«Нет различий, кроме различия в степени между различными степенями и отсутствием различия. То есть, если перевести это на хороший язык: Кто же сейчас не пьет?» (В. Ерофеев, 2001, с. 108)
“There are no differences, except for differences in degrees between different degrees and the absence of differences. That is if you translate it into a good language: Who doesn’t drink nowadays?” (V. Erofeev, 2001, p. 108, translated from Russian)
In postmodern literature, a Russian person would answer that way to the eternal question of Difference. Difference and identity construct the whole system of understanding of theoretical thought. The process of cognition is a kind of transfer of the unknown to the section of the known. In other words, we fill the empty space with knowledge (here a reference to the concept of “Tabula rasa”), the empty becomes non-empty and ignorance passes into knowledge. After the accumulation of this knowledge, we form concepts of ourselves in the world around us.
«However much the embryo is indeed in itself a person, it is still not a person for itself; the embryo is a person for itself only as a culturally formed and educated rationality which as made itself into what it is in itself.» (Hegel, 2018, p. 14)
Thus, according to Hegel, we are only what we invented for ourselves. We contrast our "I" with everything around us and shape ourselves. Our consciousness is like a ball hitting a wall, a floor, or like a ball rolling along a sandy path in a forest. The ball is transferred in warm hands to a solid shelf, and we understand that hands are soft and warm, and the shelf is hard and cold. Our perception is like an enclosed space capable of collecting these impressions from the outside and thus filling this space with emotions and feelings. And along the way of such collection of information, this ball may become dusty, a dent may appear on it, and, so, we will get an outer shell, modified with experience and time. At a certain point in our knowledge, there is so much experience that it begins to repeat, and here comes the comparison of knowledge, feelings and sensations. It’s more convenient to roll along the rough and straight asphalt than on grass, but the latter is soft and ticklish. There comes a time when details appear, these nuances make a significant difference between seemingly simple things. And what happens if such a fulfilled consciousness, ready to compare details, is presented to a work of art? How we will perceive and distinguish, for example, the work of Fred Wilson's “Mining the Museum”.
Wilson, Fred 1992-1993, Maryland Historical Society Exhibition. Installation view of Mining the Museum: (Metalwork 1793-1880). [Installation] At: https://www.mdhs.org/digitalimage/installation-view-metalwork (Accessed 27.01.2020)
I Everyday difference
If we take a certain “beginning” (an empty ball) as a basis, then I propose to start with the entrance to the museum. The museum at the Maryland Historical Society was founded in 1844. Following the name, the historical museum accumulates all the important artefacts, works of art and other items related to the history of the state. Suppose I immediately see an exquisite silver-plated service with glasses, cups, jugs.
What is it?
The first evaluation of the subject in the museum takes place on a purely technical level. Compare individual items.
Where is the difference, not taking into account the external pattern, of one glass from the museum from another glass on eBay? eBay At: https://www.ebay.com/itm/GORGEOUS-MANCHESTER-SOUTHERN-ROSE-REPOUSSE-STERLING-SILVER-TEA-SET-WITH-7-PCS-/222861191655 (Accessed 27.01.2020)
Both are made of metal, and even on eBay it is pure silver (which should be better), and in the museum only silver-plated metal. The use of the object is supposed to be similar - drink something from it. One colour (- oh, you have a different colour? - So we have a different vision of it...). The volumes are the same ... But no. Two objects are as identical in appearance as they are different in meaning. And a simple comparison of things seems much more complicated than it seems at first glance. Even by the simple principle that one item is exhibited in a museum and the other on a sales site.
The presentation of the outwardly identical object in different places speaks of the assigned semantic load to these objects. Here the difference can be defined as something conditional - a “social agreement” by the public that one object is considered important for recognizing it as endowed with a historical context, that is, placed in a museum, and the other, a similar object, is only one copy of this “important" object. And the difference is how we perceive this reality.
II People
First, we came to the museum. Museum workers formed a certain exposition, according to their convictions, and I as a spectator perceive it. Being a native of Europe and being carried away by the history of art, I have some stereotypes and views on the culture and history of America.
I see a silver-plated service. Exquisite, with delicate work, similar household items can be seen in the Hermitage. For the Royal family, this was the norm in Russia, as for me, the norm is to see this service in the museum. That's my entire conclusion about what I saw.
Second, Fred Wilson enters the museum with me and he, probably being a sensitive person, notices the contradiction of this luxury of the reality of that time in America.
Third, you can enter another player - the museum. Its employees and the people responsible for the formation of the collection, similar to me and Wilson, are endowed with their experience and identify themselves in a very peculiar way. In other words, the museum employees compiled this exhibit in such a way as to present to me, as a visitor, the best bohemian component of the history of America of the 19th century. Bernard Newman, in his essay 'The First Man Was an Artist', already mentioned such an approach when the human brain atrophied under the guise of knowledge and filled with false goals and objectives.
“In the last sixty years, we have seen mushroom a vast cloud of 'sciences' in the fields of culture, history, philosophy, psychology, economics, politics, aesthetics, in an ambitious attempt to claim the non-material world.” (Newman, 2003 p.575)
Yes, the museum staff in Maryland presented what seemed right to them and hid something that could go against the accepted norms and principles. Cruel oppression on a racial basis was hidden in the presentation of the museum, but the chic and brilliance of the white class were put on display.
There are completely different approaches to “seeing” things. Hegel would explain this with our identities, as well as gender, race, cultural and historical differences. In our perception, the same subject and concept of it are seen as completely different.
“You ask me how I tell the difference between a sacrament and a metaphor. But my answer must deal with the person and not the message.” (Bateson, 1972, p.46)
A person with his individual vision of the world, located in a social context, will be led by conscientious museum staff or politicians, teachers, artists, until he realizes the need to think and perceive differently, regardless of old, not always right norms.
So, the first aspect that we must take into account when exploring possible interpretations of the Differences in the work of art is the employee(-s) of the museum and the viewer, in other words, people who involved in this process.
III Context
Fred Wilson saw a gap in the proposed version of the exhibits, so he offered his own idea.
What do we see now?
It seems to be the same items of exquisite service, but with a pile of rough metal in the middle.
For me, as a person independent in the subject of oppression of African-Americans, but understanding class discrimination, this exhibit acquires a completely different meaning. On the face - the duality of perception of the world, the dominant white estate and enslaved African-Americans. Historical reality fell into place and now, in the new exhibition, the significance of this period is perceived more acutely.
The crucial aspect is the context of the environment in which the object is located. Indeed, if you imagine the shackles of a slave exposed together with the same kind of objects, then nothing will hinder our brain from “reading” these exhibits as instruments of enslavement - an image of oppression. Our "reading" of the same subject will be different if the shackles are placed now together with filigree processed silver-plated metal tea service. The contradictions of the service items and the shackles begin to interact with each other. By associative thinking, we are bringing people using these items. Here, the created image is not just an image of oppression, but these are already the people behind this image, their actions. This is the image of the difference of classes, the prevalence of one group over another.
IV Time
It is interesting to note the significance of the passage of time in the interpretation of the same exhibit. This does not bear practical significance in the interpretation for this work, but the aspect is important for the presentation form of the art object. According to the logic of the flow of time, every second differs from the previous one. So, if we look at the exhibit - this is a process. Therefore, in every second this exhibit will be different for my perception. If I return to the museum in a week, it will be a completely different story compared to what I saw for the first time. Probably the eternal video as a process will be the closest for comparison, but at the same time, it will be different, as it is something new in relation to the original.
V Dialectic
If we assume that museum workers initially exhibited the tea service with the chains of a slave, how will reality changes? And so that there is nothing to compare and there will be no new art object. After all, the essence of the work of Fred Wilson is a contrast. The viewer compares the work of the artist (this is a Service with shackles) with a service without shackles. The interpretation of the last showpiece changes only because we know about the existence of a different version. Now we can compare the two silver-plated services. The dialectic consisted of the tea service without shackles and the set of service with shackles opposed to it. And as synthesis, a new meaning was born.
VI
According to Deleuze, we perceive the difference in a traditional, familiar way, it is easier for us. But nothing new can happen in such a perception since everything is known and is repeated again. But if we rethink through creative activity, then we will leave this circle of common repetition and create something new based on the previous object or event. Fred Wilson through the creative creation process has revised the museum's exhibit approach. Now, through a seemingly familiar subject, and interpretation of its differences, Wilson repeated the story but created a new precedent.
Summing up the search for possible interpretations of the "Difference" on the example of the work of Fred Wilson, we can note the difference in everyday form; the difference in perception of people; the difference in the context of things and events, as well as the difference in opposition. Thus, if rhetorically we see drinking as a state of avoiding norms and abstracting from reality (quoted by V. Erofeev) or a search of new, then the repetition creatively created in such a pure state will differ with new interpretations.
Bibliography and references
1. Foster Hal (Autumn, 1985) The "Primitive" Unconscious of Modern Art Source: October, Vol. 34 , pp. 45-70 At: https://www.scribd.com/document/292247817/The-Primitive-Unconscious-of-Modern-Art (Accessed 26.01.2020)
2. Deleuze Gilles (1994) Difference and Repetition, Columbia University Press
3. Deleuze Gilles (1998) Различие и повторение [in Russian] (Difference and Repetition) Translated by N.B. Mankovskaya
4. Derrida, J. (2000) Письмо и различие. [in Russian] (Writing and Difference). Translated by V. Lapitsky
5. Философия науки, Хрестоматия (2005) Т.Г. Щедрина, Москва "Прогресс-Традиция"
6. Скоропанова И.С. (2001) Русская Постмодернистская Литература, Учебное пособие, Моква, "Флинта"
7. Hegel, G.W.F., (2018) The Phenomenology of Spirit, translated and edited by Terry Pinkard, Georgetown University, Washington DC
8. Гегель Георг Вильгельм Фридрих (2000) Феноменология духа, Перевод с немецкого Г.Г. Шпета, Москва "Наука"
9. Bateson, G. (1972) Steps To An Ecology Of Mind. Collected essays in anthropology, psychiatry, evolution, and epistemology. Jason Aronson Inc.
10. Barnett Newman (1905-1970) 'The First Man Was an Artist' first published in Tiger's Eye (New York), No.1 (October 1947), pp. 59-60. Reprinted in: Art in Theory, 1900–2000: An Anthology of Changing Ideas, Charles Harrison, Paul J. Wood, 2003, 2nd Edition Blackwell Publishing
11. Erofeev, В., (1981) Moscow Circles (Moscow to the end of the line), Translated from the Russian by J. R. Dorrell. MOSKVA - PETUSHKI by Editions Albin Michel, Paris
12. Ерофеева, В., (2001) «Москва -Петушки», Москва, ВАГРИУС
13. Houston K., (2017) "How Mining the Museum Changed the Art World" In: Bmore Art At: https://bmoreart.com/2017/05/how-mining-the-museum-changed-the-art-world.html (Accessed 27.01.2020)
14. Beautiful Trouble, Mining the museum At: https://beautifultrouble.org/case/mining-the-museum/ (Accessed 27.01.2020)
15. Великие философы. Жиль Делёз At: https://youtu.be/dB0LpY80mHg (Accessed 28.01.2020)
Comments