“By taking an orange, each person changes the molecular form of the stack of oranges and participates in “consuming” its presence” (Louw, 2000). Nicolas Bourriaud theorised that the audience was authorised by the artist to remove parts of an art piece, if they accepted the responsibility of contributing to the eventual death of the work. The gallery provides an active choice between narcissism or inactive self-discipline, removing pieces of the art consequently denies others the privilege of seeing it whole. Eating the orange was more than just a refreshing snack- by choosing to pick up one or more of the 5,800 oranges designated for the work, the individual was choosing to destroy part of the art, the pyramid gradually losing form existing as an empty wooden square on the floor. They were allowed to lift and eat an orange while taking in the surrounding works, Louw intended that this work always be placed at the entrance of an exhibition. Roelof Louw’s Soul City (Pyramid of Oranges), 1967, was a piece of participatory artwork for the audience to literally consume. While some choose to create art that destroys itself, some rely on the audience’s participation to diminish it. This internal artistic permanence is one of the most beautiful purposes for displaying ephemeral artwork. Their legacy lives on within the minds of spectators, mirroring our own memories of loved ones once their respective clocks have stopped. These works are never intended to be private, active witnessing was integral to the conception and completion of the work. Metzger outlined three principles for Auto-Destructivism: time, self-completion and participation. When they are being recognised as the ticking hearts of two dying lovers, they take on an intense emotive depth. Without an audience these clocks are simply clocks. This piece’s expiry date is what makes it powerful, ephemerality itself is the art and the viewer is a part of its presence. I wanted those two clocks right in front of me, ticking.” The personified life of these clocks resonated with viewers struggling with their own mortality or that of loved ones, addressing a conscious fear. González-Torres himself said that: “This piece I made with the two clocks was the scariest thing I have ever done. The batteries would inevitably disintegrate and one or both clocks could stop at any moment - this uncertainty stirring empathy, and the impending death of this piece held real emotional power over both viewer and creator. Of note “Untitled” (Perfect Lovers), 1991: two identical clocks were set and left on the gallery wall to slowly run out their time. His deeply personal and tragic artworks examine human mortality through ephemerality-and their slow destruction reflects the slow physical tole of AIDs on his partner Ross Laycock. Felix González-Torres (1957-1996) best applies this concept. Contrastingly, slow auto-destruction has a heightened capacity for emotional significance. Metzger’s destruction was fast, intense and unmistakeable, a performance to be seen in the moment and when finished only left a ragged negative space. His artworks were created by performatively spraying acid on nylon sheets, as the nylon melted dynamic shapes were produced and quickly dissolved, mimicking the violent destruction of chemical weaponry feared universally during this period. Auto-Destructivism was a term invented by artist Gustav Metzger following the Cold War.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |