Image courtesy of Chrisjtse. Shared via a Creative Commons license.

 

—-

Let us imagine that there is an art exhibition taking place in a particular space. This space is typical to such events; it is white walled, tile floored and well lit. Let us also imagine that above all the entrances to this space there are signs which seem very official bearing the words ‘Do Not Enter’ and above all the exits to this space there are also signs which seem equally official bearing the words ‘Do Not Exit’. This scenario was originally a plan for an art installation that would take place during the University of the West Indies Visual Arts Unit final year exhibition 2014. However, I was challenged to frame this scenario as a design project instead. In this paper I take up that challenge. Donald Judd has postulated that “the difference between art and design is that design has to work and art does not.” In this paper I will consider both contemporary definitions of art; and postmodern theories of design and will attempt to conclude that art and design are intimately interwoven. In fact, I believe that in contemporary thinking a thing may be at once both art and design.

Let us take for example, Philippe Starck’s ‘Juicy Salif’. Donald Norman, in his book Emotional Design: Why We Love (and Hate) Everyday Objects explains the function of the ‘Juicy Salif’, “Rotate the orange half on the ribbed top of the juicer and the juice flows down the sides and drips from the point into the glass.” However, he also goes on to say that he purchased an “expensive, numbered, special anniversary edition (gold plated, no less)” which came with a numbered card attached bearing the words, “It is not intended to be used as a juice squeezer. The gold plating could be damaged if it comes into contact with anything acidic.” Norman goes on to marvel at the reflective appeal of the design that is in no way married to any sort of actual functionalism. Thus we can say that it is possible to hold the theory that a designed object need not necessarily ‘work’. It may be capable of work but specifically intended for no functionalism. The object may be designed for reflective appeal, which is solely a mental process. In Grant Pooke and Diana Newall’s Art History: The Basics, the chapter ‘Exploring Postmodernities’ has a section entitled ‘Duchamp’s Readymades’. In this section the authors theorise that Duchamp’s “mixed media installations, incorporating previously functional objects, established the principle that art could be about concepts and ideas (whether playful or ironic), rather that mimetic or formalist concerns.” Philippe Starck is rumored to have said that his juicer was “not to squeeze lemons; it is meant to start conversations.” Duchamp, wielding artistic license used objects originally designed for functionalism and, robbing them of their mundane utilitarian aspects, recast them as art. Their purpose instead became the conveying of a concept. Similarly the mundane utilitarian function of the Juicy Salif was taken away when it was plated with gold, and its new purpose became reflective appeal, or the conveying of a concept. If such a striking parallel can be drawn between the purpose of art objects and the purpose of designed objects, allow me then to postulate that parallels equally striking may be drawn between art and design.

For the purposes of being exactingly thorough on my mental processes as I consider my challenge, and also admittedly because the notion delights me, I will now propose the addition of another layer of interest. The hypothetical art installation previously mentioned will go on in this paper to be exhaustively analysed. Users, equally hypothetical, will enter the space, leave it, interact with the installation or perhaps ignore it. In our imaginations, the scenario will play out. Joseph Beuys has claimed that “The formation of the thought is already sculpture.” Thus, is it then not possible that during your reading of these words, your reflective consideration of these concepts, and the hopefully spritely activity of your imagination, that in fact, art has already been created? That even as you continue to read, it continues to be created? Here, I will defend my fantastical mental leap with an excerpt from Sol LeWitt’s Sentences on Conceptual Art, “Rational judgments repeat rational judgments. Illogical judgments lead to new experience.” Thus the reading of this paper (and the writing of it) is the creation of art. The objective of this art (this paper) is to explain the design methodology of a concept for an art installation which at the time of writing this, to my knowledge will never exist. So I have maybe irrationally but validly established that the conceptual content of this paper is art. Allow me to now use this medium to rationally explain why the purely hypothetical situation is also design.

In moving forward I will apply Herbert Simon’s definition of design, “Everyone designs who devises courses of action aimed at changing existing situations into preferred ones.” I will also reflect on the user experience of the space, specifically the experience of the moment of entry into the space and the moment of exit out of the space; and the effect of these on the user experience of viewing and interacting with artwork displayed in the exhibition, and the user experience of reflective thought about artwork in the exhibition. In Andrew Baun and Stuart Valins’ book, Architecture and Social Behavior: Physcological Studies of Social Density, they write: “While we tend to think of ourselves as masters of the environment, we are necessarily involved in a continuous interchange with our surroundings. In this respect we are no better than our phylogenetic predecessors: although we may have superior adaptive capabilities, we must still cope with even the most mundane occurrences in our daily lives. Our behavior can be conceptualized as a dynamic sequence of adjustments and readjustments to our physical and social environment.” Thus I theorise that the moment of entry into the space is a moment of transition. A person has moved from the outside to the inside. The entrance way has made that transition possible. In our scenario, both the outside and the inside are public spaces. However, they are public spaces which are ascribed different purposes. Let us now try to imagine what the outside of the art exhibition space would be. It may be a sidewalk, a corridor, a pathway leading to a street or a staircase leading to another part of the same building. The immediate outside of the art exhibition space is ascribed for transit, for commute. It is a space of impermanence, of motion. Admittedly the inside of the art exhibition space is also a space of impermanence, but it is the destination that the space of transit has led the user to. The impermanence of the two spaces are of fundamentally different qualities. The inside of the space is much less of motion and much more of contemplation; it is not about transit but perhaps more of social engagement. Accepting all this as true we may also postulate that similar then to the moment of entry, the moment of exit is also one of transition. At the moment of exit the user moves now from contemplation to commute, from social engagement to transit. By making this transition the user has declared the completion of a task, or at least the end of a particular activity; in our scenario, the activity of viewing art.

According to Jeff Johnson, author of ‘Designing with the Mind in Mind: Simple Guide to UI Design,’ performing learned actions is easy. “When we go somewhere we have been many times before, or do something we have done many times before, we do it almost automatically, without much conscious thought. The route, the routine, the recipe, the procedure, the action has become semiautomatic or fully automatic.” We can say that the transition from outside to inside has become an automatic mental process, one we have almost no conscious thought of. Recalling here Herbert Simon’s definition of design, I feel at this point it is necessary to define the ‘existing situation’, the ‘preferred situation’ and the ‘course of action’: that method of approaching the preferred situation from the starting point of the existing situation which would constitute the ‘design’. The ‘existing situation’ is the user’s smooth transition from the outside to the inside, the subtle crossover from being in transit to having reached a destination. The ‘preferred situation’ would be for this transition to not be as subtle. I propose a ‘preferred situation’ in which during the transition from outside to inside, the user is prepared for the experience of viewing art. To serve the purpose of this paper I will defend the specific ‘course of action’ of the installation of ‘Do Not Enter’, ‘Do Not Exit’ signs. Thus, upon approaching the entrance to the space the user is confronted by a sign commanding them not to enter. All the entrances to the space bear this sign above them. However, the doors would be open, the inside well lit and the artwork clearly visible. Perhaps there would even be other persons already inside of the space. The user is now faced with a decision. The user must actively choose if they want to make that transition from outside to inside or not. And if they do, they will consciously acknowledge the readjustment to the physical space and the attached social connotations of that space which would have occurred during the transition. However, it should be noted that the aim of the signs is to create hesitance, perhaps even a certain anxiety. It is not to stop the users from entering the space, or from leaving it. As the aim of Duchamp’s Readymades was the conveying of a concept and the aim of Starck’s special anniversary Juicy Salif was reflective appeal, the aim too of the signs is to facilitate a purely mental process.

The question then remains: how does this mental process prepare the user for the activity of viewing art? At this point perhaps we should specify the kind of art exhibition taking place. I believe that the aforementioned mental process would well prepare users for the activity of viewing contemporary art. “Contemporary definitions of art are not medium specific (as ideas around fine art tended to be) or particularly restrictive about the nature of aesthetic value (as Modernism was…). These ideas are associated with the Institutional Theory of Art which is probably the most widely used definition. It recognizes that art can be a term designated by the artist and by the institutions of the art world, rather than by any external process of validation. On one hand it provides an expansive framework for understanding diverse art practices, but on the other, it is so broad as to be virtually meaningless”(Pooke, Newall). Users are introduced to the concept of active, conscious transition as they enter the space, and while in the process of viewing contemporary art work it is hoped that they consciously recognize the transition of the art objects or experiences from the mundane to the profound. For example the 1985 ‘Three Ball Total Equilibrium Tank (Two Dr.Silver Series Spalding NBA Tip-Off)’ by Jeff Koons, “a three dimensional installation comprising three basketballs held in a water filled plexi glass vitrine. Koons has taken objects associated with an American contact sport (and a specific consumer brand), and re-presented them in a particular way. Held in stasis and weightless, the three basketballs are de-familiarised and functionless— they have no practical use other than as objects of aesthetic display” (Pooke, Newall). The basketballs then in this example have undergone the transition from utilitarian object to art object through the actions of the artist.

At the moment of exit the ‘existing situation; is again a smooth automatic adjustment to the physical space and the social connotations attached to the space. The ‘preferred situation’ would be an active, conscious adjustment; the acknowledgment that the transitions occurring within the space do not occur to the same objects and experiences outside of it. The objects and experiences within the space are unique in that they are the end product of a thought process by an artist. The same objects and experiences outside of the space which are not the end product of such a thought process are not similarly art. Both the moment of entry and the moment of exit would affect future reflective thought on the art that had been viewed in the space. It is hoped that the active adjustment of mental processes which occurred before and after the viewing of the art would make the art viewing experience more meaningful, thus enriching reflective thought on the experience. The ‘Do Not Enter’ and ‘Do Not Exit’ signs are thus a valid method of approach to a more focused art viewing experience for the user. The installation of the signs would be a valid design project.

—-

Genieve Ramrattan is a final-year student at the University of the West Indies, St. Augustine campus in the design strand of the BA Visual Arts program. Genieve is a National Additional Scholarship winner, and the recipient of a UWI Open Scholarship. She has also been awarded the Eastman-Christensen Visual Arts Award for Excellence in Year 2 while at UWI. She is a Global Young Leaders Conference alum, a Collegiate Presidential Inaugural Conference alum, and an invitee to the China 2014 Global Youth Forum on International Diplomacy.