karloswilson92@googlemail.com
karloswilson92@googlemail.com
In reference to the rhythmic cycle of formal and conceptual aesthetics in self-referential art, James Cotton’s artist practice seeks to examine this model, and its relation with art and the audience. In this condition, art exclusively responds to itself and becomes justified by its own terms, as the qualities of the work revolve around the return of self. In the process the work escapes any requirement to negotiate external entities, as its singular concern is being complete in itself; the only exceptions to this are the initial concept and the primary choice of the medium. The harmony of the image inside image, or the form inside form is understood, whilst it is questionable how and why the image or the form was originally decided. Perhaps Bruce Nauman’s studio philosophy can be applied: ‘My conclusion was that I was an artist and I was in the studio, then whatever it was I was doing in the studio must be art’.1
An art activity is chosen and in turn becomes the definitive feature, writing itself out through its own boundaries and order.  This insular methodology surfaces in James Cotton’s oeuvre. Firstly from a macro aspect; it only seems coherent that the basis for making work, should be in relation to art itself, thus work is often made in reference to the exchange experienced between the audience and the work. Furthermore this approach of self-perpetual replication is also simulated in the micro aspects of his practice. The study of the structures in text; the space language occupies mentally and physically, inside these dimensions, the form and the process of constructing language, resolves the text produced.
1Nauman, Bruce, Kraynak, Janet, (2003). Please Pay Attention Please, Cambridge, Mass, MIT Press.
ON SPACE.
DOCUMENTATION FROM THE EXHIBITION
Gemma Margerison :Â allyoukids@hotmail.com
Gemma Margerison : allyoukids@hotmail.com
A single command is presented before an audience situated in darkness. Pure uppercase text fixed in a strict rectangle of projected light. After a short yet sterile moment the command is replaced with by another in the same fashion. The content of these statements, suggest more than surveyance as the narrative emerges before the spectators. The texts evoke dual options of response; external or internal actions performed by request, whilst either of these routes disappear at points, as some commands offer no alternatives. Parallel to this immersive sequence, a video camera’s subtle red LED indicates the documentation of those occupying the space. Nothing is required, nothing is enforced, whilst an audience evaluate their reaction to this nothingness. After a period of remaining in the space spectators end their experience and exit receiving a small card from the artist stating:
Through a sequence of directions the artist proposes and provokes an interactive situation before a potential audience of participants, which would naturally remain external to the material resulting in the arrival of ‘the work’.
The performance of this interactivity is consistently inconsistent, depending upon the subjects in the space; their trust, their response, their influence, their duration. This audience render synchronized sculpture within the space and alter their experience of the artwork through their level of activity or inactivity.
The work proposes, beyond the command, the question: Is the desired experience realised outside of the artist’s intention?
More significantly this form of consideration could then be applied further to our existence: Is the desired experience realised outside of The Artist’s intention?
DOCUMENTATION FROM THE EXHIBITION
