Art, artifact or just an object?
Hello. Thank you for joining me.
With this posting I am moving from a discussion about objects (and images, surfacing, sound and space) holding energy that engages with those who visit PLEASEtouch, to a discussion about artifacts - because I call pieces removed from their original place of origin, from the original installation they were a part of, artifacts. PLEASEtouch is full of them.
Some artifacts residing in PLEASEtouch are as they were in their original installation. Oahu, Honshu and Kyushu, Battle Banners, Water Offering, and Temple Bells, for instance, are all artifacts from the installation skin. They have not been reworked. Now a part of PLEASEtouch, they differ in that they are a part of this space and time, different, only in placement and exhibition choices.
Oahu, Honshu and Kyushu now lay beside each other, Battle Banners bound with red fabric, hover over them. Water Offering no longer stands alone, but instead is nestled amongst other objects and artifacts, its burned monkey-fur surface dropping ash onto the floor. Temple Bells are not suspended from the ceiling, lit by green light referencing pearls of Trinity (as the sand blasted by the Trinity test came to be called), but instead stand upright in corners of PLEASEtouch. All are waiting to be touched sometime this week - the last week they will be together in this space.
Oahu, Honshu and Kyushu laying on the floor in the installation skin.
Water Offering and Battle Banners in the installation skin.
Temple Bells in skin.
Others artifacts in PLEASEtouch are reworked. Both Future Relic and Mudfish are not from gallery installations, as they were installed in group exhibitions. However, they both engaged the space they occupied. Future Relic was called Future Icon before being reworked for PLEASEtouch Future Icon sat in a base of mud, sand, shell and pebbles that spilled onto the gallery floor. Mudfish were part of Imperfect Offering - created directly on the gallery floor out of mud and copper wire.
Below: Future Icon, retitled Future Relic once I reworked it into a "new" form by hacking her cross in two, staining her base in watery colors of blue, separating her ribcage and placing it in a position of ascendance, lengthening her string of pearls, and skinning some of her oyster shells in velvet.
Future Relic
As they stand in sunlight and shade in PLEASEtouch. 
As they originally sat on the gallery floor in their mud pond for Imperfect Offering.So what is an artifact? Why call these objects artifacts as opposed to an art object - or even just an object?Webster's Dictionary defines artifact as:noun
Sharon Carlisle’s installation at the Loveland Museum, Speaking to Water, January 21 through August 28, 2021, inspired a thoughtful dialog about Art vs Artifact that has influenced how I look at the context we use to interpret our objects at the Loveland Museum. The Museum exhibits both history and art allowing crossover interpretation to occur. The ability to use art as a form of interpretation in a history gallery is unique and makes visitors pause a moment longer to decide how they are reacting to a theme interpreted through an artist’s lens. This is, perhaps, a more emotional level of interpretation than the straightforward text describing events, materials, and use that usually accompanies a history exhibition. Using the artist’s viewpoint is more akin to storytelling. Allowing an artist to share their view of the world with the visitor. Sharon’s artwork utilizes the idea of art vs artifact. Her use of actual historic artifacts and themes as inspiration is evident.
An artifact can be defined as the product of skilled craftsmanship. Artifacts inform us about past events and about how previous cultures lived and built their communities. They are the evidence left behind by people living their lives. Art, by this definition, can also be an artifact. What separates art from artifact is often the emotional and esthetic quality that reaches beyond the everyday use of the object. So, when does the artifact become art? Sharon Carlisle reaches a balance in her artwork between art and artifact. She discovers artifacts, such as the 1920 workbench featured in her Speaking to Water installation, and transforms them into art. Her artwork becomes an artifact of her own body of work. Used originally as a part of another installation, Tended Primitive Emergence, the table changes meaning as it is used in a different context to show the history of the development of The World Wide Water Project. This change from art to artifact does not mean that the element of art is removed from the piece. It just gains additional meaning as the artwork moves through time into different spaces.
The older the art work becomes, the more of an artifact it also becomes. Likewise, as an object moves through time, its context as an artifact becomes more valuable and creates an art-like quality to its interpretation. Think of an archaeologist digging through the layers of an ancient culture. Archaeologist find and assign cultural value and interest to the remnants of daily life. Even today, we produce so much disposable material culture. Broken handles or pots, scrap metal, and plastic. These are the things that future archaeologists will discover and will utilize to reconstruct our culture. Imagine assigning a value and meaning to a broken dinner plate. Will that plate become as elevated as a reconstructed Etruscan vase as time passes?
Artwork and artifacts are also assigned value by the individual interacting with the object. An artifact placed in the right context has the potential to portray emotion and esthetic. Artifacts can be as inspiring to a viewer as artwork is meant to be. Artifact can be the basis or inspiration for an artist’s creation further elevating the value of the everyday material culture and blurring the line between what is the art and what is the artifact. It is hard to distinguish where the line between art and artifact should be drawn. The line, for me, is blurred more and more as I think of what I have collected for the Museum in traditional categories. Maybe it is not for me to designate what an object is but, rather, the object should speak for itself inspiring the viewer to make the decision depending on the lens in which they are looking.
Jennifer Cousino, Curator of History
Loveland Museum
Jennifer's essay easily sparks more interesting conversation. Care to join in (comment below)?
Referencing Jennifer's discussion in regard to the installation PLEASEtouch, it is my hope visitors allow the artifacts, objects, images, sound, space and surfacing to speak for themselves - to be the storytellers. I am hoping that imposed definitions, imposed by me or by visitors (who may have had yet others impose definitions on them), do not supersede the experience visitors have. It is one of the many reasons I did not include titles, an artist statement, or any written statements about the artifacts, images, surfaces, sounds or space in PLEASEtouch. I am hoping visitors leave it up to their experiencing the installation to designate - leave it up to the artifacts to speak for themselves.
Images:
skin by Steven Mass. All others by Robin Snyder.
Comments
Post a Comment