John Stezaker and Art-Language (1973)

JOHN STEZAKER AND ART-LANGUAGE‭ [‬1973‭] ‬JOHN A.‭ ‬WALKER‭ ‬(COPYRIGHT‭ ‬2009‭) John Stezaker at the Nigel Greenwood Gallery,‭ ‬23‭ ‬October-10‭ ‬October‭ ‬1973,‭ ‬and Art-Language at the Lisson Gallery,‭ ‬16‭ ‬October-10‭ ‬November‭ ‬1973.‭ John Stezaker,‭ ‬Mundus‭ ‬(1973‭)‬,‭ ‬Perspex and wood,‭ ‬photo courtesy of the Nigel Greenwood Gallery,‭ ‬copyright the artist.‭ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Readers of‭ ‬The New Art,‭ ‬the Hayward Gallery catalogue,‭ ‬and the letter columns of‭ ‬Studio International‭ ‬will be aware of the ideological dispute between John Stezaker and the Art-Language group.‭ ‬By a fortunate coincidence the protagonists were both showing in London last month,‭ ‬thus enabling the disinterested viewer to make a direct comparison of their respective solutions to current dilemmas.‭ ‬The casual visitor may assume that there‭ ‬is a similarity of approach since both present‭ '‬machines‭' ‬for learning:‭ ‬Stezaker's device,‭ ‬Mundus‭ ‬has been specially fabricated,‭ ‬Art-Language's is a microfilm reader‭; ‬both exhibitions are user-orientated and invite the viewer to share the artist's experience‭; ‬however,‭ ‬in purpose and mode of operation the‭ '‬machines‭' ‬are radically different. ‭ ‬In my view it is hard to overestimate the importance of‭ ‬Mundus‭ ‬(its programme is amazingly ambitious,‭ ‬nothing less than the‭ '‬revolution to end revolution‭') ‬because‭ ‬it demonstrates a logical mode of art theory and practice which offers a way out of the paralysis which afflicts so much recent art.‭ ‬Stezaker's emphasis on the fact that art is the product of conscious human deliberation and that artworks are primarily meanings or intentions restores to the role of artist a dignity which it was in great danger of forfeiting.‭ Stezaker is generally described as a‭ '‬theoretical artist‭' ‬because he is concerned with theory‭ ‬for‭ ‬art rather than the theory‭ ‬of‭ ‬art.‭ ‬His output for the past two years has largely consisted of writings developing this idea and his present artwork represent the first full articulation of the theory-practice synthesis which he advocates.‭ ‬His overall purpose is to reverse the usual order of priorities‭ ‬typical of Post-Duchampian art by moving from the abstract to the particular,‭ ‬by allowing theory conceptual precedence over practice and by putting‭ '‬ends‭' ‬before‭ '‬means‭'‬.‭ ‬Mundus‭ ‬-‭ ‬Latin for‭ '‬world‭' ‬or‭ '‬system‭' ‬-‭ ‬is described in an accompanying text‭ ‬Beyond Art for Art's sake,‭ ‬as a‭ '‬functionalist Artwork‭'; ‬that is,‭ ‬it does not describe external‭ '‬reality‭'; ‬rather it‭ '‬prescribes to a world of meanings‭' ‬and functions as an‭ '‬exemplar for action‭'‬.‭ ‬Hence‭ ‬Mundus‭ ‬is an‭ '‬ideal type‭' ‬which,‭ ‬like Plato's universals,‭ ‬is to be apprehended by the intellect,‭ ‬in contrast to work presented to the senses.‭ ‬Furthermore‭ ‬Mundus‭ ‬is an‭ '‬ideal type‭' ‬in more than one sense‭; (‬a‭) ‬it proffers a function for art generally,‭ ‬while simultaneously itself embodying that function‭; ‬and‭ (‬b‭)‬,‭ ‬it embodies ideal interrelations within a microcosmic system. ‭ ‬Mundus‭ ‬is displayed on a wall and in use somewhat resembles a sophisticated snakes and ladders game.‭ ‬Physically the apparatus consists of a series of square compartments containing images which can be illuminated one at a time by operating two control buttons.‭ ‬Beginning at screen‭ ‬1‭ ‬the user proceeds via two logical pathways to a nodal point‭ '‬x‭' ‬at the bottom of the work.‭ ‬Each screen is divided into four categories arranged in a kind of structuralist schema:‭ These generalities are made concrete by the most economical of means.‭ ‬Cutlery on a table indicates‭ '‬custom‭' (‬the etiquette of setting a place at table‭); '‬learning‭' ‬is indicated by a‭ '‬tree‭' ‬diagram which reveals the two routes‭ ‬-‭ ‬predictive and constructionist‭ ‬-‭ ‬by which nodal point‭ '‬x‭' ‬can be reached.‭ ‬The four categories are various kinds of sign‭ ‬-‭ ‬directive,‭ ‬iconic,‭ ‬indexical,‭ ‬symbol.‭ ‬All of which interrelate as‭ ‬the symbolic game is played‭; ‬for example,‭ ‬successive questions in the‭ '‬action‭' ‬category are encoded in the other three‭; ‬the term‭ '‬law‭' ‬encodes the inadmissibility of choice in‭ '‬action‭' ‬and moves in‭ '‬custom‭'; '‬actions‭' ‬are changed into‭ '‬customs‭'‬,‭ ‬by‭ '‬learning‭'‬.‭ ‬A full description of all the interrelationships and ramifications of‭ ‬Mundus‭ ‬are given in Stezaker's text. ‭ ‬However,‭ ‬his general intention has been to produce a work with internal logical consistency and one in which the dual principles of objectivity/subjectivity and attainment/apprehension are‭ '‬ideally‭' ‬related within the semiotic system and in the nodal point‭ '‬x‭'‬.‭ ‬How‭ ‬Mundus‭ ‬functions is also the subject matter of‭ ‬Mundus.‭ ‬It is by these means that it‭ '‬acts as a prescription by exemplification‭'‬.‭ ‬Evidently,‭ ‬Mundus‭ ‬deals with highly complex issues but their articulation in physical terms satisfies two criteria of good science‭ (‬and presumably good art‭)‬,‭ ‬namely simplicity and elegance. ‭ ‬The Art-‭ ‬Language show consisted of statements in red ink pasted poster-like to the wall,‭ ‬typescripts,‭ ‬and material on microfilm.‭ ‬The group continually document their discourse by means of tape recordings and writings‭ (‬even hesitations,‭ ‬deletions,‭ ‬bad language and noises-off are now included‭)‬.‭ ‬They also monitor each others‭' ‬progress by means of annotations.‭ ‬Their discussions for‭ ‬1972-73‭ ‬-‭ ‬typed and hand-written notes‭ ‬-‭ ‬are presented in their raw state on microfilm.‭ ‬Each expression in the notes,‭ ‬or‭ '‬concatenations‭' ‬as they prefer to call them,‭ ‬has been indexed‭ ‬and the user of the microfilm reader‭ (‬which is to be available permanently‭) ‬is invited to enter the Art-Language discourse at any point by random use of the index,‭ ‬and is then encouraged to pursue various pathways through the notes,‭ ‬exiting perhaps via the‭ ‬bibliographical references to further readings. ‭ ‬There is a mass of material on film.‭ ‬Its content is,‭ ‬by its very nature,‭ ‬impossible to summarize or abbreviate.‭ ‬One can only say that it appears to continue their investigation by means of probes drawn‭ ‬from philosophy,‭ ‬logic,‭ ‬linguistics,‭ ‬and information retrieval theory.‭ ‬The work on film is presented anonymously in that individual statements are not ascribed to particular members of the group.‭ ‬Such collectivity‭ ‬-‭ ‬their word is‭ '‬group-hoodness‭' ‬-‭ ‬is surely unique in the history of British art. ‭ ‬The shift of emphasis in the form of presentation,‭ ‬that is,‭ ‬away from the publication of essays in journals towards filing systems,‭ ‬instruction indexes,‭ ‬and microfilm might seem unimportant to a layman.‭ ‬But in terms of the development of Art-Language it is highly significant.‭ ‬A transcript by Ian Burn and others reveals that the Art-Language investigation ran into‭ '‬real trouble‭' ‬on more than one occasion and the document‭ ‬Instruction index ax‭ ‬contains the remark‭ '‬we've really hounded ourselves into one long series of corners‭' ‬.The problemical nature of their discourse is frankly admitted‭ ‬-‭ '‬we don't know what we are doing‭’‬ -‭ ‬but uncertainty is regarded as inevitable,‭ ‬almost a guarantee of intellectual probity.‭ ‬The significance of the microfilm is that now the viewer is invited to share the problematical nature of their discourse.‭ ‬The microfilm material avoids the linear argument of essays‭; ‬it is not a tidy reasoned package but‭ '‬an arbitrary fragment comprising what‭ ‬went on during a particular period‭'‬.‭ ‬The user,‭ ‬like Art-Language itself,‭ ‬is faced by a‭ '‬multiplicity of choice‭' ‬and has no guidance as to what direction to take,‭ ‬nor can he distinguish‭ '‬between the minutiae and the maximae‭' ‬of the argument.‭ ‬Like the members of Art-Language the user is confronted by the problem of reading.‭ '‬How do I go on‭?' '‬Do I in fact want to go on‭?‬’ One wonders how many will be prepared to accept their invitation to enter an intellectual maze. ‭ ‬Stezaker sees art as a prescribing,‭ ‬constructing activity which derives its meanings from frameworks of belief.‭ ‬The Art-Language group reject this approach but at the same time they seem to be aware of the danger of musing endlessly upon the nature of their musing.‭ ‬Hence their preoccupation with mapping,‭ ‬clustering,‭ ‬indexing,‭ ‬thesauri,‭ ‬etc.,‭ ‬which appear to be devices aimed at uncovering the hidden structures of their discourse.‭ -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- This review of two exhibitions‭ ‬was first published in‭ ‬Studio International,‭ ‬186‭ (‬961‭) ‬December‭ ‬1973,‭ ‬p.‭ ‬248.‭ ‬John A.‭ ‬Walker is a painter and art historian.‭ ‬He is the author of several books about art and mass media.‭