Sculpture Studio Spring 2010

Project 1: Process
ANALYSIS

For one to consider what process means in relation to works of art, one has to first consider it outside of that context, and then apply that definition to an artistic context. Process is an action, a verb. If one applies a verb to a noun that is considered a process. I hit the baseball.  I applied the process of swinging the bat to alter the baseball’s course. The baseball’s path has been forever changed by the bat, and my intentions behind swinging the bat. The physical process in this case is the swinging of the bat, while the mental process is the thought behind the eventual decision to partake in swinging the bat. Process starts off with a thought, includes an action, and produces an altered result.

For the artist, this means that literally every single piece ever made by any artist ever, from Michelangelo’s David to a kindergartener’s finger painting could be considered a process piece. Even the kindergartener, however subconsciously, decided to represent something in their piece, used an action to mark that representation on the page, and produced a noticeably marked upon sheet of paper. Certain artists and certain pieces, are especially concerned with foregrounding the process. The difference between a piece that is concerned with the process of it’s own creation and one that is more concerned with the final form is the emphasis on the thought/action dynamic of the creation process. When one considers a piece like Michelangelo’s David, one does not consider that Michelangelo decided to sculpt David, or the individual hammer blows to the chunk of marble. One simply considers David. David is an example of piece where the artist’s intention is to foreground the altered result of the process. One does not consider the chunk of marble, one considers what the chunk of marble has become.

However, when an artist decides to foreground the thought/action dynamic, the process becomes an integral part of the work as a whole. When one looks at work by an artist like Tom Friedman, one can see how the thought/action dynamic is important to the work as a whole. In a piece like Friedman’s Untitled (a complete pencil shaving), the first thing one asks is, what is that? The altered result is not a recognizable object, not easily contextualized, the result is not the important part of the piece. When the viewer realizes what the piece is, they then immediately think about the idea behind the piece, “oh a complete pencil shaving, how simple!” What appeals to the viewer is not the altered result of the process, but the thought behind the altered result. The result of the thought might be pleasing aesthetically, but when one considers the piece what is really appealing is the beautiful simplicity of the thought behind it.