I have always been fascinated by the markings that subjects make which chronicle their existences. These markings are those made by humans which showcase their individual personalities. The markings that they leave behind are resultant of the way that they interpret the world: making use of the things around them to make their mark. To achieve this I will look at various artists and photographers who have created works focusing on these markings. I’m fascinated to see how artists and photographers capture those marks in order to indicate what was going through the mark makers mind. This will allow me to gain a greater comprehension of why such marks are made and then what they say about the things that occurred in order to create them; how their environment played a role in their creation, alongside the people that caused them. The markings shown within the works I have selected inform us as to how the markings have had their own effect on the artists who have captured them. Effectively showing how the markings are leaving markings of their own. I will look at the technique, material, movement, time and personal ideologies of the artists I research to see why they have been compelled to capture their subjects/objects. As everyone has their own interpretation of the world they, people, express this through what they create; they manipulate their materials and technique to communicate a certain message their markings chronicle their lives. We then see the different ideas they’ve had at different times: seeing how said ideas have caused them to act and so produce a certain artifact or marking.
The list of artists that I’m looking at includes: Richard Wentworth, Antony Gormley, Rut Blees Luxemburg and Christian Boltanski. This is alongside Marcel Duchamp and Tracey Emin. I want to talk about sculptors, photographers and conceptual artists, as well as painters, as in having this range I want to show how different markings are a response to the different preferences individuals have. Also showing how the response a person has to something provokes them to work with a certain kind of medium. This informs others about said individual: what they are feeling, thinking, doing etc. Hence, they leave a marking specific to that time and place.
I have selected Richard Wentworth’s work entitled ‘Making do and Getting by and Occasional geometries’ as I feel the way it captures moments of human decision and intuition to be fascinating. Wentworth’s work is relevant to my study as it entailed that he photograph objects that have been extracted from their typical, everyday roles and put into alternative situations, performing unplanned, undersigned tasks, that allow them then to be seen as something different, they become subverted. Hence we see that human ingenuity has played a part in their placement as they now mean something specific to a person’s life: specific to a situation in that person’s life. Therefore, the object in its new role marks that person’s existence. Wentworth said, “It doesn't take very long to realise that some are warnings, some repairs, some reminders, some adjustments. And some of them are kinds of subsections” - http://www.core77.com/reactor/03.07_parallel.asp. This quote highlights how Wentworth saw the objects as being moments of alteration and modification, of subversion. These are two elements that I feel are integral in the depiction of ones markings as they demonstrate the individual ways in which people view the world around them and make use of the things around them. This connects Wentworth’s work to Marcel Duchamp’s ‘Readymades.’ The ‘Readymades’ are a collection of manufactured objects that Duchamp modified in the slightest of ways to then transform them into pieces of art. The aim of the work was to show how objects could be transformed through alterations made to their physical structures to elevate there meaning and standing in the world. This links to Wentworth’s work in the sense that it shows us how Duchamp has exercised his imagination and his perceptions of objects to change them. Thereby leaving a marking of himself on the objects. The ‘Readymades’ have grown to be seen as pieces of work which battle with the common perceptions people of have of art. This, I feel, leads one to see how the ways in which Duchamp worked into pre-made objects shows how he has instilled his own kind of marking into the objects. They demonstrate his personal reactions to the objects. Thus we see his interpretation of that moment in his life. Furthermore, Duchamp has said that using pre-made objects as a basis for his works (within the Readymades) helped free him of being trapped by a specific style. This musing of his is something which strengthens the links he has to my investigation in that not being defined by a certain style, Duchamp felt he was free to make the kinds of works he wanted to and so leave behind the kinds of markings that he wants to.
Wentworth captured objects that contrast in colour, shape, material and size to the environment that they’re in. ‘Making do and Getting by’ displays this by showing moments of human intervention that led to the modification of things with the resources they had available at the time. Thus there is an incoherence between the components of the photographs. As the objects aren’t naturally for that role: they will not have been designed in a way that compliments this new role they have been given. Wentworth has said that his favourite piece of work (that he’s created) is ‘Making do and Getting by’ because “it can’t be controlled”. The uncontrollable nature of the work combines with Wentworth’s fondness of juxtaposing elements to express that this piece of work stands to represent the way that people intervene in the world around them to unite themselves with their environments. No one place is made tailored to a specific person: especially not as time progresses. Thus there is an incoherence between a person and the environments they habituate in. These photographs, however, show how people to find ways to work with the places they’re in - they are using their ingeniuty to co-operate with their environment. This shows how elements can stand next to each other and co-exist. This relates back to my study to show how humanity is working into the world: marking it.
The photographs within this piece are cropped in a manner that captures the entirety of the modification. This affects the scope of the image in that if the object being photographed is small then the photograph hones in that that detail. Conversely, if the object is larger, then the photograph is zoomed out more. Regardless of the scope of the image, throughout all of the images Wentworth incorporates a sense of the environment that the object is in. This I feel is done to accentuate its peculiarity. As in having the environment within the picture we, the viewer, get a greater feel for the setting. Which then results in us understanding the intentions behind the marking. This is because it implements tone into the piece: meaning we will be able to infer why the modification came to fruition.
Antony Gormley’s ‘Bed’ shows a more direct kind of human mark – that of the human self. In ‘Bed’ we see how the human form has been imprinted into a surface. So, a mark is left of the actual human form: showing how a subject has left behind a marking of themselves. This kind of marking intrigues me. It takes the actual mark maker into account – showing us the actual role they played in its creation. I feel that this then communicates a different kind of message (to the other artists I’ve looked at). This is in that we see a symbiosis between mark and maker. We see more of the process that has gone into the marking: the act of lying down and leaving an imprint of oneself - though Gormley actually layered the bread slices on top of one another before he removed those needed to make the negative spaces. This is what relates the work to my investigation. It shows the role that humanity played, not just in the determination of the mark’s aesthetic, but also in the mark’s means of coming about. One can draw parallels between Gormley’s work shown here and Tracey Emin’s ‘My Bed.’ Emin’s work depicts her own unmade bed which revealing to the viewer the truths about her. In that she shows what she does and has done in that bed through the collection of objects scattered around it. This links to Gormley’s work in the sense that it too shows the mark that the human form has left in an object. Emin, like Gormley, has left an imprint of her existence and lifestyle in her bed: marking it.
Gormley states that his works concerning and depicting the human figure are made as an exploration of the human form: “looking at the other side of appearance.” He continues to say that his works act as a trace of a real event in a real body in time” - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antony_Gormley. Such ideas emphasise the links that Gormley’s work has to my own practice. The fact that he identifies the casts he takes as being markings of the human condition informs us that he sees his works as documenting specific occurrences and events in life. With reference to ‘Bed,’ the piece captures the human form in a sleeping, resting state. Thus, it is imposed that we can look at this piece as a documentation of that specific person and the space they occupy in the world. The object of a bed is very intimate one: one that connotes and denotes ideas of love, togetherness seclusion and comfort. In presenting the concept of a bed to us in such a way, Gormley depicts to us the ways we make things our own - namely the spaces we occupy. Thereby marking our existences.
His manipulation of bread as a medium to make his human cast in ‘Bed’ shows us how modernism has influenced his work. This is in that he has taken the fairly unorthodox material of bread and used it to take a mould of a person. The unorthodox approach supposes his modernist sensibilities as it brings an earthy and earthly quality to the work: maintaining the rejection of enlightenment of other modernist works. This makes the whole concept seem much more earthly as it reduces the act of sleeping to be much more primitive and man-made. By this I mean that bread is seen as a necessary part of a person’s daily diet (fuelled by the fact that it was some of the only food rationed to those in concentration camps during the war). So it has connections to squalid living conditions, as well as being a basic human need. This then portrays the act of sleeping as being a basic human need. It plays on Gormley’s modernist themes to separate the idea many have of sleep being a luxury, which gives it connotations linking to divinity, to the reality of it being a rather basic act that anyone can carry out. Hence it seems earthly and real.
The realism within Gormley’s casts is something that I feel has influenced the composition of the piece. The casts displayed within the work are shown to be composed in a way that has the subjects with their arms/hands placed upon their chests. This is reminiscent of the pose that people are put it when they die. Thus it can connote a state of peace and death. This draws on a sense of realism, which also heightens the modernist themes of the piece, to communicate that the state being depicted, captured and documented is marking that of one’s subconscious. Gormley has stated that his work is about the other side of the human appearance. I feel that, in this case, this mantra extends to one’s internal appearance. By this I mean that the way one feels in terms of their mood affects the way that they compose themselves physically. So, the pose that the figures are in indicate and mark the way they feel when resting and sleeping: showing how they achieve a kind of inner peace in this state.
The themes of modernism and realism, I feel, also play prominent roles in the work of Rut Blees Luxemburg. A photographer, she focuses heavily on urban landscapes: looking at the way they’ve developed, organically, through the presence of people. Thus, one can see how modernism and realism are present within her works as we see how the real actions of people affect a space in a real way. Leaving a marking of the people in the sense that reveals what they did on a day-to-day basis. This is similar to Duchamp’s ‘Readymades’ in that the photographs, capturing the landscapes, show how when a modification is documented or made it can become elevated in its meaning.
‘Towering Inferno’ was created as the album cover for The Streets’ album ‘Original Pirate Material.’ It works to incorporate the typical urban themes that Luxemburg implements into her work. Luxemburg likes to explore urban landscapes: utilising the natural resources of the places she is in as the only features in her photographs. This means that she uses only the light sources that are already present at the scene (street lamp). In the case of ‘Towering Inferno,’ she makes use of the lit up apartment windows in the building opposite to where she is situated. She has said that she likes the “sculptural” quality of the block of flats. This is in that there appears to be a design within its creation: the way that the windows are grid-like across the building and the lights are lit up in a very robotic manner. The way in which she exploits the urban landscapes in their natural form shows how she has been influenced by the growth in urban culture. That fact that she explores such places shows how she is considering them as actual living spaces. She works to give them the recognition they deserve for being places in which people habituate in as much capacity as more developed areas. This shows how she links into my work. She shows the honesty of the landscapes that she is in so she can show how life goes on within them. With reference to ‘Towering Inferno,’ she states, “they are little illuminations, which tell us about the people who live there” - http://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2009/apr/23/rut-blees-luxemburg-best-shot-photography. This relates the piece to my investigation in the sense that it tells us how she is looking at the way people are living in the area. The fact that the lights are on in those specific rooms informs us, the viewer, of some of the traits of those particular people. We can infer that those people are up and that they are doing something that requires the light to be on. Alternatively, we can then deduce that the windows with the lights off might not be occupied, if they are then those within the rooms might not need the lights on etc. So, the piece works to show the markings that we make subconsciously. The people might not be aware of what the simple act of having their lights turned on means. As a result we see a very natural, autonomous kind of mark being made. We see how people function differently to each other - consequently leaving different kinds of markings behind.
‘The Libertine Sofa,’ like ‘Towering Inferno,’ plays on the illuminative quality of night-time merging with minimalistic lighting. I feel that such a quality is contingent with the title of this particular piece: emphasising its aesthetic. The noun ‘libertine’ defines a person who revels in indulgence: even if this indulgence goes against moral principles. With this in mind, the titular sofa is characterised as being this indulgent character. It personifies it as such to make it seem like it, the sofa, is out in search of something to indulge in and has been led to this urban landscape. Thus, through the photograph Luxemburg creates a contrast between figments of decadence and symbols of declination. This communicates the presence of human intervention: thereby tying the piece into my investigation. This is in that the incongruous nature of the sofa’s placement allows one to infer that someone has put it there as one doesn’t usually expect to find a sofa in the middle of a street. So, human intervention is implied to have caused it to be there. Luxemburg says, “The sofa is for sale, hence the glistening wrapping.” http://www.tate.org.uk/art/artworks/blees-luxemburg-the-libertine-sofa-p20268/text-summary. I think that the way in which Luxemburg has composed her image is intriguing. I feel that the close up composition of the photo makes it seem as if we, the viewer, are stumbling across the sofa on the street. Thus we inspect it. She utilises the lighting to accentuate the soft texture and 3-D nature of the sofa: providing us with a full scope of it. Details of the environment are then shown to be much darker in tone, which helps to light up the sofa even more: exaggerating the incongruity of its placement. Furthermore, as she doesn’t get involved in the compositions of her work, to maintain the naturalness and honesty of the setting, there is something really eye-catching about the way she has managed to shoot the sofa to light up under the street light. This is attributable to the aforementioned “wrapping”: it adds another conceptual and aesthetic layer to the piece. It shows how there is both considerations given to the state of the sofa: it is wrapped up to maintain its quality, yet its placement shows a sense of disregard in that it has been left in the middle of a street. Therefore, I feel that Luxemburg communicates the contrary, temperamental nature of the human mind. It is shown here to be something which leads people to do things of a peculiar nature. Leaving them to leave a mark, of themselves, that connotes the different ways people see best to deal with situations. So the markings shown are of a human’s perceptions of what they feel its okay to do.
I liken the way that Luxemburg made use of lighting within her work to the way that Christian Boltanski used lighting in his work. Boltanski, like Luxemburg, uses light to intensify the subjects and objects being depicted in his works: emphasising the themes and ideas that have gone into them.
Prominent themes in Boltanski’s work are consciousness and remembering: with him exploring the human condition through these concepts to show the why it diminishes. His focus on such themes are the reason for why I have incorporated him into my investigation. The fact that he explores the way in which people remember things links his work to my investigation in the sense that he demonstrates the way in which we can remember things: showing us how certain events, subject matters and people have affected him, what kind of effect they’ve had on him and how he feels about said subject matters. This shows the kind of markings and impressions that these things have left on Boltanski.
As a member of the Jewish faith, the fact that the images of the children, in the aforementioned works, are those who were killed by the Nazi’s shows us how his religion has been implemented into the context of his work. This in what the work is saying and how it looks aesthetically. The photos of the children act as documentations of those children’s existences . This informs us that the themes of ‘remembering’ and ‘consciousness’ are maintained within these particular pieces. This is in that the pictures show how he is remembering the victims of the Nazi’s presence. The use of lights then communicates the manner in which he is remembering them. We can infer that he sees the subjects as possessing angle-like qualities. This is resultant of the way the lights are projected on to the images as they light the faces of the children up in ways that resemble halos. Thus, I feel that the lights act as a metaphor for the way that the children will be remembered and what they symbolise in the wake of their deaths. The lights allow the children to be shown as pure and good because light symbolises goodness and awareness. This helps Boltanski communicate that these children are leaving behind a positive kind of impression and marking of themselves in the world.
The works that I’ve included in my analysis of Boltanski make use of a very mechanical aesthetic. I find this to be intriguing as it couples with my previously mentioned statements regarding the angelic portrayals that Boltanski provides the photographed children with to create a juxtaposition between surreal and real. I really like the way that the tones and structures collide through this coupling. By this I mean that the mechanical, stripped back manner of the lights contrasts to the delicate glow of the projected light. I feel that through this contrast Boltanski is communicating that these pictures act as representation of the kinds of affiliations that these children and their deaths will carry with them throughout time (the opinions people will have of them). The light reflects the higher place that they are now in: heaven. Whereas the mechanical structure of the lights represents the earth and the place they were before they were killed. The fact that the lamps (which represent the earth) project the light (which represents heaven) is poetic in a sense. Boltanski shows how it is what happened on earth that led the children to be in their current place. This links back to the themes of ‘consciousness’ and ‘remembering’ to show how they affect each other in a way. We can only remember things that have happened to us or that we have experienced. Boltanski created these pieces of work to allow a greater amount of people to experience the effects of the Nazi’s. Allowing us to witness the consequences of their actions – the markings that they left behind – enabling us to then ‘remember’ them. Boltanski manipulates the lights to shine directly onto the children’s faces to highlight severity of the Nazi’s actions: showcasing the mark that they left behind of themselves alongside the markings of the children, and all those affected’s, lives.
From all that I’ve read and seen with regards to the artists I’ve researched, I’ve conlcuded that the markings we make are the result of the individual ways we react to the things we experience in our day-to-day lives. Every day we encounter a variety of things that we form different responses to. These responses that we generate are specific to our existences: they come from the tastes we have. In turn one could say that the markings we make are the result of previous markings left on us by others. With this in mind one could say that a marking we make at a certain time is something that isn’t solely from that enounter - it can stem from various other occurences that have combined together to fuel this one response. Thus we can see how the markings we make throughout the entireity of our lives are the result of markings left on and within us from other things. It is a long chain of markings influenceing other markings. Consequence to my research I’ve come to believe that everything that we, as individuals, produce are markings of our existences: no matter how extravagant or minimal. I say this as it is contingent with what I’ve just said about our markings being the repsonses we have certain stimuli. For example, if a person sees a stain on a wall in their house, they may opt to strategically place a vase of flowers or photo frame infront of the stain to cover it. Thus that person would be leaving behind a marking of their personality. From it we can infer that they don’t want the stain to be seen and so want to maintain a certain image of themselves. One can see how we make things that are specific to the situation we are faced with. The artists I’ve researched capture these markings within their work to show us the aesthetic and conceptual layers of something that can seem ordinary or ultimately mundane. This is something that, personally, I feel is quite beautiful. The fact that we get to see a much more layered understanding of these objects and markings. This notion of beauty being embedded within the concept of the markings we leave behind has led me to conclude that the markings we leave behind are made because we, humans, have an innate, subconscious yearning to communicate what we feel. This has manifested over time to be achieved in numerous ways: one being mark making. It is through the marks that we leave behind that we signify our presences in the world. We leave behind markings as a way of communicating what we felt at a specific time. The artists I’ve looked have captured and recreated this concept with varying results to reiterate this and to also communicate their own views and feelings. Thereby showing how the mark making process is constantly being put to use in the world.
