What is it that puts the ‘fine’ in fine art? In the past fine denoted something different to the applied arts and crafts, the artisanal element of making. Fine was meant to raise the level of thinking away from the primarily functional and the folk art of the general population. It was meant to educate and impress. Today, this attitude is no longer relevant and neither is it desirable. Artists have often relied on artisans for their initial training and preparations. They have been inspired by the folk, ethnic, primitive, call it what you will, throughout history. Beethoven and folk music, Brancusi and folk art and Renoir started as a ceramics decorator.
Art today is seen within a spectrum of activity from the rawest of expression to the most worked and polished making. The ‘fine’ today is something different. I see it as the polishing of an idea, honing an argument, refining the making. Any one of these processes transforms poietic activity into an agent of change, stimulating the imagination, engendering empathy and raising curiosity amongst many other things. The constant refining, selecting, filtering, distilling are all part of what might be called fine art.
The above study in its original form was enough as a place marker of an idea and initial exploration, in short a study. However, I decided to take it further, to refine it. I wanted to take the making process further, to extend its limits in a continual process. By doing so, the idea itself is transformed, maybe slightly but nonetheless altered. The sketch may hold its own dynamic vigor, something to hold on to but not always. A case in hand is Rembrandt’s etching of the crucifixion, which as many of his etchings, underwent through many states, each complete in itself and also a phase towards a transformed more refined end point but no less powerful.
I feel that the sketched beginning possess more life imbued in its making. This is the difficulty in refining, not to loose that freshness. But there are also crudities that distract. It is a balancing act. Moreover, refinement is a way of exploring the capabilities of a medium hand in hand with the notions that underlie it: meditating on the idea, reflecting in action. Neither does the above image indicate an end to refinement nor is it a completed transformation as a study in preparation for further work.
Link to recorded lecture. Videos do not appear for confidentiality reasons; they depict operations, practitioner-patient interactions and other private situations.
It took a little while for it to emerge that the lecture was aimed at design students as an introduction to ethnographic field studies of how everyday objects are used: detached observation, immersed in the context of the subject. A form of emic anthropology. The purpose, however, is not to elucidate the place in society of these objects, the reasons for their use, corresponding beliefs or thoughts. The purpose of such field studies using ethnographic tools such as drawings, photography, writing etc, is to find ways of designing things to enhance their use and better respond to their users needs and idiosyncratic behaviours and imaginative gestures. The behaviours that accompany the use of mundane or commonplace objects is often elusive to the user. Christian Heath thinks that interviewing subjects regarding their subconscious, automatic movements and gestures can be misleading or yield little insight as the subjects are often unaware of the reasons why they behave in such ways. According the Heath, the object is shaped by the situation through interaction with the user and the way it is used varies according the conditions during the moment of use. The methodology is not an exercise in trying to be objective: product design itself is often highly subjective, led by trends, fashion and the influence of contemporary theories and commercial strategies.
The conversation on Skype veered to considering the ethics of anthropological methodology. However, the principle idea from our (fine art) point of view of the exercise is to look at ways of looking at how the behaviour attached to the use of mundane objects rather than relying on data or anecdote might help in the evaluation of one’s work. From my point of view as artist, this methodology can form part of reflecting on my practise. Is not considering audience behaviours regarding one’s own work a principle reason for exhibiting? Anthropological observations of audience behaviour and experience can perhaps offer a way of informing the development of one’s practice, throwing light on work-receiver interaction and most importantly in evaluating curatorial ideas. This all may seem obvious and it is something I have done many times but thinking in terms of the anthropology of the artwork could help focus on the aspects previously mentioned more productively.