Seth Price’s ‘Dispersion’ belongs to a discourse that comes out of American artistic activity of the 1970’s. A text that I think is interesting to bring into this discussion in relation to Price’s work is 'Open Systems: Rethinking Art c.1970', specifically Boris Groys’ discussion of Minimalism.
As was mentioned in last week’s reading group, the meandering form that ‘Dispersion’ takes with its exclamations - “Agreement!”, lamentations - “This is the lumber of life”, and numerous clip-artesque images all must be taken into consideration to appreciate this work. Price himself can’t help but draw attention to the style of his own writing, he tells us - “this essay is written in a provisional and exploratory spirit” and so it is clear the relationship between form, content and delivery is important to Price. In the text he suggests that “one must use not simply the delivery mechanisms of popular culture, but also its generic forms” if art is to utilise the channels of mass distribution. This idea can be seen as a value in his own practice, which extends to the production of cds, magazines and posters. It is also interesting to think about in relation to Boris Groys’ article ‘The Mimesis of Thinking’.
What I gained from ‘The Mimesis of Thinking’ (which I urge you to peruse) is an interest in the idea that following the decline of the mimesis of nature in art, there can be seen the practice of a mimesis of thinking. Groys uses Minimalism as an example in which he sees a mimesis of thinking. This occurs when the combination of a number of Minimalist artworks together suggest the possibility of “an infinite row of new objects” (Groys, 55). In other words, the attention shifts away from the art-object and toward the space in-between the objects, a space which is characterised by the “infinite ‘et cetera’” of thinking and decision-making (Groys, 56).1
I was first interested in this idea because the style of Price’s text relies so much on his drifting thought process. Groys describes the space between minimalist objects as the space of the flaneur, as opposed to the frontality of ‘theatrical’ space that Michael Fried (57) suggests. The space of the flaneur is one of wandering within confines - one place to another, one idea to another. But what I am starting to think about now is whether another shift may have occurred (from mimesis of nature to mimesis of thinking to ?) to reach the context of Price’s practice. Is the notion of ‘the mimesis of thinking’ still appropriate/relevant when the domain of art activity shifts into the space of information distribution?
1. For an interesting discussion relating to the ability of an art-object that is fixed and finished to refer to a space of possibility and change see - 'Turner Prize Artist Talk: Tomma Abts' 7 Nov 2006, which can be accessed online http://www.tate.org.uk/online events/webcasts/turner_prize_2006/tomma_abts
Works Cited:
Groys, Boris. "The Mimesis of Thinking" in "Open Systems: Rethinking Art c.1970". London: Tate Publishing, 2005. 50-63.
