Fine Art is delighted to present a public weekly programme of research lectures and seminars from some of the most interesting and original artists, critics, curators, historians and Art professionals working today.
The Lecture programme is open to the public and other educational institutions. We welcome you to argue and explore the weekly themes posted by students and speakers.
Wednesday 12 December 2007
Gary Woodley
How does architecture act as a framework in Gary's practice?......
Architecture works very literally as a framework in Gary’s instillation pieces. His impingements into gallery spaces rely on the physical structure of the walls, ceilings, floors, and corridors of the internal space. The intricacies and idiosyncrasies of each space become uneven and complex faces of intersection onto which he places the visible boundaries of his unseen volumes. This contact must necessarily predetermine the limits and the scope of his work. In some instances constricting what he is able to implement and in others, accommodating it, but above all providing variation along some of his principal themes, and also generating a dichotomy between reductive form and practical manifestation.
But to what extent this framework extends is less quantifiable, the apparent difference within the nature of his more formal concerns and their reconciliation to architecture would demur the viewer from reaching beyond the purely visual when attributing significances. How, for instance would Woodley’s use of isolated and minimal forms, derived from mathematical principles and models, such as the mobius (continuous and never breaking) strip, and the fourth dimension, correlate to an ideological, or similarly formulaic synergy with architecture? These two areas would appear to be mutually exclusive of one another.
I think that the apparent contradiction in Gary Woodley’s work, between his forms that transcend the physical barriers of the space, and yet rely on them, to tell the viewer that they exist, gives the crux to the question of which aspect has more significance. Is it the process of the viewer walking round the gallery and piecing together how the tape on the walls relates to the larger shape? Or is it the artist’s selection and implementation of the shapes themselves that comes closer to the true nature of the work? In either instance internal architecture serves the function of a neutral surface, whose value lies in its deniability.
1 comment:
Architecture works very literally as a framework in Gary’s instillation pieces. His impingements into gallery spaces rely on the physical structure of the walls, ceilings, floors, and corridors of the internal space. The intricacies and idiosyncrasies of each space become uneven and complex faces of intersection onto which he places the visible boundaries of his unseen volumes. This contact must necessarily predetermine the limits and the scope of his work. In some instances constricting what he is able to implement and in others, accommodating it, but above all providing variation along some of his principal themes, and also generating a dichotomy between reductive form and practical manifestation.
But to what extent this framework extends is less quantifiable, the apparent difference within the nature of his more formal concerns and their reconciliation to architecture would demur the viewer from reaching beyond the purely visual when attributing significances. How, for instance would Woodley’s use of isolated and minimal forms, derived from mathematical principles and models, such as the mobius (continuous and never breaking) strip, and the fourth dimension, correlate to an ideological, or similarly formulaic synergy with architecture? These two areas would appear to be mutually exclusive of one another.
I think that the apparent contradiction in Gary Woodley’s work, between his forms that transcend the physical barriers of the space, and yet rely on them, to tell the viewer that they exist, gives the crux to the question of which aspect has more significance. Is it the process of the viewer walking round the gallery and piecing together how the tape on the walls relates to the larger shape? Or is it the artist’s selection and implementation of the shapes themselves that comes closer to the true nature of the work? In either instance internal architecture serves the function of a neutral surface, whose value lies in its deniability.
Post a Comment