By Michelle Harris
The concept of writing a blog this week directed me to
consider Foucault’s ’ What is an Author?’. The requirement of blogging directs
the writer to produce. Production changes the operandi to a function. The
function is but an objective frame. Foucault analyses this evolution of losing
the subject in the process of creation as a type of death. He says, “Writing
has become linked to sacrifice, even to the sacrifice of life. It is now a
voluntary effacement which does not need to be represented in books, since it
is brought about in the writer’s very existence.’ This critique of individual
existence is founded on Foucault’s consensus with Nietzsche that God and man
have a common death. This death is a metaphor in ‘What is an Author’ for the
abolishment of individuality.
This manifestation of individuality in design has been seen
in the super star architect. However, when considering the architectonic and
internal analysis the role of the subjects experiencing the space outweighs the
significance of the author. Foucault’s point on authorship is essentially what
difference does it make who is speaking? Embracing this viewpoint in total,
would lead to blatant plagiarism. In design, this objectivity manifests in
Motel 6’s. In a blog it might be a copy/paste from a less circulated source.
The objective is achieved and the sacrifice minimal in the writer’s existence.
I must conclude that authorship is produced by evolution. Evolution from a previous
perspective results in a unique perspective. For example, Quigley Hall Gallery
has a magnificently tiled rendition of Picasso’s “Guernica,” which was done in
1938. Referring to Picasso, he is famous for the quote ‘The bad artists imitate,
the great artists steal.’ The door of authorship swings back and forth with
originality and the question of where has this been used before? Leaving me
with the question of the evolution in authorship, ‘What is it to imitate and
what is it to steal?’ Is it just a matter of time?
In this generation another type of authorship has arisen in
art that is stolen. Banksy, is a European phenomenon who has transformed the
concept of individuality through evolution. He is anonymous as a person and yet
renowned for his graffiti and non-conformist viewpoints. I see his use of
existing settings as stealing the context for his art. Banksy, I see as someone
whose authorship is dead. He is a figure of a movement and absent as an
individual. Ironically, Banksy creates works for museums. Creating in the
mainstream to propagate the anarchist movement I would argue is to imitate
other artists. What is now the question is, ‘Who is really speaking?’. Banksy
or an idea of Banksy? Banksy, as an individual creates in a context that defies
the medium that caused him to reach this fame.
As a graduate architecture student my ambition is to become
a licensed architect. This thought of achieving a Master in Architecture, also
comes with recognition that architects are generally jacks of all, master of
none. My education thus far has been aimed at preparing me to imitate a
practicing architect. In a recent conversation I had with local craftsmen, the
hierarchy of design roles were discussed. The authorship of the architect was
brought into question. I concluded that our relationship to craftsmen is one of
a maestro. Architects direct a composition.
The intention from the get-go is one of an individual figure head. Yet
the role of an architect is one of subjectivity to create places where there is
room for the subjects. Ultimately, there should be space for all individuals in
creation to function so that the mode of existence is not a means of production
but experience.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment