentrated image, or repeated in a system arranged according to a visible principle of organisation. (Chilvers, 2009) Taking this into consideration, it would therefore be impossible to escape systems when that is the very nature of the movement. However, challenging this, John G. Harris is clear to suggest that systems art:

“represents a deliberate attempt by artists to develop a more flexible frame of reference. A style in which its frame of reference is taken as a model to be emulated rather than as cognitive systems, that only leads to the institutionalisation of the imposed model. But to transfer the meaning of a picture to its location within a systemic structure does not remove the need to define the constitutive elements of the system: if they are not defined, one will not know how to build the system.” (Harris, 1981)

Therefore suggesting that systems are not as rigid as they first appear to be and that art can escape or at the very least bend the rules of the system they are situated. 

On the other hand, however, it can be argued that systems of art, that is to say, the subgenres of art are in fact inescapable. The function of art can be separated into such themes as to spread a message, to show individuality, to comment on the world, to show an aesthetic or to challenge certain views. As a whole this can be simplified to art (artefacts or images) is embedded with symbolic meanings as a means of communication. (Mithen, 1998) Fiona Banner’s, 2006, pencil on paper, written portrait Nude Standing as shown in Figure Three is an example of artist influence within the borders of a genre of art as it comments on a societies view. Firstly, while perhaps not a traditional format for a life model art form,  Nude Standing proves that systems are at least somewhat escapable in part. Here, Banner narrates a detailed portrait of a nude woman, although unlike other famous nudes such as Venus of Urbino (1532 or 1534), The Origin of the World (1866), or Olympia (1863), her interpretation is through the use of words. Banner herself describes this narrative as “layers of voyeurism – my voyeurism looking at the model, and the audience's voyeurism looking at me making the art, and looking at the model”. (Banner, 2009). 

 

Secondly, it’s important to note here, that Banner is controlled and restricted by the English language within this work, perhaps distancing some audience compared to image-based work, which isn’t defined by a language barrier. However, this is to be expected in the case of any written language, where the audience might not have access to that form of comprehension. Having said that, Banner manipulates the systems of writing in subtle ways by “not creating separate lines for a new sentence, letting them flow into one another. It makes it difficult to decipher where one sentence starts and another ends unless looked at closely”. (Woods, n.d) The system of grammar is also respected in the sense of punctuation, although they get buried in the wall of words. For example Banner articularly describes everything from, 

“the colour of her hair to the textures of her skin, the curve of her spine and the shape of her lips, every facet of her appearance is piercingly chronicled. Her slight shifts in position are recorded live as Banner writes. Written in the present tense, the words gradually condense and diminish as we read from top to bottom; the entire surface of the work, nearly three metres in height, is crowded with dense text. Banner’s monumental narrative depiction seizes the nude genre, traditionally the preserve of a voyeuristic male gaze, and makes it her own.” (Banner, 2016)

While the intention of this nude is not to excite the audience, rather act as an academic study, the use of visual language, to describe the female form, compared to say the erotic or pornographic, is still of relevant note. Banner writes from a female perspective on the female model, using dramatic description to enlighten the audiences mind’s eye, for example describing the darkness of a shadow “like an open door”, while using casual language describing her body using terms like “tits” and “cunt”, rather than biologically or medically as the female body had been displayed previously in art history. This can be considered both as Banner’s attempt to “call[ing] attention to the act of viewing and critiquing the ubiquity of the female nude in the history of art” as shown in a MoMA gallery label for Nude Standing (MoMA, 2013). Judith Kegan Gardiner, in her essay “On Female Identity and Writing by Women” explains that “women’s experiences differ from men’s in profound and regular ways” (Garder, 1980). She explains further, “In a male-dominated society, being a man means not being like a woman. As a result, the behaviour considered appropriate to each gender becomes severely restricted and polarized” (Gadiner, 1980). Therefore the depiction of women by women compared to men has an inheritably different approach by its nature, using the theme of the “nude” as well as linking back to the use of language as systems to a narrative, is very much escapable or at the very least flexible to the needs of the creator and the experience of the audience. On the other hand, it can be considered an example of sociolinguistics, that is to say, the study of the connection between language and society and the way people use language in different social situations. (Crossman, 2019) Furthermore, taking into consideration the escapability of a system through different forms, a Marxist point of view suggests that “beauty is simultaneously an object and an objective state. It is at once form, when we judge it, and also life when we feel it. It is [both] our state of being and our creation.” (Lifshitz, 1973) Therefore written portraits and spoken word while of a similar system (in this case using the system of language) is viewed and comprehended differently through their forms, not only allowing artists influenced to shine through but also the experience of the audience to colour their interpretation of a piece. The systems of art as something to be viewed as explored in Pollock’s work also brings up the argument of the role of the reader. Whereas visual art has a viewer, it is impossible to look at words without interpreting them and comprehending them, even if not in the viewer's mother tongue language and the script is recognizable as something to be read rather than viewed. The audience/reader automatically look for clues provided by the author or illustrator that lead to understanding the text at a different level of comprehension. (Eworkshop, 2005)

“Texts use linguistic signals to play to a given horizon of expectations. As a result, readers get a sense that they are not actively constructing texts but are merely discovering what is there.” (Walpert, 2011) Suggested by Brazilian Czech-born philosopher Vilém Flusser in his collection of essays titled Gestures (1991) he describes the act of writing as “to perform an action by which a material, (for instance chalk, or ink) is put on a surface, (for instance a blackboard or a leaf of paper), to form a specific pattern, (for instance letters)”. (Woolfe, 2021) While it is true writing has an intention to mark-making, such as “compressed letters, words, sentences and paragraphs [that] must follow one on the other without gaps” (Roth, 2011) as seen in extreme in Nude Standing, it is by no means the only way to act upon a surface. In the same way that anti-art turns its back on the traditional function of art, there can also be made an argument for the idea of “anti-language”, allowing the artist to add their influence and interpretation onto the system on writing. Asemic writing is a good example of turning away from a traditional language format and relies heavily on instinct and gestural interactions. Compared to Dada artwork that expresses nonsense, irrationality, and anti-bourgeois protest in their works (Budd, 2005), asemicism is a wordless open semantic form of writing. (Jacobson, 2018)  

However, has also been suggested that within art, there exist purposes referred to as functions for which a piece of art may be designed, but no art can be "assigned" a function—either in scholarly studies or casual conversation—outside of the proper context (Functions of Art and Soul and Space, n.d.), therefore suggesting that systems (in their original form) are, even if influenced and edited by the artist, are inescapable. Figure Four, “OM.2011.231” by Marco Giovenale (2011) depicts an example of breaking the traditional systems of language and comprehension. While asemic writing is considered to have no meanings, or rather an open meaning left for the audience to interpret (in the same way as an abstract painting demands an answer from its viewer), Jim Leftwich supports this in regards to asemic writing and the apparent nonsense it conveys saying “there's no perfect 'asemic' thing or sign since everything conveys some meaning, everything may find its way to ––at least–– an inner 'emotional' (scribble of) meaning.” (Giovenale, 2015) Giovenale successfully breaks the system of writing with “OM,2011.231”. By its very nature of being nonsense, his “writing” is unreadable, unlike that of Banners writing, rather this language is meant to be viewed, like that of Mohr’s “text”. Overall, for all its limping-functionality, semantic language all too often divides and asymmetrically empowers while asemic texts can't help but put people of all literacy levels and identities on equal footing. (Kaikkonen, 2012)

Flipping this theory towards the idea of word art, the influence of grammar for example is inescapable when it comes to the proper use of the English language. For example work by Jenny Holzer, the Guerilla Girls and the spoken word artists Jennifer Falu and Sonya Renee all rely on the structure of language to get their message across in the same way Picasso or Botticelli used canvas and paint. Rather than legible letters and language, the script of both Mohr and Giovenale must be reduced to a structure of line and form, in order to fit into a system of identification, and in a structuralist view, as suggested by Roland Barthes in “The Pleasure of the Text”, 1973, comments the importance of discovering and characterizing structures–not to find “meaning”–but to understand how structures function and how meanings are engendered by a logic of symbols or to be more precise the logical order of their “arrangement” in a structure. (Willette, 2013)

 Linguistic theories such as cognitive linguistics and functional linguistics, recognize that there are many interdependent variables, not only within the language system but also within the social environment and the psychological make-up of an individual (De Bot, et al, 2007), linking to the theory of idiosyncratic influences on language development. Continually, with the rise of the digital age and the growth of text speech, the English language has been edited and evolved within the mainstream world as well as the art world. As does any other field that is subject to control in society. The frameworks of previous languages however always seem to bleed into the modern, for example without the format of “is not” it’s impossible to get “isn’t”, as can be seen in “Standing Nude” which adopts modern syntaxes and slang as if influenced by idiosyncratic behaviour rather than a stone set of rules. Having said that, Peter Newmark defined culture as "the way of life and its manifestations that are peculiar to a community that uses a particular language as its means of expression". (Lawrence, 1998) However, Giovenale adds his own inspiration when it comes to beauty and its subgenre of aesthetics within his writing. Unlike Banner, he is not constricted by the rules and systems of grammar and is free to create artwork based on instincts, while appropriating calligraphy-like text within the gestural forms. Additionally, the audience is left a “crossroad area of art and verbo-visual writing and will encounter a post-literate path without explanation [...], with its very identity asserting itself into the concept of translation, but remaining as an impossible task applied to impossible objects.” (Giovenale, 2020) 

Overall, it can be said that systems are indeed inescapable, as art like any other field is subject to control, however, while systems in the art are set out, within those “rules” there is room for the artist to add their own influence. Using the theme of language as a system, as explored in this essay can be edited and appropriated to fit the artist's needs. Whether it's Banner playing with traditional syntax, or Giovenale using the art of writing while disregarding any linguistic meaning, there is room to evolve within systems of art. Therefore this further suggests that boundaries are very much escapable and manipulative within any genre of art. As stated by David Peterson in 2018 "language is not merely a tool," be that for communication, comprehension or aesthetic design, "it is our legacy, it's our way of conveying what it means to be human." (TED Talks, 2018) Supporting this ideology and challenging that of Newmark’s view, Vermeer suggests too, that "language is part of a culture." (Newmark, 1988) Manfred Mohr’s algorithmic  “P-10” and  Jackson Pollock’s action embedded “Autumn Rhythm” both support Peterson’s view. Furthermore like tools of any other field, there is no singular system to control them, rather a personal influence based on experience that dictates them. 

BIBLIOGRAPHY 

-------------

FIGURES 

Figure One - Pollock, J., 1950. Autumn Rhythm (Number 30). [Enamel on Canvas]. Available at: https://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/488978 

Figure Two - Mohr, M., 1969. P-10 (Random Walk). [plotter drawing ink on paper]. https://dam.org/exhibitions/plotter-drawings-from-1960s 

Figure Three - Banner, F., 2006. Nude Standing. [Pencil on paper]. Available at: https://www.moma.org/collection/works/102559  

Figure Four - Giovenale, M., 2011. OM.2011.231-233. [pen on paper]. Available at: https://asemics.com/om-2011-231-233-marco-giovenale-italy-from-the-ontological-museum-collection/ 

-------------

BIBLIOGRAPHY 

Banner, F., 2009. Art stripped bare - Fiona Banner on the nude. The Guardian, [online] Available at: <https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2009/apr/07/whitechapel-gallery-fiona-banner>    [Accessed 10 November 2021].

Bucchianeri, E., 2011. Brushstrokes of a Gadfly. Batalha Publishers.

Budd, D., 2005. Language of Art Knowledge Cards. Menlo Park CA: Pomegranate Communications Inc.

Chilvers, I., 2009. The Oxford Dictionary of Art and Artists. 4th ed. Oxford University Press.

Chilvers, I. and Glaves-Smith, J., 2009. A Dictionary of Modern and Contemporary Art. 2nd ed. Oxford University Press, p. 694

Christies. 2016. Fiona Banner (B 1966). [online] Available at: <https://www.christies.com/en/lot/lot-6023128>   [Accessed 15 December 2021].

Course Hero. n.d. Functions of Art and Soul and Space. [online] Available at: <https://www.coursehero.com/file/105374392/GART-MODULE-1-UNIT-2pdf/>  [Accessed 7 January 2022].

Crossman, A., 2019. Sociolinguistics An Overview. [online] ThoughtCo. Available at: <https://www.thoughtco.com/sociolinguistics-3026278>  [Accessed 13 November 2021].

De Bot, K., Lowie, W., Verspoor, M., 2007. “A Dynamic Systems Theory approach to second language acquisition” in Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, Cambridge University Press Available at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/231787985_A_Dynamic_Systems_Theory_approach_to_second_language_acquisition [Accessed 20 December 2021]

Esaak, S., 2019. The Most Important Functions of Art. [online] ThoughtCo. Available at: <https://www.thoughtco.com/what-are-the-functions-of-art-182414>  [Accessed 6 November 2021].

Esaak, S., 2019. The 7 Elements of Art and Why Knowing Them Is Important. [online] ThoughtCo. Available at: <https://www.thoughtco.com/what-are-the-elements-of-art-182704>  [Accessed 15 November 2021].

Eworkshop., 2005. Critical Literacy – The Four Roles of the Reader. [online] Available at: <http://eworkshop.on.ca/edu/pdf/Mod08_four_roles.pdf>  [Accessed 13 January 2022].

Gardiner, J., 1980. “On Female Identity and Writing by Women.” Writing and Sexual Difference. Ed. Elizabeth Abel. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Giovenale, M., 2020. Glitchasemics. Post-Asemic Press.

Giovenale, M., 2015. Asemic-Pansemic [M.G.] +plus+ Why we continue using the term asemic writing, even though there is no such thing [J.L.]. [online] Post Script. Available at: <https://scriptjr.nl/asemic-pansemic-m-g-plus-why-we-continue-using-the-term-asemic-writing-even-though-there-is-no-such-thing-j-l/3308#.YeL8cHrP25c>  [Accessed 7 January 2022].

Graver, D., 1995. The aesthetics of disturbance: anti-art in avant-garde drama. University of Michigan Press, p.7.

Harries, J., 1981. Personal Computers and Notated Visual Art. Leonardo, (Vol 14, No 4), pp.299-301.

Jacobson, M., 2018. Works & Interviews by Michael Jacobson. Post-Asemic Press.

Kaikkonen, S., and Melton Q., 2012. "Satu Kaikkonen." SCRIPTjr.nl. https://scriptjr.nl/texts/asemic/satu-kaikkonen [Accessed 15 January 2022].

Kelemen, B. and Putar, R., 1971. Dijalog sa Strojem / Dialog with the Machine. Galeriju Granda Zagreba, p.140.

Kennick, W., 1979. Art and Philosophy: Readings in Aesthetics. New York: St. Martin's Press, p.xi–xiii.

Lawrence, V., 1998. The Scandals of Translation: Towards an Ethics of Difference. London: Routledge. 

Lifshitz, M., 1973. The Philosophy of Art of Karl Marx. London. Pluto Press, pp.166-170.

Lostritto, C., 2015. The Value of Randomness in Art And Design. [Blog] Fast Company, Available at: <https://www.fastcompany.com/3052333/the-value-of-randomness-in-art-and-design>  [Accessed 17 December 2021].

Mithen, S., 1998. The Prehistory Of The Mind. W&N. [Accessed 10 January 2022].

Mohr, M., n.d. MANFRED MOHR. [online] Digital Art Museum. Available at: <https://damprojects.org/kuenstler_ui/manfred-mohr/?lang=en#artistprofile>  [Accessed 5 January 2022].

Mohr, M., 2012.  Interview With Manfried Mohr. Interviewed by Alice Hattrick for The White Review, December 2012. Available at: https://www.thewhitereview.org/feature/interview-with-manfred-mohr/ [Accessed 10 December 2021]

Newmark, P., 1988. A Textbook of Translation. New York: Prentice Hall. p. 94. 

Philips, M., 2018. Aesthetics vs Function / Art vs Design — A Timeless Debate. [online] Prototypr. Available at: <https://blog.prototypr.io/aesthetics-vs-function-art-vs-design-8650d5f6632c>  [Accessed 16 November 2021].

Roth, N., 2011. Gestures Vilém Flusser. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

The Merriam-Webster Dictionary, 1st ed. 2016. System. [online] Available at: <https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/system>  [Accessed 9 November 2021].

TED Talks, 2019. Why Language Is Humanity's Greatest Invention.. [video] Available at: <https://www.ted.com/talks/david_peterson_why_language_is_humanity_s_greatest_invention>  [Accessed 5 January 2022].

Walpert, B., 2011. "Resistance to science in contemporary American poetry", Routledge, p.168 

Willette, J., 2013. Roland Barthes: “The Pleasure of the Text”. [online] Art History Unstuffed. Available at: <https://arthistoryunstuffed.com/roland-barthes-pleasure-text/>  [Accessed 9 January 2022].

Woolfe, S., 2021. Asemic Writing: The Drive to Create Imaginary Languages and Alien Alphabets. [Blog] Available at: <https://www.samwoolfe.com/2021/02/asemic-writing-imaginary-languages-alien-alphabets.html>   [Accessed 14 November 2021].

Woods, E., n.d. Fiona Banner – Nude Standing. [Blog] Word Press, Available at: <https://evewoodslearningjournal.wordpress.com/2019/12/12/fiona-banner-nude-standing/>  [Accessed 10 November 2021].