Some Basic Thoughts on the Real Encounter

So what is a real encounter with art?


In past posts I named the real encounter as a counterpoint to the conceptual regime in art – or the mode of consciousness that wants to see art largely as what we think about it, rather than what it is. The point, however, was not to set up a dualism between the two, or to suggest that meaning, concept, and (really?) thinking don’t have a place in our encounter with art.  That would be unproductive, and – well, unreal (not to mention stupid).  We think.  We want to know what something’s all about.  We want to use our history and experience and (some of us anyway) expertise in the service of a clear and legible exegesis.  Plus, we have agendas – good ones.  The liberation ideal behind much thought about and positioning of art – that the purpose and goal of art is to expose modes of power, prejudice, and limiting beliefs and structures (both in the world at large and within the world of art) — works, in my view, as a progressive and enlightening mode of production and meaning.  So I have no truck with ideas or ideation – the liberation ideal, for example, has ushered viewers to deeper realizations about their political and social circumstances, has exposed political structures to scrutiny and change, and has pushed artists to continually question the foundations and assumptions of their craft, spurring an ever-widening scope and production of objects (and non-objects) for our consideration.

But what I have noticed, over the past 20 years as a working artist (and this of course, is me engaging what I hope is a novel line of liberation thought) is a widening gap between what we say and write and think and talk about in art, on the one hand, and what the thing – the art object – is, on the other hand.  For all the liberation of human potential, the art object itself has been held largely captive to the human imaginations that make this liberation possible.  The truth is often the art object is seen as little more than a caption to our ideas about it. 

There is much to be explored here.  But I want to keep it simple, for now, and focus on the basics of the real encounter.

So what do I mean by real? My use has nothing to do with colloquial realism, and little to do with Michael Fried’s realism – although what he discusses is relevant.  The real here refers to the current and developing corpus of philosophical realism – or the odd (for us) idea that things – art objects and otherwise – are not simply constructions of our minds, but are: they exist in and of themselves, with and without us.  It seems to me that much recent (last 20 years) writing and talk and thinking on art (to me, the conceptual regime) reflects a different position – one more in line with philosophical idealism, or the notion that objects exist only for us and by us, in our beholding and consideration of them, and not otherwise.  In my view, the art criticism of the past 20 years, if nothing else, has focused on our ideas about art and artworks, and has made little room for a consideration of the art object as real in itself, and what that might mean for our interaction with it, and the outcomes of that interaction. 

And what do I mean by encounter?  I am using this word, and not experience, because the latter simply extends the human experience, with no allowance for a notion of interaction between viewer and art object.  So an encounter is an interaction between two objects – or, better put, the field that is developed between the two.  We typically assume that the bargain is one-sided – that the artwork is an empty vessel until we arrive with our ideas about it.  It may be differentiated from other artworks, but we still hold its meaning – its soul.

And so what is different about the real encounter?  Well, it doesn’t look much different than any encounter with art.  The difference is internal, in the approach and attitude we take, and in the willingness and openness to allow an uncertain outcome, wrought in the crucible of the field of the encounter.  Basically, we agree to put down our preconceptions and prejudices willfully, and allow (it sounds too simple and brute) what is there to motivate thought and meaning.  A real encounter doesn’t mean that we fill in what we think the object is doing or wants, nor assume nor project any agency of the object.  No: the quality of interaction in the real encounter is rendered, rather, by our restraint in such projections and assumptions, as well as our restraint in our will to blanket the field with limiting, flattening ideas and thoughts about what the meaning of the thing might be.

In short, in the real encounter we are willing to let meaning be real – to announce itself to us through the unfolding realtime interaction, rather than looking in the encounter for affirmation of our ideas about it. 

The real encounter is much simpler than what we are used to – and harder.  Allowing what is, is the simplest action.  But giving up the security, confidence, knowingness, power, the bolstered identity and sense of self – that’s the hard part.  Engaging the field of the real encounter, after all, means stepping into the interaction in vulnerability, with a willingness to be impacted and changed by that field and to be touched – here, touched by art.

Image: Jeff Perrott, Souvenir, 2005, 3 1/2″ x 4″ x 4″, bronze, two parts.  Edition of 3.


About jeffperrott

Artist and writer on art
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to Some Basic Thoughts on the Real Encounter

  1. Greg says:

    I just found your site through the Beehive and the show you curated there. The title of this blog entry really caught my eye. I am an MFA candidate at SMFA with my thesis coming up in May.

    I found it striking how similar my views and thoughts have been recently. I keep wondering, does an art object hold something, and if so when does it start to hold that meaning or aura? I like to think of it as teaching materials to talk. At what point in the art making process does the painting, sculpture, whatever, start to talk? This is very pertinent to me as a sculptor and performance artist.

    Do you have any thoughts, maybe in relation to your own process, about when the work starts to be “encounterable” or maybe “real enough to encounter?”

  2. jeffperrott says:

    Hi Greg, thanks for your comment and for the kind words. In my view things ‘start to talk’ once they come into being, or for as long as they continue to be – not just art things, but everything. That said, I wouldn’t anthropomorphize it by applying my way of communicating (talking) to the object. Not to be vague, but it does what it does, in the way that it does it, and I receive it through the sense organs equipped to receive it – eyes, brain, heart, gut. But this is perhaps for another post, and a question I am not well equipped to address right now. To answer your question, I don’t think there is a ‘sweet spot’ where things rise to a status of ‘encounterability’ – but we can say that one or another encounter is more or less valuable (another topic for another day there!) to us at a particular contingent moment. But for me saying that there is a status of encounterability amounts to imposing some kind of criteria on making or finish on the work – the artist does that of course, but the work’s ontological status isn’t dependent on what the artist decides to do; that status (again for me) is assured as soon as that things comes into being in any form whatever – even as a thought. Historically what I see, is, since 1913 (Duchamp’s readymades, and later in conceptual art), what we consider to be worthy of an art encounter IS an art encounter. Plus, of course that moment of consideration is not stable and nor is the encounter; just look at how master works (the Fountain) have been received in history and continue to be re-encountered. For me the point is not about the making of the object, but how we consider it when we encounter it. What I advocate is openness to whatever the encounter has to offer, without superimposing an overriding thought about what the object means. The questions I ask are: what is it doing, how is it doing, what am I doing when in its presence, what are the thoughts and emotions and body sensations it conjures, even: where is it taking me? All of this is considered without the sense that the encounter is just about ME (the artwork does NOT exist to simply fulfill my wishes for it) but that the artwork creates a perfectly contingent field of possibility that I enter into openly, not to confirm what think I know, but to discover what is REALLY there/here, as it unfolds in realtime, uncertainly, as it does. That sounds like a lot, but it’s very simple really – I am for allowing the work an upgraded, equal status in the equation of the encounter, and for allowing the encounter itself to determine itself. I hope that helps. Jeff

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s