11 july 2006
(originally written in an email to Gerrie van Noord)

Part of creating work which deals with the ineffable, is the restructuring of language as it exists currently, or a reinvention of language either written or aural/visual. Benjamin speaks of translation:

'While that ultimate essence, pure language, in the various tongues
is tied only to linguistic elements and their changes, in linguistic creations it is weighted with a heavy alien meaning.

We have had conversation about the role of the artist, lately in conjunction with the whole practice led research debate, but is the artist really a creator or is the artist a translator to some degree.

'a translation touches the original lightly and only at the infinitely small point of the sense, thereupon pursuing its own course according to laws of fidelity in the freedom of linguistic flux.'

If you were to use Benjamin's text as a structure, what then is the role of work, or rather what is the role of work which is attempting to create the ineffable. Is the pursuit to 'create' the ineffable the actual work, or is the ineffable something, which exists in the ether and the work created is an attempt to 'translate' it, if you will.

But the issue of the ineffable within the context of research. One must be able to explain, either the methods or the experience itself, and that is where language becomes a key factor. But if the argument is the work is the new language, the way within which the experience is both created but maintained, (depending upon context, but i surmising that the creation of a context which is specific to the work, is paramount). If language has not failed us, but rather provided us with an inability to fully comprehend and describe such experiences through language, how then is it researchable? It makes me think that the artist is both creator and translator, the role is to use the language or the pure language of the work, but then disseminate the experience as well.......

How does that work?

*perhaps it is worthwhile to use the term mediator instead of translator (email response from GvN on 12 July 2006)

16 June 2006
(Basel)

Today was a very interesting day; I had the ability to see a wide array of different work relatively easily. One piece that stood out was the Anthony McCall piece You and Me, Horizontal which created its own ineffable experience….what seems to be most interesting whence thinking about all of the work that I have seen over the years that has produced or rather given me an ineffable was the element of simplicity. Not all of the work has been simplistic in delivery-rather it seems the more minimalist it looks the more work goes into execution, but the simplistic act of dialogue between work and viewer. The piece was a projection of two lines forming a circle….the projector was about 15 feet or so away from the screen and the actual shape of the projection was shaping the light beam-smoke was then released into the light beam and seemed to be captured within the boundaries of the projection and created a dual level experience. You the had the experience watching the circle come together, and you had the experience of the smoke within the lights, almost Adam Fuss like but there and live, not a captured moment. Being able to watch the smoke move and diffuse within the light in the first person, versus a mediated experience. There was something important in the experiencing the work’s lifespan and then watching it die out.

What is important is that it was visual. My research looks towards the aural…can it be done only aurally…. Ceal Floyer's piece Construction was simply a white room with the sounds of power tools. It was great, but was it only great because it was clever, or was it great because it was simply great? I am not to sure, it was piece that changed one’s spatial experience, but it also operated in a way that was simply clever…it wasn’t ineffable. (What is the connection between being clever and the ineffable?)

I suppose this begs the question, what is the ineffable, what makes it….? Why isn’t Ceal Floyer’s piece an ineffable experience and simply clever, what is the difference? I would never say the last 22 seconds of Debaser by the Pixies as being clever-it makes me feel amazing, my scalp crawls I love that bit of the song so much. But beyond that description, I cannot explain why. It simply moves something inside of me in a way that I can’t explain but I feel the exact same every time I here that bit of the song. I want to jump up and down at the same time that my skin pricks up a bit, and something runs down my spine, it’s like being in love but with the act of being in love. Simple things bring us the most immediate actions.

How does one (rather me) get better about listening and creating. The ability to see the much work at once makes me realize I have been a lazy artist….but its hard when the thing you want to create is the primal experience, you can’t explain and each time you make something you are reaching for it just a bit more, each piece is simply a step to the ineffable.

15 June 2006

The ineffable is defined as that which cannot be uttered, the unutterable. Thus leaving language as the tool of/for description at a disadvantage. Perhaps though it is not language, which has failed us in our ability to describe and give structure to such experiences, but rather our limited and rather static approach to the language we have at our disposable.

In the Philosophical Investigations, Wittgenstein looks at structure of language and the ways in which we utilise it. Using a chessboard and its pieces as an example, Wittgenstein takes us through the various ways a more experiences player would explain to someone with less experience the nature of the pieces and their relevance. One flaw with such a description however is the very nature within which it is received. A king is a king, a Queen a Queen, a pawn a pawn, what would happen if one was to subvert the description, and call the King a Pawn or vice versa. Semiotics imposes a certain arrogance over those who use the signs and language of the everyday. How would one go about trying to define that which lacks or perhaps transcends the power of words?

Within religion blanket terms such as transcendence, enlightenment, and holy, are used with ease, much like: the, is, there. One can not use the actual term in question as part of the definition, so whole scale questions should be put forth towards the terms transcendence, enlightenment, and holy as examples. What do they mean, what does it mean to have a transcendent experience? Arguably the nature of the context surrounding and or providing such an experience is often used to provide a foundation for the definition, within the scope of religion, the nature of such an experience is as definable as the ineffable but more roundly understood and generally accepted as being a certain type, with a quasi known set of parameters.

In relation to fine art then the parameters are set; the viewer’s interaction with the work is the dialogue within which the ineffable is produced. Why then does the change of context make the experience harder to define, describe and or relate to? Moving backwards perhaps, questions should be posed as to the very nature of the ineffable: is the ineffable a transferable thing, does an object pure and passive relay such an experience, or rather is the ineffable a theatrical act, defined as such by Michael Freid? By delving deeper into the mechanics of such an experience(s) are we destroying its foundation? In an old fashioned manner part of what makes art relevant and important is the artist’s ability to change the viewer’s perception, to allow them to glimpse or see something they haven’t been able to see or would never have been allowed to see without the artist’s intervention. What then happens at the end to the art or the ineffable experience if the mechanics and conventions are thoroughly investigated? Will such experiences remain important, rather will such experiences maintain an importance within our ability ‘to want to believe’? There is an adage that knowledge is power, but do we (the viewer) need an enhanced understanding of the thing we cannot describe in the first place. Would love still be love if we understood why and how it worked completely? What is to be gained by this research… is it possible to destroy the experience by asking too much of the process? Is it arguable that it isn’t, a more comprehensive understanding of such experiences both in their makeup and then their relationship to the viewer is in need of some rigorous parameters, but where does one draw the line? Such experiences are often described as being sacred and uplifting, neither creating feelings not understood before nor necessarily after-how respectful must one be of that whilst still pursuing a complete understanding?