AMP_Bcn


Irene van de Mheen and Lucía C. Pino | Place, no emphasis.

03/10/2015 - 11/11/2015


+ PROJECTS
Irene van de Mheen and Lucía C. Pino | Place, no emphasis. | anamasprojects.com

Irene van de Mheen and Lucía C. Pino, Place No emphasis, 2015

Irene van de Mheen and Lucía C. Pino | Place, no emphasis. | anamasprojects.com

Irene van de Mheen and Lucía C. Pino, Place No emphasis, 2015

Irene van de Mheen and Lucía C. Pino | Place, no emphasis. | anamasprojects.com

Irene van de Mheen and Lucía C. Pino, Place No emphasis, 2015

Irene van de Mheen and Lucía C. Pino | Place, no emphasis. | anamasprojects.com

"Place No emphasis", Ana Mas Projects (Barcelona) 2015

Irene van de Mheen and Lucía C. Pino | Place, no emphasis. | anamasprojects.com

"Place No emphasis", Ana Mas Projects (Barcelona) 2015

Irene van de Mheen and Lucía C. Pino | Place, no emphasis. | anamasprojects.com

Irene van de Mheen and Lucía C. Pino, Place No emphasis, 2015

Irene van de Mheen and Lucía C. Pino | Place, no emphasis. | anamasprojects.com

"Place No emphasis", Ana Mas Projects (Barcelona) 2015

Irene van de Mheen and Lucía C. Pino | Place, no emphasis. | anamasprojects.com

Irene van de Mheen and Lucía C. Pino, Place No emphasis, 2015

Irene van de Mheen and Lucía C. Pino, Place No emphasis, 2015. Photos by Roberto Ruiz.


CloseViews

Text

PLACE, NO EMPHASIS. THE EXPANSION OF THE OBJECT

Facing the art with a text involves the reactivation of a permanent contradiction. So much so that the difficulty in defining a satisfactory content reproduces the issue of the meaning of the text in art, which is nothing but the continuous adjustment between forms of indirect knowledge that provides the art with direct communication strategies that are presupposed and required in the written text that speaks of art. This contradiction causes different approaching narrative handlings to art from writing. One may be the contextualization of the works from the works themselves, as a kind of expanded ekprhasis; another, also common, it may be the contextualization of the works within the different aesthetic or philosophical paradigms that have allowed the genesis and development of its own history, the history of art. Beyond the personal preferences of each, the resolution of this conflict is close to what might be called “the threat of illusionist”. As Graham Harman says, you can not explain a magic trick without ruining it. It seems clear that the explanation is a betrayal of magic. However, is it also for art? Can anyone explain what works obliquely or tangentially?

The introduction of Graham Harman is not innocent nor random. It connects directly to the second option when thinking about the work of Lucia Pino and Irene C. Mheen. Unable to speak about an exhibition -Place not emphasis- that does not exist yet, as I write this text, a possible alternative is to think the work of both artists from some of the more recent philosophical paradigms, including Object Oriented Ontology. Hence a first reference almost anecdotal to Harman. Making a reductive synopsis, we could say that Lucia C. Pino works with sculpture, while Irene van de Mheen works with the drawing. But when it is no longer possible to apply a classic design of both sculpture and drawing on the work of both artists, a gap between the word and its meaning is opened. And this is how it can be said that is no longer necessary to produce carve sculptures, nor draw is always necessary to work with the drawing.

It is redundant to stress that the notion of object is the epicenter of action of a current of thought that includes in its display section. Not only called attention to the importance of –important enough to include it in the title-but the inclusion of ontology as a philosophical priority, reviving a term that seemed anachronistic. After the undeserved unpopularity of the subject in recent times, also in the art world, his recovery seems almost an effect of the historical dialectic, not only for the artistic ecosystem but for a history of thought marked by the check to metaphysics released poststructuralism for several decades to share the essence for the cultural construction of things. The return of the object also allows the return of a mindset that asks, in the manner of Kant, so things are in themselves and the background of reality. However, the knockout course of OOO turnabout lies in its rejection of anthropocentrism characteristic of Western thought. The proposed notion of object Harman is not a physical body in space, let alone that of an object in permanent inferiority relationship with humans. Applied to art, this would come into conflict with relational aesthetics and its instrumental conception of the art object as something that can promote certain relationships between viewers, the new protagonists of art. For Harman, the object is not a subordinate at the service of man because objects exist autonomously and independently of man. Likewise, any object is more important than another, and neither are relationships between objects with respect to their unique relationships. The difficulty lies not in the access to the object, but in the relationships that exist between them.

Another peculiarity of OOO is his interest in the arts, understood beyond the scope of action of what we call visual arts. According to Harman, it is on aesthetics where the key to the encounter with “something that is deeper than knowledge” lies, saying from philosophy something that artists have been saying from long time. And that is, if they had to explain everything rationally, would not art. Another distinctive OOO is the enormous attention drifts to their art and their theoretical approaches. This text, like many others, is another example. However, the objectivity of contemporary art is something that -negativamente- Michael Fried said in 1967 in a text as famous as disputed, Art and objectivity. For Fried, who also had no hesitation in describing as non-art many examples of minimalist sculpture of the moment, the fundamental problem was that the objectivity theatricality injected to art. The fact that the minimalist sculptures would demonstrate that the works of art were nothing but objects that deactivated characteristic of art: a ‘inherent artistry “and independent of particular contextual. Another aspect that annoyed Fried was the role of the viewer installed on the fiction of a finite-the temporal representation of the exposure-and not in the present suspension of modern painting and sculpture. Viewed today, Fried attacks against minimalist sculpture seem to have turned against him. The importance and specificity of the materials, the consciousness of the viewer in relation to the object or rejection of such notions as value and quality applied to the artwork have become some of the virtues of contemporary art rather than on their defects. As the theoretical commitment of his mentor, Clement Greenberg, was destroyed and replaced by its opposite, aesthetic diagnostics Fried are somewhat naive about this, now that we have all assumed that reality does not exist independently of its mechanism ( self) representation. The viewer is no less dramatic in the showroom than in your usual workplace. Indeed, today one can not help but wonder what he would think Fried work of artists like Tino Seghal and condensation of the evils of theatricality without the presence of the object.One of the possible conclusions for the whole object-driven drift members OOO is that everything is or can be an object. This premise, as seductive as questionable opens up many possibilities. For example, an exposure is itself an object. And, like most things, it is composed of different parts. The exhibition allows us to see simultaneously the unity of the object and its parts. If every relationship between objects creates a new object by law, the difficulty lies in the demarcation of all parties constituting the new object met. But beyond the public interest that this idea may have to be applicable to any exposure, as in the case of Place, emphasis- not accepting that everything is an object and all objects are equal becomes strategic when breaking the hierarchy of artistic media. Given the position of superiority of sculpture with respect to the drawing, the object-specific perspective of art manages to break some symbolic subordination that puts the drawing below sculpture or any other contemporary aesthetic medium. However, the conclusion is not entirely satisfactory. When everything can be an object, the significant value of the object is diluted to disappear and lose any defining sense. What then defines an object? What differentiates one object from another? its properties? its relationships? Things get more complicated if we leave the abstract plane and landed in that initial idea that neither work nor Pino Lucia C. Irene van de Mheen can be understood from the classical notions of sculpture and drawing. For as Lucia C. Pino celebrates the fragility and decay of a historically stable and unchanging environment, Irene van de Mheen proposes a physical conception of drawing whose possibilities and limits reside in the spa ce it occupies. Following the precepts of the Object Oriented Ontology we could perhaps consider that “place” object is met and that “no emphasis” is one of the possible modes of relationship established between its parts, the different parts that occupy space. And both artists, contradicting the thesis and phobias of Fried, ask the audience to be aware of their experience of the object through the assimilation of space within those objects that materialize in sculptures and drawings.

The usual tendency of a text on a project in which various artists involved often find relationships and similarities between their aesthetic procedures or theoretical. That in itself artists agree. Art will assume the capacity for agreement between the parties directly involved in a project, while it presupposes the capacity for disagreement with most clichés of reality, including aesthetic. Without this being an apology for misunderstanding, it is impossible to ignore the fact that there are differences between the work of Lucia C. Pino and Irene van Mheen although both share an attitude of preference for evidence the fragility of the environment or the physicality of specific areas.

Given that Lucia C. Pino works with sculpture and that this does not mean just an investigation about the shape and physical properties of materials that are way power, but also the introduction of previous objects including sewage almost no They have been built by it, we could adapt in their work an idea of ​​the means applied Macluhan takes Harman to discuss the subject. If a background of things exist, it is not immutable or permanent, but changes due to human impact on them, making multiple. This is when it becomes more appropriate to think of the work of Lucia C. Pino in terms of sculptural intervention rather than sculpture. And not only by a direct action on materials and objects that would keep the sculpture field of representation for a moment, but also a conscious intention to act on the sign, forcing it and moving it from one place to another. While some material objects change without losing its identity (a sculpture is potentially many things at once), the transient identity of other objects is defined by a selection work, appropriation and recontextualization. Objetual his own condition: whenever contextual art systems are evident, the echoes of ready-made, which granted a special privilege to object when highlight relationships that encourage the birth of art are heard. In the same way that a urinal is not the same in a house within a showroom, the color is not the same in each object as it is a quality subordinate to the object. One strategy to force the sign could be precisely discoloration assumed by certain objects . It is precisely the color performance of the notable differences between the artwork of Lucia c . Pino and Irene van Mhenn . Faced with a color that goes unnoticed because it seems to be integrated into the qualities of materials, exist independently in relation to the action of the artist , the use of color that makes Irene van de Mheen born of a color boost manifest , conscious and intentional.

In art history, drawing and color have been presented as conflicting areas of action. David Batchelor, in Chromophobia said the suspicion hanging over color thanks to a long tradition that is summarized in one sentence: disegno versus colore. The symbolic devaluation of color, associated with the realm of the decorative, exotic or primitive, is still a constant within an art that favors the cerebral and rational and morally superior. This color is related to the appearance of things and not their essential structure does not apply to the work of Irene van Mheen, since there is no such separation between color and line in your drawing. And even less the idea of ​​a line as the first retaining wall. The structural color run and not complementary. No color no pattern, just as there is no space drawing. Faced with the attitude of breaking Batchelor, who praised the lack of cooperation between color and monochrome painting drawing in the 50s and 60s or the chromatic literalness of minimalist and pop art sculptures, Irene van suggests an association between Mheen color and drawing, in which it is impossible to tell what’s what. The rhetoric of chromophobia disappears to make room for a chromatic impulse that also carries a fictional extension of space or occupation of the ways in which there is no such thing as a fight or a subordination between color and drawing. The final allegation that Batchelor blow for color serves as a link with the oblique form of knowledge, according to the Object Oriented Ontology, art is a privilege. It is the defense of a buffer zone, a place that appears with force but without emphasis. Where Batchelor says color, Harman may be said object. “Colour is infinitely more complex than the Means We Have to describe it; and In That Space Between Knowing and seeing May there be occasional moments of freedom “

Sonia Fernández Pan