PART 1: KOSUTH’S TAUTOLOGY
COLLECTION
Jacques
Derrida once wrote, in his Signature,
Event, Context, there are certain prerequisites to context. A word or
phrase must be ubiquitously accepted and, “a rending necessary of a certain
generalization and a certain displacement of the concept of writing” must come
into effect. Essentially, a word or a
phrase, whether voiced or scripted, can be shifted out of its original context
and be placed in a new context. However, the transferred word or phrase, in
order to be a relevant communicator, must still be readable despite diverging
from the original context (Derrida 310).
What is so significant about this assessment is that it supports
evidence that language is anything but stagnant. It is evolving, changing, and
adapting to what best fits a particular situation. Those meanings that cannot
successfully be relayed, are no longer in the running for the survival of the
understood.
Much
like Derrida, Joseph Kosuth demonstrates the relativity of context in his piece
One in Three Chairs (seen in figure 1), which debuted in 1965. The
significance of this piece is that it is a member of Kosuth’s Photo/Object/Lemma series and is a
subcategory of his Tautology Collection.
Lemma is a term or phrase alluded to in a glossary, and tautology is a
repetition of a single idea presented in several different ways until it either
breaks from the referent or remains in a cycle that leads it back to the
original concept. Imagine the latter concept as being similar to the dynamics
of the hit TV show Wheel of Fortune.
When players spin the wheel and land on “bankrupt” Patt Sajak informs the participants
that they have lost all their money and must continue where they started off;
meaning, they have gone from possibly $700 to $0. In this scenario the
tautology is the participant spinning the wheel. It will continue to spin the wheel until it earns
back the lost context, then exceed the original meaning, or land on the
bankrupt flag and once more, lose comprehension. The impact of these arbitrary
units reinforces Kosuth’s artistic expression:
“Works
of art are analytic propositions. That is, viewed within their context – as art
– they that it is a presentation of the artist's intention, that is, he is
saying that that particular work of art is art, which means,
is a definition of art. Thus, that it is art is true a
priori (which is what Judd means when he states that "if someone
calls it art, it's art")” (Kosuth 134).
Art alone has no meaning. Rather it must be given
meaning, which reinforces Wittgenstein’s Theory of Representation, as well as
the Derridian philosophy of shifting context. Despite initially intending to
depict meaninglessness, Kosuth created an unavoidable paradox within his
artistic process. Specifically, the interactions of design elements in his
artwork interfere with the goals of his conceptual art.
Design
by nature is emblematic of modernism in that it organizes disparate parts and
forms them together to create a coherent whole. Kosuth’s conceptions, in
regards to this particular definition, act as its inverse. Even though Kosuth
intended to compose without meaning, the act of composing with a purpose
creates meaning, hence the basic conundrum of postmodernism. Moreover, in
claiming, “The how you make a work is far less important than the why you make
a work” Kosuth overlooks the function of his sophisticated and well-planned
layout in figure 1. A strategic use
of repetition, form, color and movement occurs in Kosuth’s One in Three Chairs.
In figure 1, the repetitive geometric sequence
of rectangular forms and the monochromic dulled colors depict the photo, the
object, and the lemma as having a fluid continuity. This can be seen in not
only the framing, but also in the chair’s literal construction as well. In
other words, figure 1 shows a
composition of blocks of wood that create a chair in both the photo and object.
The lemma, on the contrary, uses a different medium. The text, seen on this image,
create six lines. When viewed collectively with the object and the photo, they
take on a rectangular form. This causes the rectangle to serve as a marker, or a
reminder, for the concept’s physical nature. Nevertheless the metaphysical
emerges when Kosuth’s use of color, or lack of color, is examined; allowing the
impotent white background to introduce the mood of the piece. What is
inevitably derived from figure 1 is
the creation of a sterile and emotionless atmosphere. No doubt, the
unremarkable shade of brown, chosen to cover the object was meant to allude to an idea of subtle apathy, while the lack of depth found in the black and white photo
resonate indifference That is to say: In wanting to embrace blandness, the piece seeks to emphasize
the meaninglessness of the chair.
Despite
its monotonous and flat presence, the chair has unexpectedly invited intrigue. Perhaps,
this can be attributed to the way it is showcased. In placing the object below
the photo and the lemma, Kosuth inadvertently evokes a sense of favoritism to a
hierarchical structure. Although conceptually this tautology is to be
considered paratactic (Neilson) since each facet is equally comparable, the
physical placement causes its visual grammar to be read in a hypertaxis
(Neilson) manner. Meaning both the lemma and the chair can be seen as dependent
clauses clinging to the object.
Regardless,
figure 1’s visual anomaly is in no
way indicative of modernism. It merely prescribes to a few physical attributes
to modernistic analysis, which are greatly over shadowed by Kosuth’s artistic
concept. In other words, figure 1
highlights postmodernism’s ability to administer incongruities in semantics. As
a result, it is challenging the existential notion of presence in a manner similar
to Derrida, which can be seen in the following quotation:
“I
would like to demonstrate that the recognizable traits of the classical and
narrowly defined concept of writing are generalizable. They would be valid not
only for all the orders of ‘signs’ and for all languages in general, but even
beyond semiolinguistic communication, for the entire field of what philosophy
would call experience, that is, the experience of Being: so called ‘presence’”
(Derrida 316-317).
Derrida infers upon the inability
to grasp a present context, because when it is grasped the moment has past and
the context is no longer part of the present. This mirroring of the photo, object and lemma give a better understanding
of how the incongruity of semantics acts as a constant.
PART 2: GUESTS AND FOREIGNERS: AN
ARTISTIC AMPHORISM
Among
the many pieces that make Kosuth’s Guests
and Foreigners collection, “A Labyrinth in which I can Venture” (figure 2) serves as exemplary evidence
of the rhizomatic occurrence in Gilles Deleuze’s and Félix Guattari’s A Thousand Plateaus: Capitalism and
Schizophrenia. A rhizome, by definition, is a
horizontal stem usually underground that sends out roots and shoots from its
nodes. Analytically, it is a continuum of meaning that is constantly sprouting
in a horizontal manner. When compared to Kosuth’s labyrinth, the many literal
and metaphorical rhyzomatic forks either lead the wanderer to an exit or a
dead-end. This figurative journey acts as a bombardment to the wanderer with
over a 100 different philosophical texts entangled in a pastiche of neon,
paint, and print. More over, Figure 2
orchestrates a visual example of postmodernism by incorporating the viewer into
a jarring web of unassociated text and confusion.
Mathew
L. McAlpin, writer of the online journal, The
Brooklyn Rail, appropriately made an enigma out of his critique on Figure 2. Complementing and reproaching
the features of the labyrinth, the end product of McAlpin’s article lends
itself to the notion that Kosuth has created a pseudo-rhyzomatic structure.
“What
once saw itself as a revolution has now become a framework. For an artist whose
material is quotation, these wall-quotes from Theory’s canon add meaning on
meaning, ornament on ornament like the gilded frame on a Fragonard.
More significantly, they create an intellectual setting, a selective historical
context for Kosuth’s previous works from which new meanings can flow” (McAlpin
1)
It would appear McAlpin sees the maze as a
building block for the way meaning is constructed. Nevertheless, it is still a
facilitated experience. That is to say, the wanderers depart from a
preconceived and constructed exit. McAlpin describes the figurative venture
through Figure 2 by stating, “one
could begin anywhere in a labyrinth, with any quote, and
comprehend the entire show in terms of that particular quote” (1). This may be
true, but the fact still remains that Kosuth has simulated this experience. His
personal bias towards certain philosophical doctrine manipulates the
environment of the labyrinth. McAlpin later makes note of this in his critique
saying, “If you were to press this insight into the service of analysis, the
resulting interpretation would virtually write itself (perhaps this is the
reason for Kosuth’s immense popularity in the academy, where his art has become,
in his own words, ‘dissertation fodder).’ Behind
the curtain would stand Kosuth, authoring the interpretation by turning the
interpreter into his mouthpiece, his ventriloquist’s dummy” (1). McAlpin
inadvertently creates a set up to how Deleuze and Guattari relate their theory
of deterritorialization and reterritorialization to the rhyzome.
Deterritorialization
and reterritorialization are key to understanding the role of guests and
foreigners in figure 2. So, before
liaisons can be formed between these two terms and Kosuth’s Labyrinth, an
understanding of deterritorialixation and reterritorialization is necessary.
Deleuze and Guattari demonstrate the way the two function by giving their
readers a situational example. The one they have chosen depicts the interactions
between a wasp and an orchid. The goal of the orchid is to get the wasp to
spread its pollen, so that it can sustain the survival of its species, and the
goal of the wasp is to use the pollen as nourishment. However, the wasp must
first become attracted to the orchid, and to do this “the orchid
deterritorializes by forming an image, tracing of a wasp; [this in turn causes]
the wasp [to] reterritorialize on that image” (Deleuze, Guattari 10). In
regards to how this relates to figure 2,
McAlpin refers to Kosuth as a ventriloquist and those entering the labyrinth as
his dummy. The Labyrinth, much like the orchid must attract wanders. If not,
Kosuth’s vision would be unable to thrive and eventually, its meaning would
die. What can be surmised from this observation is that Joseph Kosuth has made
Deleuze and Guattari’s deterritorialization and reterritorialization an
omnipresent facet in figure 2. The
effects of these two ubiquitous occurrences emphasize the instability of the
status of a guest and a foreigner upon entry into the labyrinth.
To best explain the ever-shifting classifiers, which distinguish between
a guest and foreigner, one must look to Jacques Derrida’s Hospitality. Hospitality is a key component to history, to the law,
politics, and to economics, and although it is indefinable, it can be described.
Think of it as tautological. That is to say, hospitality has no meaning
except for what people place on the examples, which simulate it. Therefore,
Derrida gives his readers several examples of hospitality, and among the many
given; it only seemed appropriate to start off with the etymology of the word.
After all, to understand its present and future function, a dissection of its
past must be studied. According to Derrida, hospitality derives from the Latin
word for “hostile,” which already gives the reader a clue to its precarious
nature. Now in relation to figure 2, the role of a guest and a foreigner
seems to mimic the capricious atmosphere hospitality lends itself to. That is
to say, Kosuth wants to reiterate the impossibility of remaining in a stagnant
classification of either a guest or a foreigner, and the qualities, which
distinguish between the two titles, although abiding by the same general rules
are differentiated between relative cultural differences.
The general distinguishing factor between a guest and a foreigner relates
to how strange the person is to the host. A guest, most often, is seen less as
a stranger and more as a friend. A foreigner, on the other hand, signifies
uncertainty from the host, meaning the person is an alien to the host’s
culture. However, the foreigner can become a guest when diplomacy between
different countries is exchanged. To best explain this, Derrida quotes Kant, in that hospitality is a cosmopolitan right, which adheres to
“…the space of right, not of morality and politics or anything else but of a
right determined in its relationship to citizenship, the state, even if it is a
world state” (Derrida 3). What Derrida has done, is create an impersonal relationship,
which treats all guests as foreigners under the guise of hospitality. This then
makes a guest and a foreigner indistinguishable, which creates a desensitized
environment.
However, this desensitization does not always apply to every occasion
where hospitality takes place. Derrida introduces the law of inversion, which
if not administered has the potential to create hostility between the two
people engaging in the practice of hospitality. In a successful reciprocation
of hospitality, “the master of this house, the master in his own home, the
host, can only accomplish this task as host, that is hospitality, in becoming
invited by the other into his home, in being welcomed by him whom he welcomes
in receiving the hospitality he gives” (Derrida 9). The danger in this exchange
can result in an unwanted return of hospitality by the former guest. This in
turn can cause insult to the former host resulting in a hostile relationship
between the two. What this hypothetical
situation amounts to, is a miscommunication between guest and host. However, in
figure 2, the role of inversion does not present itself between host
(Kosuth’s Labyrinth) and guest (audience). Rather it is between the guest and
the foreigner, which makes them continuously subservient to its host.
The conclusions from the previous analysis can be compared to an avid spectator of WC wrestling finding out his favorite
sport is fake. This dispelling reality disillusions the rebellious façade of figure
2 and weakens the effect of its greeting; an excerpt from one of Michel
Foucault philosophical texts regarding the evolving self and its relationship
to the state. In examining the second half of the meant to be subversive bienvenue,
the guest and the foreigner are confronted by Foucault’s terse truth.
“…What, do you imagine that I would take so much trouble and so much
pleasure in writing, do you think that would keep so persistently to my task,
if I were not preparing- with a rather shaky hand- a labyrinth into which I can venture, in which I can move my
discourse, opening up underground passages, forcing it to go far from itself,
finding overhangs that reduce and deform its itinerary, in which I can lose
myself and appear at last to eyes that I will never have to meet again. I am no
doubt not the only one who writes in order to have no face. Do not ask who I am
and do not ask me to remain the same: leave it to our bureaucrats and our
police to see that our papers are in order. At least spare us their morality
when we write.”
What this passage provides is an
understanding, not a definition to figure 2’s signified title (A Labyrinth
in which I can Venture). The identity of the piece implies the pervading morphology
of this self-made maze, which wants to remain anonymous while it castrates
morality from state legislature, claiming the relativity is the determinate of
ethics, not the stagnant drawn-up line of good or bad.
As a whole, A Labyrinth in which I
can Venture can be seen as a modern day replication of the biblical tower
of babble; forcing its wanderers on a daunting journey of deciphering and
sifting through an unexpected rush of anarchical context. The results of this
simulated venture can only be described as disorienting. And when compared to
Deleuze, Guattari, Derrida, and Foucault, the subservient and iconoclastic
inferences no longer represent the reality of the labyrinth. In other words,
Joseph Kosuth is the puppeteer pulling the strings of the interpreting guests
and foreigners as they internalize and process the meanings and contexts of
their surrounding environment.
PART 3: THE
CLOSING OF AN UNFINISHED PIECE
Now that pieces from both Joseph Kosuth Tautology Collection and Guests and Foreigners Collection have been
thoroughly analyzed, the reader can see the overall effect of Kosuth’s artistic
process. However, before this is done lets take a quick recap of how each
theorist discussed influenced Kosuth. Starting from the beginning, the reader
can deduce that Ferdinand de Saussure’s linguistic theory
served as an example of what Kosuth hoped he successfully challenge. As for
Ludwig Wittgenstein, he set up a great foundation to understanding the
evolution of Kosuth’s complete collection. Jeffery Nealson, although briefly
mentioned, helped articulate the paratactic tendencies of his work and the
potential hypotaxis contradictions within his collection. Jacques Derrida, of
course, helped emphasize the shifting of context and how ambiguity functions in
prescribing status, which heavily supports the theory of deterritorialization
and reterritorialization of Gilles Deleuze and Félix Guattari’s. Also in
analyzing Derrida’s Hospitality, a
great set-up emerges, allowing a fluid explanation of the Michel Foucault
quotation at the entrance of figure 2.
The result has led to the conclusion that Joseph Kosuth’s body of work is
indeed a by-product of postmodernism, which allows One in Three Chairs and A Labyrinth in which I Venture
to create a metaphorical hall of mirrors. This in turn, challenges viewers to
embark on a journey that goes against the currents of traditional art and
ideologies. However, it would be incorrect to claim that Joseph Kosuth’s works
are completely void of these traditional practices. As previously examined,
each work still abides by the governing authority of the principles and the
elements of design. Nevertheless, that does not disqualify his work from being
identified as postmodern. This is because every postmodern artifact is an
example of the movement. Furthermore, in serving as an example, Joseph Kosuth’s
conceptual art finds itself being systematically classified in a modernistic
fashion, which inevitably reveals the paradoxical nature of the age of
postmodernity.
