Birgitte Romme Larsen, 8th semester, Institute of Anthropology, University of Copenhagen
One day I was in a car sitting next to my mum. She was telling me about an exhibition of art which she had been visiting a couple of days earlier together with her husband. "Well, it was interesting…but most of the things we saw…..well, it's not art as we used to know it. It has kind of changed…..looking at some of the things we were even asking ourselves what exactely made it a piece of art", my mum said. I had a feeling what she meant, but anyway asked her to give me an example. "Yeah - for instance we saw this painting which was really just a quadratic canvas painted all white except from leaving a small 10 cm2 piece of patterned wallpaper in the lower left corner". What is this all about? It's like todays art isn't about 'skills' or 'technique', so what is it about?", she asked me. "Well, good question", I said. As this rather complicated question (which even artists among themselves are continously arguing to answer) was put very suddenly and as we didn't have much time untill she was going to drop me of at the trainstation, I said that it sure had to be regarded as art, only that today's artists are sometimes focusing on other issues than the more "classical" question of 'skills' and 'technique' as in the form of for instance Realism. But in pointing out this, I knew very well, that this still didn't answer the question of what these issues of "todays art"(1) then were about. The truth is maybe that I didn't find myself able to formulate an answer at that time.
In the following days the conversation came into my mind again and again. The painting my mum had descriped I kept imagining in front of my eyes. Some way or the other I came to consider the theory of Gestalt as exemplified by the famous picture of the vase and the two faces(2): The relation between figure and ground, or as one could equally put it; between text and context(3). What could the intention be by taking a patterned wallpaper and then painting it all over with one colour only leaving a small piece of the paper to be seen? Well, if it isn't a question of 'skills' or 'technique', one could think of it as reflecting a kind of 'paradigme shift' within the field of art. By this I mean - along with Roy Dilley - that the taken-for-granted nature of context of one period or academic (here artistic) discipline becomes the object of study during a later period (Dilley 1999: 6). This means that what used to be treated as mere ground (context) is turned into figure (text) and vice versa. Where it can be said that more classical artists showed a tendency to take for granted that a painting is made up of a ground upon which one paints one or several figures, it is in some of today's art exactly this taken-for-granted ground which is beeing treated as an object of attention in itself by turning it into figure.
To exemplify further this shift between context and text one can as well consider the so called paradigm shift within anthropology from structure-functionalism to post-structuralism or post-modernism (Dilley 1999: 28-32; Strathern 1990: 108-13). What the former took for granted as ground (for instance the studied group's sociocultural "borders" which were percieved as beeing of a static and almost natural given caracter), the latter turned into figure (for instance by not taking these "borders" for given as beeing just the mere undisputable surroundings of the group, but questioning and examining these sociocultural "borders" as a dynamic process continously beeing negotiated, both internally and externally, to reconstruct and reproduce a difference as opposed to other defined groups and their members). So from being something that were just there as a mere ground, a group's cultural identity become regarded as a non-static, that is dynamic, proces of negotiation, and thereby became an object of study in itself: Context were turned into text.
What has this to do with the exact painting that my mum was telling me about? Well, as already mentioned one could say that the artist has turned the relationship between text and context upside down in a similar way. The fact that the biggest part of the painting is one-coloured makes the eye think of it as a (back)ground for something else probably patterned and not one-coloured, that is, a figure. But the role of this multi-coloured and patterned figure has been reduced to take up maybe as little as 2% of the total space of the work, and more than that beeing placed in the corner as peripheral as opposed to a more central role if beeing placed "within" the painting and not at its borderline, i.e. the frame (that is, the outline of the sign-system being the painting). The size and placement of the patterned multi-coloured field have the effect that the eye doesn't percieve it as playing the role as figure. At the same time the big one-coloured field becomes too dominant to play the role of ground, even if that's the role one would first ascribe to this totally plain and uniform field. So the roles of text and context gets switched, the one becomes the other and vice versa.
This seems a lot like what one could say about a quadratic canvas painted for instance all white. Here the artist can also be said to turn a context into text. But not quite in the same way as with the painting my mum was regarding. One could seek to explain the difference between the two in the light of two equivalently variable ideas of language as a system. Here we can draw a contrast between what have respectively been called 1) 'referentiel theories of language', which suggests that the meaning of language inheres in its reference to the external world existing outside the languagesystem, and 2) 'coherence theories of language', which suggests that the meaning of language doesn't inhere in any reference to an external world, but to other things that have been said or expressed internally within the languagesystem itself (Dilley 1999: 9f.). Where Wittgenstein (1971 [1922]; 1972 [1958]) at different epochs, have been a theorist and supporter of both ideas, especially Ricoeur (1971) and the hermeneutics have been a token of the latter, i.e. 'coherence theories of language', where a given word doesn't inhere its meaning in reference to the external world, but in reference to the hole sentence in which the given word constitutes only a part (Dilley 1999: 14). (This relation between part and hole is exactly was is expressed by the 'hermeneutic circle', which suggests that to understand a text one must understand the context, and to understand the context one must equally understand the text).
Let us now return to what respectively a totally white painting and "my mum's" painting has to do with those two varying ways of considering language as a system; i.e. 1) the 'referentiel theories of language' (the meaning of language inheres in its reference to the external world), and 2) 'coherence theories of language' (the meaning of language inheres in the reference to other internal elements within the languagesystem itself).
By creating a totally white painting one could say that the artist is turning the context that normally surrounds a painting into text: By assimilating the white walls of the institutionalized museum in the painting, these walls becomes an object of attention, a text, in itself (4). But in this case the artist is depending on factors existing outside the internal sign-system, beeing the painting. The statement of the painting depends upon a reference (the museum-wall) external to the sign-system itself. One could thereby speek of an 'external contextualizing move', as opposed to "my mum's" painting where the play between text and context is a matter of a relation within the sign-system (the painting) itself, thus an 'internal contextualising move' (Dilley 1999: 12).
"It's like todays art isn't about 'skills' or 'technique', so what is it about?", my mum had asked. I guess that one possible answer (among many I suppose) could have been: "Well, it's about turning context into text and vice versa by placing your attention at the outline between those two (instead of permanently within each one of them) and thereby beeing able to switch between them". In the case of the completely plain white painting the outline between the text and context can be said to be at the frame or "ending" of the sign-system (the painting) itself, as we here speek about an external contextualizing move. In the case of "my mum's" painting the outline between text and context can be said to be where the two elements within the sign-system (the painting) meets, as we here speek about an internal contextual move.
And what relevance then does all this have to anthropology and the sociocultural praxis of human beings? In discussing this I would like to consider the following sequence from a newspaper article written by someone living in Denmark named Mürvet Sahin:
The cultural heritage of human beings is lacking the human being's ability of dying. But with time and place the cultural heritage will be transformed. It cannot avoid to be susceptible to influence by the world and the noise and inconsistency of other cultures and nations. But it will become more mature and well-considered. The challenge is to confuse it [the cultural heritage] with the good and the blessings from it all. This demands responsibility and openness of all parties. But unfortunately the proces of learning such responsibility and openness can be long, provided that the narrow-mindedness has been the clasping companion of life. And that is the background for all the world's intolerance and missing abilities to live together.
My one flag - the danish one with its white Christian cross - forms with its temperamental red colour the background for my other flag, the turkish one - and vice versa. (Kristeligt Dagblad: 07-01-02 (my own translation from danish)).
The author percieves cultural narrow-mindedness as beeing the background, the context, for all the world's intolerance and missing abilities to live together, which he thereby ascribes the role as figure, as text. But in the last part of the quote he then makes a shift by turning the previous context, cultural narrow-mindedness, into text by making it an object of examination itself. He doesn't comprehend himself as beeing culturally narrow-minded, but instead open-minded: "My one flag - the danish one with its white Christian cross - forms with its temperamental red colour the background for my other flag, the turkish one - and vice versa". The author hereby places himself at the outline between the danish and the turkish flag, i.e. the danish and the turkish sociocultural systems, which makes him able to shift between these two as being respectively eachothers both text and context. He thus makes it possible to comprehend himself situationally as both "a dane (text) with turkisk background (context)" and "a turk (text) with danish background (context)". And this cultural "openness", where one is able to shift between different sociocultural systems by "taking the good and the blessings from it all", the author understands as being a crucial ability of human beings to come, if "the world's intolerance and missing abilities to live together" is ever going to decline.
To illustrate this idea of cultural openness and communication between differentiated sociocultural systems, one can take into account these issues as theoretically expressed by Arjun Appadurai. Appadurai is distinguishing between 'locality' and 'neighbourhoods', where the former is to be understood as a complex phenomenological quality constituted by interactivity and sociality (i.e. an aspect of social life), and the latter as the actually existing social forms in which locality is realised (i.e. situated communities characterized by their actuality, whether spatial or virtual) (Appadurai 1995: 204f.). A given neighbourhood has to be regarded contextually by asking what a neighbourhood is produced from, against, in spite of, and in relation to. "Neighbourhoods are inherently what they are because they are opposed to something else and derive from other, already produced neighbourhoods. […] The central dilemma is therefore that neighbourhoods both are contexts and at the same time [texts that] require and produce contexts" (Ibid.: 208+9). But in this inter-neighbourhoodly relational communication and identity-negotiation, sociocultural inter-transformations and exchanges will take place: "As these local subjects engage in the social activities of production, representation and reproduction (the 'work of culture'), they contribute, generally unwittingly, to the creation of contexts which might exceed the existing material and conceptual boundaries of the neighbourhood" (Ibid.: 210 (my underlining)).
As the author of the above newspaper article pointed out: "The challenge is to confuse it [the cultural heritage] with the good and the blessings from it all". But as illustrated by Appadurai this confusion is already taken place though "generally unwittingly". But concerning the author of the newspaper article he can be said both to understand and practice this confusion rather wittingly, as he equally rather wittingly places himself at the outline between the danish and the turkish sociocultural systems (or 'neighbourhoods') and thereby enables himself to shift between percieving these as respectively text and context, or with other words; enables himself to posses cultural open-minedness rather than narrow-mindedness.
Maybe one does see clearer placing oneself at the outline between text and context instead of statically within these without being able to shift between them (i.e. shift ones perspertive)? And I guess that that's what both xenophobes and anthropologists finally should be mindful of - the importance of seeking for themselves the artist's 'technique' and 'skill' in being wittingly invertive.
Notes
1.The terms used in this article for naming different epochs of art shouldn't be regarded as an attempt to be true to the exact terms used in naming these epochs within the history of art. Rather I am consciously naming the varying epochs as they were named by my mum in the conversation; i.e. an idea of a "today's art" as varying from a former kind of art based more on "skills" and "technique". However, to prevent confusion, I should mention that the concrete piece of art which is here by my mum beeing labelled as "today's art" can rightly be named as Minimalism, as it - as the word indicates - works with as little elements within the painting as possible leaving the issues at work to the relation between these few elements, instead of to the complexity of aesthetic compactness as seen in other genres of art.
3. Due to the limited space available for this essay I have chosen to concentrate on some examples of "Gestaltish" relations between text and context, that is, rather than to problematize the nature of the term 'context' in itself. This could be done by focusing on questions such as: What is a context? How is it defined and chosen, and by whom? How is it in our conception linked to other equally problematic terms such as 'meaning' and 'interpretation'? Etc. etc. Unfortunately a discussion of such questions would demand more space than avaliable here. Whatever complications the lack of such above questions might have for the reader's perception of this essay, I just want to stress, that I am well aware, that contexts (as a form of abstraction) are something that exists in our minds - not out there! (Dilley 1999: 38).
4. I am well aware that there could be other intentions involved in presenting a completely white painting, than the one possible intenion mentioned here. For instance - standing in front of an equally completely one-coloured panting - one artist expressed the issue at work to me as being about reflecting an idea about 'art as process' versus 'art as finished pieces'. Nevertheless (just as the explanation concerning the assimilation of the white institutionalized museum-walls) this alternate explanation to a completely whitepainted canvas can equally be said to concern the making of context into text: Formerly the process of producing a painting can be said to have been taken for granted as the mere context surrounding and preceding the actual text; the finished work of art, which could then finally be exhibited. But in this explanation (i.e. 'art as process' versus 'art as finished pieces') the very process of producing the painting is turned into an object of attention in itself, into text. This is done by exhibiting what one would conservatively percieve as "a half finished" painting (as one sees only the prepared ground for a missing figure). Hereby the artist can be said to emphasize, that no matter how "finished" one imagines ones painting to be, it can never be so once and for all, as art is a process and thereby cannot reach a state of actually "being finished". Therefore - the statement seems - one can just as well present a painting only "half done" as this unfinishedness in reality goes for all paintings.
References
* Appadurai, Arjun 1995, "The Production of Locality". In: Richard fardon (ed.): Counterworks. Managing the Diversity of Knowledge. London and new York: Routledge, p. 204-23.
* Dilley, Roy 1999, "Introduction: The Problem of Context". In: The Problem of Context. New York: Berghahn Books, p. 1-42.
* Ricouer, Paul 1971, "The Model of the Text. Meaningful action considered as text". Social Research, No. 38, p. 529-62.
* Strathern, Marilyn 1990, "Out of Context. The Persuasive Fictions of Anthropology". In: Marc Manganaro (ed.): Modernist Anthropology, From Fieldwork to Text. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, p. 80-130.
* Wittgenstein, Ludvig 1971, [1922] Tractatus logico-philosophicus. London, Routledge. 1972, [1958] Philosophical investigations. Oxford. Blackwell.
* Kristeligt Dagblad, 07-01-02, Med øje for den danske kulturarv. Af Mürvet Sahin.