Antony Gormley, Waste Man (2006)

Waste Man was made over a six-week period at the end of summer 2006, out of about 30 tonnes of waste material. This material was gathered by Thanet waste disposal services and by local people, and deposited in Margate.

Some of Gormley’s works are made in wax to be cast in bronze; this was made in domestic waste to be cast in fire.

For Gormley this work was a collective body (similar to Havmann or the Angel of the North) made from the raw materials of people’s home lives – beds, tables, dining chairs, toilet seats, desks, pianos and rubbish (all the limiting baggage of the householder), transformed into energy.

The piece burnt in 32 minutes, sending showers of sparks over the crowd of spectators.

Joseph Beuys, Ausfegen (1972-85)

Mark Rosenthal makes an interesting comparison between Joyce’s Ulysses and the work of Joseph Beuys: “Each vitrine offers a dense spectacle that is evocative of Beuys’ personal world. In this regard, Beuys’ great interest in Joyce, in particular Ulysses, enriches our understanding of his art, especially his vitrines. Ulysses teems with interlocking leitmotifs and a great range of references, but explanations are never provided. Whatever his symbolic intent, the characters and objects are given tremendous physical presence and visceral energy” (2004: 57). Many of Beuys’ works deal with waste or rubbish or detritus, Ausfagen lends a particularly convenient example.

Two elements in this work interest me here, they aren’t much for now but they might provide the basis for future research. The first element concerns the time of the work or, more specifically, its creation and reproduction of time. An event is marked by this waste, through the preservation of residues and leftovers. Beuys sweeps together objects, he inaugurates an artefact composed from assembled artefacts. But this waste creates another event, another event that is marked by waste, the event of display. Producing a waste-time, making and marking a convolved mixture of times.

The second thing that interests me about this work (really a continuation of the first) is the relationship between object and process, sculpture and change, the Action and the thing or things that it produces. Moreover, what is the status of Beuys’ broom? Sweeper or swept, waste or want? We cannot come down on one side or the other since Beuys’ vitrine displays the frame, the process of creation and reception. Beuys once said, “sculpture is not fixed or finished” (2004: 25). It seems  crucial to me that this vitrine and the history of display, conservation, and collections that it implies, should be spoken of in these terms – of process, series and movement. In short, we ought to inscribe how temporality operates within our interpretations of the work.

Wither the blogos?

Ah, what a nice idea this was. I’d have a blog that no one would read, it would help me think about things and remind me that my thesis needs some form of public airing before I sit my viva. Inevitably, I’ve done nothing since January.

This is a little note to say, ‘must try harder’.

The end, for now.