Collection creation

by Sylvie Tourangeau
Original text published in Parcours désordonné

Translated by Susan Avon

The collection-piece/Intervention tactics
attempts at reconciliation

As much as freedom is founded on violence and the practice of art on privileges, works of art tend to be prisons, the masterpieces of the accomplices of power. [1]

Choosing, finding, accumulating, indexing, sorting...

Becoming involved in activities related to the process of collecting as technique for learning, tool for knowledge and instrument for the development of an individual-collective identity or even of a world vision is part of our everyday life. For the contemporary artist, creating a collection-piece seems to be a whole other matter.

In fact, through meetings with Mr. Laurier Lacroix throughout the group workshops on the collection, we tackled the defining elements of the collection, its history, how it can intercede in the learning and the making of an individual's identity while remaining aware of what remains distinct, apart. The versatility in relation to the differences and similarities between the collection and the artistic process kept us in a constant state of observation of the components of artistic practice.

In itself, "the activity of collecting also always challenges one to establish connections which have not been seen or recognized in that particular form before, and in this activity of reorganisation, collection and thinking possess the same creative possibilities." ^[2]

However, in response to all kinds of objectives, this potential channels itself into several fields of action. Who collects? What do we collect? Why and how do we collect? No one answer applies and other sets of problems surface when they are related to an identity, an artist's status and an art form. To keep our bearings, we had to leave a gap between the collection and art, to maintain a necessary distance in order to see it better. This room for manoeuvring allowed for information to spread, ensured that the artists' discussions got around and channelled the experiment toward individual stances.

- Does the application of methods related to collecting (seriality, multiplicity, accumulation, classification, repertory, etc.) in the process and the presentation of a contemporary work of art confer onto it the term of collection-piece?

- Does the simple introduction of a procedure related to the stages of collecting imply bringing into question the system of thought or of art?

- Does the imitation, alteration or appropriation of the museum's operating rules and methods become a primary characteristic of a collection-piece?

- Does the choice alone to establish new methods and elements of order make the principles of collecting or of artistic expression evolve?

- At what moment does the change in function of an object make one question a manner of thought or specify certain roles of art?

- Once collecting principles are introduced into the language of the work of art, does a critical function automatically emerge?

Not to worry... this text will not attempt to answer these questions... nor to define the collection-piece. Putting forth the questions keeps art alive.

A few characteristics of the collection-piece

"In a very general way collection-pieces [...] are works in which different facets, proper to the particular manner of understanding the world synonymous with the very act of collecting itself, are at play." ^[3] We detected "subtle forms of collecting used as a means of artistic expression. Many artists used collecting as a direct activity or they were inspired by amassing archives or inventories, or even by creating reconstructions and museums. This method of elevating collecting to an artform stems from a long tradition linking collections and artistic production." ^[4] But it is "from the point of acceptance of the fragmentary and of a dissemination of reality that the general principle of collecting can thus be used in an artistic context that nevertheless seems to break away from the fundamental principles of collecting." ^[5]

Insofar as the projection of the universe of the collection, Christine Dubois submits that the internal structure of the collection-piece is often understood through similarities and differences, and it is also in this manner that the part of the artist's discourse is proffered to the observer. The notion of obvious reference and the distribution of the objects and images arouse, upon reception, networks of meaning.

General observations on the collection-piece

Collection-pieces are complex in themselves because they use classification procedures related to human intelligibility as well as to modes of artistic expression. The historical context, the arrangement of the works and presentation choices add other meanings, as does the manner in which the work is absorbed into the art system.

The collection-piece gives rise to problematics which must manoeuvre through a long list of elements and conducts. Of note are the detailed attention given to the way the components are laid out, the successive order of the stages of the process, the importance given to one element over another, the to-and-fro between the implicit and the explicit, the manipulation of meaning, function and models, the correlations between views on art and artistic practice.

The stakes involved in the collection-piece relate to the accessibility problems of the observer to the internal system that governs the work as well as to the system around the object, that is, the function of art in contemporary society. By its materiality, its formal aspects, its expressive modes and the way in which it incorporates itself into the space and in the observer's field of perception, the collection-piece establishes dynamics of integration and of differentiation with its models. In this sense, I subscribe to the idea that the collection-piece must be, before all else, a debate-piece.

Taking into account the functionnning of active thought and of modes of intervention of the art form brings correlation or discord into the reading of the collection-piece. Certain works show a superiority of the "systematic over the thematic" (Baudrillard) while others illustrate the opposite regardless of the number of chosen elements.

At the outset, this practice challenges certain notions such as the unifying (totalitarian) principle, the value of truth, art and life; it confirms that different systems can be of equal value and that stagnation prevents the development of the imaginary and, by rebound, means of expression (plastic or other).

According to Krysztof Pomian, "we would not know how to talk of collections without addressing political, economical and social issues," ^[6] just as we could not remove from a collection-piece the intention to deconstruct the associating principles that categorized the work of art. Among others, I refer to those of Wölfflin in his "five opposed terms in the creation of form: linear/painterly, plane/recession, closed/open, multiplicity/unity, clearness/unclearness" ^[7] and an array of dichotomous, binary or other association systems.

The collection-piece and the Ateliers convertibles guests ^[8]

Throughout the 70s and 80s, several "artists used the museum as format or frame by playing with certain aspects of its historical and social role, its traditional prestige, its method of organization." ^[9]

For some, the similarities between the collectors' behaviour and the collection-piece are established in the processing stage. Others emphasize it in the presentation; guest artist Guy Blackburn emphasizes these characteristics depending on the particular features of his pieces. This sometimes results in collection-pieces that more or less fit the tradition but which pick up certain aspects related to the collection. This versatility and different takes on identity are also apparent in works on Denis Lessard and Annette Messager, and in the particular stance of one of the lecturers, Mr. Jacques de Tonnancour, whose artistic production for the past several years has evolved completely around the collection of exotic insects.

The appropriation of the museum in this type of work results in "recoveries" of the most obvious to the most subtle in nature, whether the artist approves of the museum as prominent figure in the promotion of art or not. Some are content with imitating or disassociating themselves from the organizational structures of these artistic institutions, while other artists go from the real museum to an imaginary one or, even, to a personal one. They combine knowledge, memory and fiction in autobiography.

The workshop given by Mrs. Irene F. Whittome made us aware of the differences in interpretation between memory and innermost thought through semi-public actions and representations. This workshop sensitized the participating artists to the implied connotations inherent in personal objects. As we know, the notion of object is very complex and is in constant evolution. Why do we choose an object? Does the object not exist but for its own sake? How do we create with meanings and functions of a natural and a symbolic order? In a work of art, how do we dissociate the object itself from our relationship to it? What do we exhibit, things or "the presence of things"?

For the artist of "transformation of the museum of natural history to an imaginary museum," each component is a sign. Thus, each artist had to present himself and his work while bearing the following in mind: every attitude, each gesture, manner of expression and of communication carries a meaning.

Again, the development of the attention the artist gives to his identity and to his own discourse makes him aware of what is at stake even if it only concerns the details. Regarding the collection-piece, a sensitization to organizational space is essential. After that pivotal weekend, the participating artists also associated museum with "state of mind." In that context, the collection-piece allows art history and personal history to co-exist and urges the artist to "leave his mark"...

Mr. Denis Lessard faced head-on the problematic of encoding found in fabricated images and objects. The different multidisciplinary experiments (depth of sound, actions, texts, visual presentations of objects) made us realize the following: accumulating is not the same as collecting, just as placing similar images side by side does not constitute a collection-piece.

The artist's choices put in motion innumerable layers of meaning, but that's why they have to be organized and granted readings. The techniques of assemblage and of collage made us understand to what extent readings of images and objects can be direct or indirect, implicit or explicit. These exercises made us question our definition of an accessible work.

Mr. Denis Lessard's lecture (on his artistic practice) inspired us to use different materials. That blatant non-hierarchy pushed us to choose more diversified components in future works...

With artist and architect Jean-François Pirson, we created a piece relating to the dynamics and the extension of the body and the object, that is, a helmeted mask. Once again, we had to engage in a personal gesture presented before a select public.

In a broad sense, he acquainted us with a way of working where physical and mental attitudes unite to keep up a special relationship with a fabricated object.

"The attitude of the living poet" corresponds to a certain "presence of being" through which we belong to the present while being linked to tradition. We are part of acts created by body movements which are themselves determined by the wearing of objects built along the physical lines of force of that body.

Critical function--intervention tactics

Becoming a strategist so as not to die. Suzanne Valotaire. [9] Artists complain about conventional art history because it misses the finer details like the most important aspects of the artistic process. [10]

An artist's intervention tactics are found in all stages (conceptualization, fabrication, presentation) of a work of art. The artist's views on art, intentions and means of expression are channelled into working methods, the materials used, the chosen medium, the favoured art form. Thematic, iconological, iconagraphical and semantic input introduce other meanings and define what's at stake, but the role played by other factors that elude these categories must not be forgotten. To be ironic... I could say "the pleasure of choice."

"Art's strategists" specify, personalize and refine their work and define the ways in which the observer can become engaged. Using combined tactics is a matter of identity and meaning but also of a continual pulling apart at the heart of actions and reflections. Observations also intervene in the artistic process; constant disengagement is necessary for things to be "found by accident." It's a matter of "organizing the coincidences" even if these combinations first appear to follow a certain global coherence, a convergence of meanings and effects.

These strategists of expression attempt to be ironical, to spoil the evidence, to obtain spectacular effects by meddling in such subtleties of language through "tiny manoeuvres" (Sontag) within and around the art object. We want to "preserve art's independence by using parody, criticism or creative ambiguities." ^[11]

Intervention tactics are unlimited. They command particular attention on the part of the creators and the observers and set their sights on the autonomy of the work and the discourse of the artist. They attest to the trajectory between vision and articulation (Payant) and the outward projection of sudden awareness. Is it possible that intervention tactics are established without having disengagement or phases of self-criticism.

The artist is not safe from stagnation, he also must shed certain patterns of thought, or question principles of association, certain categorizations in order to opt for "the proliferation of forms and the incongruity, the gratuitous nature of connections," the "continual breaking away from the referent" and the shifting of meanings. In summary, to become at once discreet and subversive, spirited and spiritual...

These positionings seem to be inseparable from the relationship with the spectators, the understanding of the roles and the workings of art and art history (in the making). The latter factor becomes decisive for collection-pieces if only to alter, to parody, to create metaphor with humour and irony...

Thanks to the type of intervention tactics used in collection-pieces, artists have managed not only to revive the genre (the tradition already exists) but to generate new ways of doing and new ways of seeing.

This constant transformation comes about, among other things, because "the symbols change with the context and develop with use. It is precisely that fluidity, and not their capacity of direct representation, that puts them at the heart of the matter." ^[12] The ability to adapt to the eras requires a commitment from the artist and "to be committed to the present is to be aware of the context of contemporary art, its political, social, economic, and aesthetic environment; but it also results in an awareness of a work's presence as an object." ^[13]

In the collection-piece, the critical function must prevail over the formal aspects or the attempts to deconstruct the art system. It comes up a priori. Christine Dubois observes that postmodern collection-pieces differentiate themselves from Pop Art works, which used serialization, repetition and accumulation, by a critical distancing from extended ramifications. The distancing comes about through a number of factors of equal weight.

We can better understand why collection-pieces make autobiographical, self-referential and self-reflexive strata interact. "What distinguishes art of the past from art of the present is not the rate of intensity of self-reflexivity, ^[14] but rather the degree of transparency of the self-reflexive reality" while assuming that the "hidden order of art" (Anton Ehrenzweig) will always subsist even if we shift the boundaries of the order.

The collection-workshop and its intervention tactics

Three Heads Are Better In here we have three sets of eyes performing a single point of view. Other lines of vision are tolerated around the conference table but when out in public, solidarity is essential. It is a good idea for the team to have a goal or to draw up a blueprint to keep them on the right track. Once the "compromise" has been hammered out, others will come easier. [15]

(General Idea)

Producing a group publication made the Ateliers convertibles artists "publicly" articulate their creative process by means of words and images. This "speaking out" through writing made us realize the relationship we have, as visual artists, with that medium. We were compelled to observe how everyone approached this "act of language" where the impact of the discourse has a social dimension and a certain historical range: "the written word endures."

Writing alone or in a group of artists, for oneself or for an audience involves enormous differences of which we are now aware.

By its very nature, the collection theme precipitated for everyone an astounding process of preciseness and affirmation in the structuring and personalization of their artistic choices. It is worth mentioning that the collection-workshop occurred at a time when the outside activities of the participants experienced their greatest growth.

Together, the group now shares a powerful dynamic of differentiating and integrating relationships among the members. Each person must now take into account a new complexity of individual combinations and incorporate it into the group of artists so that it in turn can benefit from the transformation. As for the collection-piece, what's at stake resides in the effort required of the transparency of the communication of the self-reflexivity, but directed this time toward a group grounded in exchange.

"After ten years, the Ateliers convertibles are in an age of constructive self-criticism, of refinement and of nuance" while, at the same time, "the political situation and the current conditions of production lessen the importance of group positionings." ^[16] For which shift in direction does the collection-workshop prepare us?

If we say that the collector is both author and producer of his collection, what is the status of the creator of the collection-piece in the 90s?

The cultural habits of the public, the curators and the artists have changed with regard to the collection-piece. In that, there is a certain victory... but there is also a sign that if we wish to attain a common objective, "question the role of the museum, the dealer, the collector and the public by rejecting established concepts concerning the making and the selling of works of art, so narrowly linked to those of the exhibition/collection, of power and of hierarchy," ^[17] other findings intervene. "The museum is no longer a living testimony to memory, a repository for items selected by enthusiasts and collectors to reflect what they chose to remember of the obsessions and the institutions of an era. It has become instead a place which reflects contemporary work barely out of the artist's studio and which determines the direction the artist's work will take. The power the museum holds to instantly endorse one work or another cannot but affect the artists' proposals. This dependence, subtle but indisputable, of the artist on the museum raises the question of discerning what the conditions of recognition are." ^[18]

Up to now, the postmodern era has asked us to be inventive and to accept complexity as a system in perpetual change. With today's sophisticated levels of knowledge and of language, what does the artist need to take control over his content, the development of his thought and of his imagination?

As in the movie La folle histoire de l'espace (Spielberg), we will have to arm ourselves with cans of astuteness and to always walk "upwind." ^[19]

Notes

1. Free translation. Heiner Müller, «Contribution à une discussion sur le postmodernisme», Babylone, no1, 1983, p. 32-33.
2. Free translation. Walter Grasskamp, «Les Artistes et les autres collectionneurs», Museums by Artists, Toronto, Art Metropole, 1983, p.147.
3. Free translation. Christine Dubois, «L'Oeuvre-collection de la taxinomie de visible à l'utopie», Parachute, no 54, mars-juin 1989, p. 47.
4. Free translation. Walter Grasskamp, p.130.
5. Free translation. Christine Dubois, p.47.
6. Free translation. Krzysztof Pomian, Collectionneurs, amateurs et curieux, Paris, Gallimard, 1987, p. 312.
7. Free translation. George Kubler, Formes du temps. Remarques sur l'histoire des choses, Paris, Champ libre, 1973, p. 62.
8. This is not a summary of the artist's centre's various workshops on the collection, but rather choice features of the events. It represents only a portion of the issues brought forward and at times transposed into actual applications.
9. Free translation from Suzanne Voltaire's performance text Innocente ton désespoir me tue, 1991.
10. Free translation. George Kubler, p. 63.
11. Free translation. Walter Grasskamp, p.134.
12. Sheldon Annis, «Le musée scène de l'action symbolique», Museum, no 151,1986 p.168.
13. Translation by Jeffrey Moore : Chantal Pontbriand, «Collections : Visions d'avenir», Parachute, no 54, mars-juin 1989, p. 6.
14. Free translation. René Payant, «Le discours blanc de l'invention du classement au classement de l'invention», Vedute, Laval, Trois, 1987, p. 113.
15. Text in General Idea's Showcards for the Miss General Idea Beauty Pageant Pavillion, "The Search for the spirit of Miss General Idea".
16. Historique des Ateliers convertibles, à paraître en 1996.
17. Free translation. Peggy Gale, p.8.
18. Laurence Debecque-Michel, «L'art en crise», Ligeia, no 15-16, octobre 1994/juin 1995, p. 45-46.
19. I appropriate an expression used by Mrs Peggy Gale in her lecture given at the Musée d'Art de Joliette for the collection-workshop on October 19, 1994.

In order to touch this book