The Importance of Systems

I had a "Eureka!" moment today and I wish to convey it to you with the hope of transmitting not only the ideas but the energy that coincided with it.

Recently I read Stanley Fish's essay "Consequences" (1985) which was written in reference to an argument about the validity of theory provoked by Steven Knapp and Walter Michaels' essay "Against Theory" (Don't let the name-dropping put you off, where I'm going will be understood above specific references). In the writing, Fish explicates foundationalism and antifoundationalism. I'm paraphrasing but Fish says that foundationalism is the belief that there can be an absolute systems of rules implemented which can govern practice (in this case, the practice of interpretation). Antifoundationalism is the belief that rules are contextual and therefore cannot be overarching in terms of regulating all practice.

This distinction is familiar in its relation to structuralism/poststructuralism, modernism/postmodernism, etc. Where the "Eureka!" moment came in was from watching CBS's Sunday Morning when they were interviewing the actor Daniel Day-Lewis. I watched and listened as he described the systems of knowledge he learns to maximize the potential of each of his roles. For example, for the movie "Boxer" he spent months training as if he were an actual boxer. Therefore, to act as if he were a person deeply entrenched in the system of knowledge and, dare we say it, "rules" that accompany a profession in boxing, he had to submerge himself in that "discipline."

This brings me to my point, the status of the contemporary artist, after Duchamp introduced philosophy to art and artists subsequently illuminated the arbitrariness of every foundationalist theory of art practice, has been one of an anti-foundationalist nature. Relativism, the nature of antifoundationalist "theory," has become the elephant in the room for all artistic (as well as philosophical) practice. The unspoken agreement is "Well keep marching ahead pretending that these constructs (whether they be formal or conceptual) matter because it's what we do even though we know that they are all foundationally invalid."

But this conclusion doesn't have to determine our condition. The artistic practice doesn't have to be this way (and one could argue that it isn't)! As Duchamp exhibited by quitting the visual arts (even though he really didn't), there is nowhere for the artist to go in an absolutely relativistic realm. Therefore, the importance of implementing a system of knowledge/beliefs and rules, with either an implicit or stated aim, becomes the paramount necessity of artistic practice. Sol Lewitt was the seminal artist in terms of setting parameters for practice but I'm not just reiterating what he taught by example.

I'm restating this method with Daniel Day-Lewis' acting methods in mind (every truly good actor subscribes to thorough dedication of knowledge accumulation in terms of getting a role right but Day-Lewis is fresh in my mind). One doesn't have to create his or her own rules, one can assume the position of being a player in a pre-established body of knowledge for the sake of assimilating the mental framework of that practice. Like Day-Lewis studied boxing technique to play a boxer, an artist can study type-rope walking in order to first, comprehend the system of knowledge and skill that accompanies a master type rope walker and can then creatively explore that system with the mindset of the studio artist by prodding every variable of the practice (I mention type rope walking because I know there's an artist who has done just this but I fail to remember her name).

Kinga Araya, who just taught at Uarts in the graduate program over the summer, explained to her students that she had been granted a residence for an artistic program in which she would learn German. This example is a perfect one for my exploration here. Araya will learn German and assimilate the body of knowledge and mode of thought that accompanies the German language. Then, I'm sure, she will maximize the creative potential of altering the variables in terms of the rule set of that language. How she accomplishes this, is exactly the question that will determine the success of her artistic practice (and the one the critic/interpreter will be happy to examine).

Hanne Darboven constructed a system of constraints derived from musical score, took the fruits of the musical body of knowledge, and creatively altered their purpose, method, and the questions they pose. Joseph Kosuth adopted the perspective of semiotics (the study of signs and their relation to meaning) to view the artworld from and with this congregation of previously separate practices (in terms of intellectual investigation but still a very arguable point), he came to a new conclusion which was that visual art was irretrievably intertwined with words and that the true artistic battle was to be waged in linguistic philosophy and not in visual aesthetics (the validity of his conclusion notwithstanding, his methods of getting there are the focus here).

My final point is that an artist has the freedom to move through bodies of knowledge and systems of rules without direction by hollywood, without determination by study (my fellow audiology graduate student must study audiology and that's it), without any requirement of stasis. From this unique place, the artist has the ability to find new relations like a rigorous researcher and previously unseen parallels not simply in terms of theories or abstract ideas but in practice, as a conductor of an open range of skill-based knowledge. Antifoundationalism does not defeat knowledge, it opens it up for true exploration.

(this post was done all at once and perhaps there's inconsistencies in thought and mistakes in type but I think it serves it's purpose well...choose and/or create rules, learn, learn more, organize, mismatch, and accomplish).