Transmaterialization of the Art Object
0 world intangible, we touch thee,
0 world unknowable, we know thee,
Inapprehensible, we clutch thee!
What is Material?
In 1968 Lucy Lippard and John Chandler declared the dematerialization of the art object. The art object moved from the realm of the physical to the realm of the immaterial. The new “material” used to create art became ideas. They were announcing the birth of conceptual art. Art making moved away from the creation of physical objects. Art became an experience. Events and Happenings required that the observer of art would be present to experience the work. Time and place became essential to this new form of experiential art. These works could not be sold or owned like previously made object centric art. I first experienced an installation piece in High School. Gary Hill had several pieces at the Hirshhorn Museum that left a deep impression on me. At the time, I had never heard the term “dematerialized art object” nor understood the historical context of it, but the experience of walking into and through a work of art seemed natural. I accepted the space and light as significant parts of the piece. Over the years, as I’ve developed my own work it continued to address some the ideas of materiality raised by the concept of the dematerialization of the art object. What is material or immaterial? What qualities make them different and similar? I was drawn to installation art that uses space and glass as a material that embodies the qualities of both material and immaterial objects.
How has the dematerialization of the art object influenced our ideas of material?
Because of it, we are able to think beyond objects in art. In a sense we can make more art with less or no material. The material used is immaterial: space, light, sound and digital. On the flip side, conceptual art has allowed us to have more matter with less art. If we deem what we once considered immaterial to literally be material, the way we look at conceptual art begins to change. Instead of a dematerialization we would see the transmaterialization of the art object.
How can we consider the immaterial to be a tangible object?
It is important to first have a scientific understanding of the things we consider immaterial and then adjust our perception to match that model. Scientific reading is very important to my work. Leonard Shlain’s book Art and Physics influenced me to start looking at how science and art can inform each other. Much of what we consider to be intangible is assumed to be that way because it seems unmalleable. However, space, light, sound and digital are only perceived as intangible and unmalleable. For example, our first thought when we conceptualize space is of that which surrounds us on this planet. The space on the planet is matter like other objects we come into contact with. The difference is that it is a gas rather than a liquid or solid. There is no empty space. Not even outer-space is empty and void. It is filled with electromagnetic radiation or light. According to Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity, light does not travel through space, it fills it. Einstein’s theory also defines gravity as the force created by space bending around matter. Space is manipulated by large bodies of matter. Since there is no “void of space” and space can be manipulated, it must be something.
With my own work I have tried to understand the conceptual art experience and how we can understand the , materiality of the new medium of the transmaterialized art object. My work explores transmaterialization with two different methods. One process involves using intangible materials such as digital, sound, light or space as an integral component. In the other approach I use objects that are very tangible and physical (like glass or metal) to represent the intangible (light and sound). Both approaches to my work are complimentary and I hope they are both experienced by the art spectator. It is harder to understand one technique without seeing the other. It is important to look at several of my works. It is especially important to view a piece that uses mainly intangible objects in conjunction with one that represents the intangible objects with physical objects. The viewer can find the place between these two approaches to envision the invisible, to get a sense for the materiality of the intangible.
Glass addresses the ideas of the material and the immaterial more clearly than any other medium. It’s always present as an integral part of my work. It is the axis-mundi material, the pivotal point or the axis between the two worlds of the tangible and the intangible. Glass can transmit light and represent space with ethereal fluidity; yet, it is very physical and heavy-much heavier than people think it is. It is a very tangible medium.
In my work titled, The Trumpet, I use relatively new technology to manipulate sound the way another artist might manipulate metal or clay. I’m able to pinpoint where I want the sound and make it go where I want it to go. When art moved from the material object to the dematerialized art object, the art began to ask the viewer to not necessarily see the work but to envision it. My art asks the viewer to deal with optical vision as well as mental vision. I think of it as visual art, even if you aren’t necessarily seeing anything. The form created by the pin-pointing of sound allows the viewer to “see” the sound in the mind’s eye. The space is an object, a medium and a vehicle for the sound and is activated by it. We begin to visualize the form of the space that contains the sound, as well as the form of the space that doesn’t contain the sound. Those sound and spaces become the central experiential components to The Trumpet. This installation utilized a clear glass trumpet on metal stands, over which the sound of a horn is projected in a column of sound. On the opposing side of the trumpet, acoustical foam covers a wall. The sound of the horn is only heard in the space directly in front of the trumpet. As one walks into the work they will stumble upon the column of sound and start to experience materiality of the sound and the space that it inhabits. The speaker used to create the sound column is in the open and not hidden. It is important that the mechanisms used to heighten our perception not be hidden. I do not want to trick the observer. James Turrell states that he “[uses] light as a material, but [his] medium is really perception.” He doesn’t try to create illusions. By creating an illusion, you are telling the audience that what they are experiencing isn’t reality. I want the observer to accept what they are experiencing as real and tangible. Turrell further explained that “light. . .is a thing-it is optical material. But we don’t treat it as such. Instead, we use it very casually to illuminate other things. I’m interested in the revelation of light itself and that it has thingness. It alludes to what it is, which is not exactly illusion.” These words begin to explain the transmaterialization of the art object. Where what we once considered immaterial begins to reveal its materiality. I would simply add that sound and space are equally material.
In my work titled, “Satellite”, large chunks of different colored glass are placed in front of a speaker/satellite looking devise. The chunks of glass and satellite are awkwardly suspended on long metal poles. The spectrum-colored chunks are positioned in such a way that they represent energy like sound or light waves radiating from the device. The teetering weight of the glass, each on top of a single metal pole emphasizes their physicality. They transfer the idea of tangibility to the idea of sound and light. It transforms our view of that circumscribed artwork world, and the wider, broader, bigger, more encompassing, vast world around us to be able to see and remember that space is filled with something.
I want people to come into my work and see what they once considered as immaterial and recognize it as material that can be manipulated. I ask them to see what is usually considered intangible as tangible.
Since the declaration of the dematerialization of the art object, others have declared the rematerialization of the art object. The art world did start to move away from the dematerialized back to actual physical object so that it could once again be marketed and sold. Although physical art objects continue to be marketed and sold, I feel that issues of dematerialization and concept remain valid.
My work has continued along the original question of dematerialization. However, it takes a path that discusses the transmaterialization of the art object. Transmaterialization expects the viewer to conceptualize the work a little differently. It considers digital, light, sound and space to be material, just like objects might be thought of as material. The conceptual requirement is that we can rewire our brains so that we can see what we would normally consider immaterial as material. It is within all of us to see space, sound, digital and light as physical objects.
Transmaterialism goes beyond the heavy rooted traditions found in art and glass. I still employ a heavily technical use of material but in a way that de-emphasizes the technical aspect of the craft. I want the long processes to be invisible to the viewer and seemingly simple. Just as the immaterial is invisible and seems simple. Art should appear simple in execution