LUCIAJURIKOVA
HOW DOES THE FUNCTION AND CONTEXT OF THE STUDIO CHANGE IMPACTED BY THE PRESENCE OF THE ARTIST IN THE GALLERY?
by Luciajurikova 2020
An artist’s studio in an exhibition associates with complex interpretations. This essay attempts to address the aspects of process and result, dead artist and alive artist, artist and audience or context and function. Each of these aspects affects the final exhibition outcome and identifies the meaning and function of the artist’s studio in a gallery show. This paper discusses these attributes and focuses on a particular example of a living artist’s studio displayed in the Olivier Adam’s Sculpture Exhibition 2020 exhibited at Stour Space Gallery in October 2020. This paper argues that the Adam’s studio displayed and built in the gallery possesses a changing function in the exhibition which affects the experience of the audience. This essay approaches a display of a living artist’s studio from two perspectives. It suggests that the Olivier Adam’s artist’s studio is not stripped from its context when relocated, but its context is reconstructed in the gallery exhibition through the presence of the artist in the studio. As a result of the relocation of the studio and the artist into the gallery, the studio changes its function within the exhibition. I suggest that these alterations in the function of the studio depend on Olivier Adam’s presence and absence in the studio and have impact on authenticity of the artist’s studio in the exhibition. Depending on the artist’s occurrence, the studio as a gallery object and as a display of Adam’s art-making process resonates within the exhibition in complex relationships. This assignment explains these relationships using the Greenblatt’s theory of Resonance and Wonder and Walter Benjamin’s theory about authenticity and aura. The essay uses my primary experience in curating the show and observing the audience’s behaviour in the spaces.
The first section interprets Oliver Adam’s artistic practice and explains why the art-making process was a significant part of the interpretation of the exhibition. It is crucial to evaluate how important the process of his sculpture making was and how the studio represented the art-practice and helped to establish his artistic intentions for the audience. This clarification develops the main functions of the artist studio within the exhibition. Adam’s artistic practice is focused on the types and usage of sculpting material and the methods of sculpture-making. He focuses on the process of creating sculptures by hand using intertwining accessible materials such as lime, sand, plants and found objects.1 Olivier believes that sculpture is accessible to all through using simple materials that can be bought at builders’ merchants, or even found in your street.2 The exhibition consisted of eleven sculptures that were produced in 2020, a sculpture in progress, the artist’s studio, where he was regularly present and showing how his sculptures are being made. (Fig.1)
To enhance the focus on the process and material of his practice, the exhibition of his sculptures at Stour Space gallery was complimented by a newly built studio, which he used for making a new sculpture during weekends. Daniel Buren analyses the functions of a studio and a museum through identifying ‘the studio as the unique space of production and the museum as the unique space of exposition’.3 The Stour Space Gallery undermined the usual dialogue between the studio and the gallery and united the artist with the exhibited sculptures in the space of the gallery.
This is to say that displaying the actual process of artmaking or just a representation of it was important for the viewers. It is important to emphasise that his presence and absence in the studio were catalysts for the inconsistent studio function in the gallery exhibition. John Wood argues that the audience and gallery desires to experience the ‘behind the scenes’ of a sculpture’s studio and to observe the process of making sculptures during the exhibition.4 The studio was displayed not only as a place where the artist builds his sculptures and where one can could see different stages of the sculpture in progress. For the audience, the studio was achieving attention as a construct, an installation object, representation of his studio and sculptures in the exhibition resonating the process of sculpture making.
The artist’s studio was placed on the backside of the gallery space, and the sculptures in the gallery exhibition were intentionally curated around the walls on the plinths so the audience would move in the self-directing space, only conditioned by the location of the entrance/exit to the gallery and entrance/exit to the café. (Fig.2) It is important to assess the movement of the audience as only through their reaction and engagement the studio can be fully identified. The gallery visitors entering through the main entrance stopped at the first plinth accommodating two sculptured. The plinth was accompanied by a wall vinyl lettering with the artist’s name and description of his artworks. (Fig.3) The visitor could then choose the direction of his journey through the gallery space. As the studio was not separated from the gallery exhibition with barriers, the visitor could notice the studio from any direction the viewer chose to follow the exhibition. The studio contained his tools, various materials for his sculptural practice, workbench, the model for the sculpture in progress and the unfinished sculpture itself. (Fig. 4) All the components in the artist’s studio were taken from his original studio and were displayed in the gallery space to reproduce the artist’s working environment the most accurately. Relocating the tools was justified by the intention to display and educate the audience about the process of making art, specifically Oliver Adam’s sculptures. Exhibiting the artist’s studio in the gallery setting as an active and transforming gallery object representing his artistic practice was set alive by the presence of the artist and his ongoing artistic process and thus changed its function within the exhibition.
This section examines the social and geographical context of the studio moved into the gallery. The geographical context of the artist’s studio changed when the tools were removed from their original place into the gallery to create Adam’s studio. Not only tools, but the artist himself and the working process defined the social context of the studio. Jon Wood suggests that through removing the artist’s studio from its original location, the context is erased, and the display of the studio becomes a part of the art world. While Wood was focusing on the studio of a dead artist who cannot be present at his studio but gives social and historical context to his possessions, this essay examines a living artist’s studio display.5 Wood’s idea applied on Adam’s studio explains that Adam’s studio was not fully stripped from its context in the gallery setting because of his presence and art practice performed in the studio. His presence and art practice implied realness of the studio and his persona. Paul Mattick, Jr. suggests that in museums, after removing the object from its physical and functional contexts, the context from which an object has been removed must be reconstructed for the object’s original meanings to be repossessed.6 The Adam’s presence in the studio reconstructed the social context of his studio in the gallery and entailed authenticity through the intention of the gallery to exhibit the process and the artist as the purpose of Adam’s studio, and the circumstances of studios appearance when the artist was missing in the space. Bringing the artist into the studio meant that the studio’s context was reconstructed through incorporating the main catalyst for the art-making process – the artist.
The relationships in which the contexts resonate can be explained through focusing on the artist’s occurrences in the studio. This paragraph applies Greenblatt’s theory of wonder onto the artist’s studio during the times of his presence and absence. Greenblatt explains that a wonder is: ‘the power of the displayed object to stop the viewer in his or her tracks, to convey an arresting sense of uniqueness, to evoke an exalted attention.’7 Without the presence of the artist and any explanatory label information, the audience perceived the studio as mysterious, arresting, and powerful. Stripped from any personal items and containing only the unfinished sculpture, the studio changed its function from displaying artist during art-making process to displaying an installation object that invoked curiosity and questions amongst the audience. The label consisted of dates and times when the artist would be present and the unfinished sculpture in the middle was the centre of attention due to adjusted lighting in the gallery. (Fig. 5) Greenblatt explains that in the artist’s studio, ‘the supposedly contextual objects, table, a chair, a map, […] become oddly expressive, significant not as background but as compelling representational practices in themselves’.8 Without artist’s presence and his personal items, the tools were not enough to create the social context, they created only the context of how the sculptures had been made. The studio’s qualities of wonder awoke desire for resonance amongst the viewers.
The studio was placed in the middle of the floor space, which allowed the visitor to walk around the artist’s space. It was, however, not surrounded by barriers. Suggesting that the borders define the distance between an object and a viewer, the absence of barriers implied free movement and a possibility of a closer examination of the gallery object, so the visitor was allowed to walk inside of the artist’s space. Not letting the visitors walk inside, the studio would become unreal, not authentic.9 However, none of the members of the audience walked into the studio10 – the audience created an invisible threshold around the object which they considered to be a part of the art world, or rather a wonder, not an ordinary place for work. They considered the artist’s studio not to be touched but examined from a distance.
However, their engagement with the studio was changed when the artist was working on the sculpture in progress in the studio. Focusing on the impact that the studio object had on the audience, this paragraph is going to connect Greenblatt’s theory of resonance and the changing function of the studio and examine the presence of the artist in the artist’s studio as an enhancer for the resonance of the sculptural objects surrounding the studio. As the artist occurred in the studio and the studio changed its function, the audience, too, changed its behaviour. The sculptures in the exhibition and the process of their creation resonated through the presence of the artist in the studio. According to Greenblatt, the resonance is a power of a certain object that reaches out beyond the boundaries and implies forces from which it has emerged.11 In this way, the studio helped to examine the sculptures in the exhibition through a reconstructing a larger context – the process, origin and material used to create art. Nevertheless, most important aspect that was examined and resonated within the sculptures and the studio by the audience was the artist’s persona present building the sculpture and being a part of this process. The new meanings and contexts were developed through engaging with the artist in the studio and the sculptures gained a resonance of the background process when the audience experienced the process of sculpture-making and formed new interpretations and concepts. Moreover, the artist was approached and asked questions by the members of the audience, who came to visit the exhibition. According to John Wood, ‘studios are […] not only seen as the sites for production for art but can also give us experience of the background or backdrop to an artist’.12 The viewers, through their personal engagement with the artist and encounter with the tools, materials and the context, added several layers to the interpretation of the show and other objects that are exhibited – understanding of the complexity of the sculptures and the techniques the artist uses to create them; the notion of unfinishedness that Olivier applies to his practice and the emphasis on the process. The connection of the artist present in the studio resonated with the audience and formed a high level of authenticity.
Greenblatt’s theory of Wonder and Resonance is closely associated with Walter Benjamin’s definition of authenticity and aura. Benjamin describes ‘authenticity’ in his essay The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction.13 He claims that ‘the presence of the original is the prerequisite to the concept of ‘’authenticity’’.14 In context of the authenticity of the artist’s studio, the ‘original’ is the artist, the tools, the sculpture and the artist studio itself, which is the original expression of the art-making process. Benjamin further explains the notion of authenticity using a term ‘aura’. He states that: ‘aura [of an authentic object] is its presence in time and space, its unique existence at the place where it happens to be’.15 Through applying this theory on the artist’s studio with the artist being present in the studio creating artworks and this all happening in the gallery space, it is suggested that the studio object possesses ‘aura’ in delivering a truthful and original projection of the Adam’s studio in the gallery space. This implies that, focusing on the Adam’s studio’s ‘presence in time, space and unique existence’16; the Adam’s presence itself in his studio; the Adam’s working on a sculpture using his tools and imagination; Adam’s studio built only for the purpose of the exhibition; are all attributes of authenticity of the studio. Moreover, Kaptan develops this theory through stating that ‘the experience of the viewers and their engagement with the artwork play a significant role in generating aura’.17 It is argued, that the way how the experience of the audience generates the aura around the artist’s studio is ‘perceiv[ing] distance between the unique and the ordinary and give[ing] rise to the assumed authenticity of the object’.18
Complimented by Valentien, this section is going to concentrate on the viewer’s experience and the audience’s interpretation of the studio and the artworks in the gallery in general. Focusing on authenticity, Imke Valentien says that the presentation of the studio is based on the concept that the authentic environment can assist in finding an additional key to understanding both the artist and the work. This can be evidenced by the audience’s response in immediate behaviour and movement in the gallery and around the studio as an object. The gallery achieved the authenticity of the studio with positioning the artist into the studio. His presence and the act of sculpture creation in the studio fulfils the definition of a living artist’s studio as a unique space for production and proved that the method of exhibiting the artist’s studio in a gallery space authentic. This is to say that Olivier Adam’s presence and absence in the studio had an impact on authenticity of the artist’s studio in the exhibition.
Brian O’Doherty’s statement that ‘if the artist — and by inference the studio — stands for the creative process, that process can be relocated to the gallery and made literal’ supports the argument that the studio becomes authentic through incorporating the artist and the process into it.19 As well, Crew and Sims suggest that: “Authenticity is not about factuality or reality. It is about authority. Objects have no authority; people do.”20 The authenticity of the studio was embraced by the artistic resulting sculpture that was positioned in the gallery studio at the end of the exhibition. Concentrating on the ordinary tools, accessible materials and simple workbench, the audience perceived the studio firstly as a wonder. The authority of artist’s presence influenced the audience’s viewpoint - the Olivier Adam and the process of creation in connection with his artworks is the real and authentic. MacNeil and Mac define authenticity as no longer about the honesty of the artist to themselves, but about the purpose of the object, its origin and intention of the artist when creating it.21 In case of Adam’s studio, the authenticity was achieved through connecting the meanings of the exhibition with the process of artmaking included in the exhibition as a resonating object.
Stour Space gallery did not exhibit Adam’s studio as a commemorative object or historical object or personal object. It exhibited it as a part of the art sculpture exhibition. The exhibition’s topics were coinciding with the aim of the artist’s studio – the process of artmaking and ‘unfinishedness’.22 With presenting the artist’s studio as an installation object that changes its function with the artist’s presence, the gallery allowed the audience to experience the studio not just through watching the process of art making, but through inviting the audience to enter the conversation and ask the artist questions, engage with the process.
The artist and the process of artmaking was moved into the gallery and provided the audience with a reconstructed context of the artist and the studio and resonated with the sculptures in the exhibition. In Adam’s case, the studio became a display of art-making process as well as a context for the sculpture in progress and the finished sculptures in the exhibition. To address the notion of exhibiting the authenticity of Adam’s sculpture studio at Stour Space Galley, this essay suggested that the audience’s and gallery’s aspiration to experience the behind the scenes of a sculpture’s studio and to observe the process of making sculptures during the exhibition is one of the main strategies/methods used by the curator of Stour Space Gallery.23 It is implied that the audience changed their behaviour and movement in the gallery after noticing the artist being present in the gallery. It can be concluded that the presence of the artist working in his studio was the catalyst that proved the authenticity of the exhibit and changed the function of the studio in the exhibition.
It is a modern art gallery’s credibility that determines the authenticity of the gallery objects for display. This essay suggests that an artist’s studio, because of its validity and the artist’s presence, possesses a unique status in the interpretation of the exhibition as a whole. The studio, surrounded by the sculptures and impacted by the artist’s presence not only resonates itself, but causes the other gallery objects’ resonation, too.
Fig.1 Olivier Adam working in his studio, 2020, London. Photo: Author
Fig. 2 A floor plan of the Stour Space Gallery indicating the audience’s movement in the gallery and the location of Adam’s artist studio in the gallery. 2020, London. The plan was acquired directly from the gallery management.
Fig. 3 A photo of the wall introducing the meaning of the exhibition, 2020, London. Photo: Author
Fig. 4 Olivier Adam’s Studio. The beginning of the art-making process in Adam’s studio. The photo captures the tools, the sculpture in progress and various materials. It can be observed that there are no barriers around the studio, 2020, London. Photo: Author
Fig. 5 The studio and sculpture in the evening, when the dramatic lighting was the most visible, 2020, London. Photo: Author
1 L. Jurikova. and O. Adam, ‘Olivier Adams’s Sculpture Exhibition Press release’, Stour Galleries, 2020, https://www.stourgalleries.co.uk/archive [accessed 12th November 2020]
2 Jurikova and Adam, ‘Olivier Adam’s Sculpture Exhibition’ [accessed 12th November 2020]
3 D. Buren and T. Repensek, ‘The Function of the Studio’, October 10, 1979, p. 51
4 J. Wood, ‘The studio in the gallery?’ in Reshaping Museum space: architecture, design, exhibitions, ed. by Suzanne MacLeod, (Padstow: Routledge, 2005), p. 158
5 Wood, ‘The Studio in the Gallery?’, p.163
6 R. S. Nelson and R. Shiff, Critical Terms for Art History (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2003), p. 113
7 S. Greenblatt, ‘Resonance and Wonder’, Bulletin - American Academy of Arts and Sciences, vol. 43, no. 4, 1990, p. 11
8 Greenblatt, ‘Resonance and Wonder’, p.13
9 Wood, ‘The Studio in the Gallery?’, p.164
10 The author of this paper was the curator of the show. The statements are based on the close observations and supervision of the installation and invigilation of the exhibition.
11 Greenblatt, ‘Resonance and Wonder’, p. 11
12 Wood, ‘The Studio in the Gallery?’, p.158
13 W. Benjamin, The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction, (Translated by J. A. Underwood, England: Penguin Books, 2008).
14 Benjamin, The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction, p.3
15 Benjamin, The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction, p.3
16 Benjamin, The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction, p.3
17 Y. Kaptan, ‘Sensing authenticity, seeing aura’ in The global audiences of Danish television drama, ed by P. M. Jensen and U. C. Jacobsen, (Göteborg : Nordicom, 2020), p.95
18 Kaptan, ‘Sensing authenticity, seeing aura’, p.94
19 O’Doherty, Brian, ‘Studio and Cube - On the relationship between where art is made and where art is displayed’ (Princeton: Princeton Architectural Press, 2012), pp. 6-7
20 S. Crew, and J. E. Sims, ‘Locating Authenticity: Fragments of a Dialogue’, in Exhibiting Cultures: The Poetics and Politics of Museum Display, edited by Ivan Karp and Stephen D. Lavine, (Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Press, 1991), p.159
21 H. MacNeil and B. Mak, ‘Constructions of Authenticity’, Library Trends, vol. 56 no. 1, 2007, p. 27
22 Jurikova and Adam, ‘Olivier Adam’s Sculpture Exhibition’ [accessed 12th November 2020]
23 J. Wood, ‘The Studio in the Gallery?’, p.158
Bibliography
Benjamin, Walter, The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction (Translated by J. A. Underwood, England: Penguin Books, 2008)
Buren, Daniel, and Thomas Repensek. ‘The Function of the Studio’, October, vol. 10, 1979, pp. 51–58.
Crew, Spencer and Sims, James E. ‘Locating Authenticity: Fragments of a Dialogue’, in Exhibiting Cultures: The Poetics and Politics of Museum Display, edited by Ivan Karp and Stephen D. Lavine, (Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Press, 1991).
Greenblatt, Stephen, ‘Resonance and Wonder’, Bulletin - American Academy of Arts and Sciences, vol. 43, no. 4, 1990, pp. 11–34.
Jurikova, Lucia and Adam, Olivier, ‘Olivier Adams’s Sculpture Exhibition Press release’, Stour Galleries, 2020, https://www.stourgalleries.co.uk/archive [accessed 12th November 2020]
Kaptan, Yeşim, ‘Sensing authenticity, seeing aura’ in The global audiences of Danish television drama, ed by P. M. Jensen and U. C. Jacobsen, (Göteborg: Nordicom, 2020).
MacNeil, Heather Marie and Bonnie Mak. ‘Constructions of Authenticity’, Library Trends, vol. 56 no. 1, 2007, pp. 26-52
Nelson, Robert S. and Shiff, Richard, Critical Terms for Art History (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2003).
O’Doherty, Brian, ‘Studio and Cube - On the relationship between where art is made
and where art is displayed’ (Princeton: Princeton Architectural Press, 2012).
Wood, Jon, ‘The studio in the gallery?’ in Reshaping Museum space: architecture, design, exhibitions, ed. by Suzanne MacLeod, (Padstow: Routledge, 2005),
