Craig Garrett, “Thomas Hirschhorn: Philosophical Battery”. Flash Art no. 238, 2004: pg. 90-93
Written by Craig Garrett, the managing editor of Flash Art Magazine and art critic.
Thomas Hirschhorn is a Swiss artist known for his artworks that consist of constructing extremely saturated installations using common materials that he uses to offer a specific message, in and outside of galleries. He received the Marcel Duchamp prize in 2000/2001 and the Joseph Beuys prize in 2004.
Thomas Hirschhorn works within a territory where philosophy informs his artistic practice, his work is based on the notion that philosophy is art and that his work is the affirmation of philosophy as art, and not as an educative device. “I share with Marcus Steinweg (philosopher) the idea that philosophy is art.”[1] Hirschhorn accumulates and appropriates a mass amount of material that he feels acts as affirmation of philosophy as art, effectively communicating his adoration of philosophy as art.
James Turrell’s practice relates to Hirschhorn’s incorporation of philosophy, Turrell’s work “Third Breath” 2005 draws an influence from philosophy and cultural understandings of light. Light is projected from the sky into a darkened room, the phenomena of the outside world becomes the subject of Turrell’s work, making the viewer aware of the connection between the sky and the earth, the way which light moves, the subject of Turrell’s work is the Philosophy of light. “Light as the radiant power of the mind and the fluid of illumination. Romanticism idealised light as a metaphor for the infinite and for visionary power”[2]
Hirschhorn states that he wants to work as a fan in order to speak through his work. I understand his perspective as a practicing artist that is a fan of philosophy with an ambition to communicate and share this through his work. However I don’t see the need to act as a fan to be able to initiate a conversation of philosophy between the work and the audience members. I think that Hirschhorn’s work successfully acts as a means of initiating a conversation between the audience members without necessarily communicate his stance as a fan, rather than an artist dealing with philosophic issues. The work doesn’t just act as a representation of the artist’s adoration for philosophy alone.
I was interested in your comments on Hirschhorn's take on acting as a fan and being able to initiate a conversation on philosophy with his audience. I feel that maybe Hirschhorn is trying to connect with that place 'beyond inconsiderate pretentiousness of narcisstic self fullfilment' where the joy of being a fan is simply a shared pleasure. If he steps away from this stance maybe then he does have to interact with the scholars and critics and address his work in an intellectual way - which he seems reluctant to do.
ReplyDeleteI found your comments interesting and valid to a point, especially your point of acting as a fan and I also agree that one does not have to act as a fan to initiate a conversation between philosophy and the work. However, I believe that Hirschhorn's work does not act as a shrine for which other fans may come and share their adoration, but rather he uses the prestige of these philosophers that he admires to draw the fans of their work towards his. By using the writings of such philosophers as Foucault, I begin to think of whether Hirschhorn is implying that by using these philosophers in his own work that his work may now carry the same prestige of these philosophers.
ReplyDeleteI understood Hirschhorn to mean that he is a fan, not just of philosophy or philosophers, though clearly he is, but rather that he is a fan in terms of an obsession with producing his work. Quite rightly, as you say, his work doesn't just act as a representation of this one issue. However, his fanaticism – for after all this is the true meaning of the word, is evident in the sheer size and volume of the miscellaneous collection of material which he employs, including the work of philosophers.
ReplyDelete