Thoughts on Theory and Practice

What is the relationship between practice and theory, and can the two be separated? This question is more so directed at practice-led research where social, behavioural and political variables may have to be taken into account as the research progresses, rather than at the outset. In the Visual Arts for example, a research question may be philosophical in nature, and lend itself to an analysis and comparison of history and literature, but how is this investigation turned into practice-led research, allowing an organic creative exploration encompassing chance without a prescriptive ‘testing’ of material? What types of methodologies allow this?

What is theory? According to Marxist thought, theory is an ideal image of the material world corresponding to practice where every human being has and uses theory. The way they understand the world around them is structured by a theoretical framework reflecting their own times and activity in the world. Practice is active, rather than being a passive observation, and is directed at changing something. Practice differs from activity in general, because practice is connected with theory which gives it a means and an end. Practice is only enacted through theory and theory is formulated based on practice.

If the above is the case, where a theory is an understanding of the world about us reflecting our time and place, how can we discuss the relationship between practice and theory in the context of practice-led research? The forced separation and naming of these activities sets up an immediate opposition to one another, whereby the momentarily static theory is cancelled out by the actual action of the research. On the other hand, if theory is thought of within a framework of an ever-changing mutable form, then can all active ideas one has throughout life be classed as theory? In day-to-day life, is a multitude of theoretical concepts created that are interlinked with experience, thus rendering theory inseparable not only from practice but from the subconscious, the intuitive mind and tacit knowledge?

Borders

This morning Steve told me of a Scottish guy who had been taken to court and fined by Scottish Power for stealing their electricity. By filling his loft with copper wire, he picked up the radiation that was emanating from the cables of a nearby pylon. Making use of this electromagnetic invasion of his domestic space, he secured a free source of power to his home.

A couple of weeks ago, I read some information regarding a court-case where the British police had used infra-red technology to ‘spy’ into a suspect’s home. The householder maintained that this act was an invasion of privacy and should have required a search warrant; the court decided however, that because the infra-red radiation was moving through the walls and out of the property - where the police picked it up – that this was not an illegal intrusion.

Wondering then, if the case had been presented as one of theft, what the outcome might have been? If the electricity required to power appliances within the home is already bought by the tenant, the implication would be that the electromagnetic fields given off by these personal belongings are also be the property of the householder. Therefore within the dialogue of obscure electromagnetic boundaries, the case for the Police to defend would not be one of invasion of privacy, but perhaps one of housebreaking and theft.

Lindsay Brown

June 2007 from the Tanera-Mor Residency

Tin Foil Revolution

The ways in which mobile phone companies try to disguise their microwave communication transmitters and receivers in an attempt to ‘blend’ them into our environments, is becoming increasingly colourful. This includes bizarre fake rock formations and cactuses in disguise – a particularly contradictory choice as cactuses allegedly are said to have electromagnetic absorption qualities.

There appeared however to be a strange dichotomy arising in the mobile phone companies’ attempts to render the invisible invisible; in reality, making the invisible quite obviously visible.

It has been suggested that the use of domestic tin foil, enables electromagnetic radiations in the mobile phone hertzage range, to be reflected or deflected away from the directional flow, thus ‘blocking’ signals from reaching their destination points.

In an attempt to rectify the mobile phone empires’ camouflage dishonesty over invisibility and a pulling of the proverbial wool over our eyes, a Tin Foil Revolution may provide the forward step in re-addressing the balance between capitalist aesthetics and our right to a nature that is natural. By the creation of a worldwide electromagnetically confused sculpture park, where all the exhibits resemble the cooking stages of the old fashioned Sunday roast, the Tin Foil Revolution would make use of the deflective qualities of this cooking, wrapping and storing material, to render the visible invisible, invisible once again.

Please do not send images of your tin foil revolution via SMS.

Lindsay Brown

June 2007 from the Tanera-Mor Residency

Metaphor Metaphor, Thoughts on the Meandering Process

Is the visual always metaphorical? Is it possible to separate the metaphor from any visual language? Is the metaphor intrinsic in our perception and understanding of context and therefore object or environment? Our need for metaphor is one of a tool for making sense of the visual world that surrounds us, and in much the same way as word association in linguistic metaphor, can operate as a visual mind-mapping or visual association facility. Is the metaphor then a judgement of context, becoming in turn part of our translational faculty?

The metaphor as part of our translation ability, enables one to develop decisions by relating the object, space or situation that we see to our own experience, thereby filling in the missing part of an overall story, the outcome of which is judgement.

This then places a question mark over whether or not all art is metaphorical; and does then the question of whether art is metaphorical lie with the viewer or the artist? If the question of art and metaphor lies with the viewer, then perhaps it could be postulated that all art is metaphorical, as a translation or transformation has had to take place in the process of understanding.

If this question is posed at the artist, it could be argued that their art is un-metaphorical, particularly if the artwork takes the form of a representation where a scene, object or phenomena has been directly copied or transmitted, thereby not requiring any translational meandering. The question still arises however, in the intention of the artist - such as why the process has come about - and the materiality that forms the outcome, that is, is the paint, clay or sound metaphorical?

This then offers another question as to whether or not the process or the outcome is the artwork, and in turn which of the two hold the metaphorical position. If the process is the artwork then there should there be no outcome. The viewer then would always be looking at an in-between stage that was in constant flux. Does this mean however that the second the flux stops an outcome is reached; and is the in-betweeness created in the process metaphorical, or is it the cessation of that process that becomes the symbol?

I feel the answer lies in the hands of the viewer.

Lindsay Brown
June/July 2007