- Venue
- Lisson Gallery (London) Ltd
- Location
- London
Domestic objects are often appropriated by artists to create movement that is repetitive, endless or made for little more than amusement. Familiar technologies and found objects are being used to create artworks which, in various manifestations, fail or appear to fail for our viewing pleasure. This led me to question why it is that altering the function of a familiar object can become humorous. Why do we laugh when things appear to malfunction? These questions are poignantly addressed in the work of Ceal Floyer, a Minimalist-Conceptualist artist who uses domestic objects to present thoughtful reflections on the nature of human perception. Often described as possessing a quiet or subtle humour, I am intrigued as to what it is that makes Floyer’s work funny and to what effect she employs this technique.
Floyer’s work has a sharp wit that helps point out our own often literal approach to viewing and understanding artwork. In her piece ‘Door‘ (1995) a closed door in the gallery wall has a bright light emanating from beneath it. A projector two meters away appears to be switched on, and yet the connection between this and the mysterious light is not immediately obvious to us. We are looking for the logic in the situation and Floyer’s ability to play with this natural impulse stops us from quickly locating the projector as the source of the light. The artist’s joke is always prevalent, and although Floyer’s work is often described as humorous it is through carefully worded phrases such as ‘more than mere gags’ [Sherwin,20101] and ‘could almost be one-liners’ [Herbert, 20102].
These critics avoid insinuating that the joke is the work, instead correctly identifying that although humour is present it serves a specific purpose, allowing us to undertake a more critical appreciation. ‘Door‘ might point out our inability to deny logic and renege on our expectations, but it also highlights our ability to play detective and our lust for a complete knowledge. There is also a suggestion that we should be wary of the world around us, trusting less what we see and hear and relying more on our own analytical skills. The work is composed to create a ‘touché!’ moment for the viewer as we acknowledge how we have been partially deceived, or rather have deceived ourselves.
An important part of creating this self-effacing humour is the choice and use of materials. Objects that are usually practical such as drills and light bulbs are not note-worthy in their everyday surroundings, but when taken into Floyer’s hands they exert a new, disconcerting force. Taken out of their intended environment they can be given new personae; they are blank slates into which the artist can carve new meaning that will stand at odds to the mundane object. Floyer’s sculptural installations cause us to stop, take notice and try to work out where the ‘trick’ is, precisely because at first glance it is so unremarkable. The work succeeds because of its simplicity, there is no attempt to hide the workings of the illusion created and any misinterpretation comes from our own inability to decipher what we are seeing. In Floyer’s piece ‘Untitled’3, a radio in a bucket spins on a record player, apparently connected by numerous visible wires to a hanging light-bulb and speaker system. A repetitive sound of radio interference emanates from this sculptural interruption, but in what capacity this is being created is an enigma. There is electricity, movement and sound but all these components being openly displayed it confuses our sense of logic so that the origins of its power are ultimately indeterminable. This is frustrating, but causing this reaction in the viewer may be a part of Floyer’s intention. Floyer is exploring the object as sculpture, and in our superfluous efforts to understand it’s mechanics we are being shown ‘the dialectical tension between the literal and the mundane’. [Lisson Gallery, 2010] 4.
Such basic technological and electrical items as these share a common factor in their low-fi status. Often mass-produced, these things were never intended for another, more difficult or co-dependent purpose. In Floyer’s realisation of their extended potential is a sense of forbidden freedom. In a society where capitalism dictates that new technologies must keep being invented (or just reinvented) in order to sustain a never-ending stream of gadgetry, the notion of combining often dated technologies could be seen as rebellious. Examining Floyer’s intentions further, questions are raised as to the extent of today’s consumer society. If an OHP projection and a door can throw members of the public into logical turmoil then there seems little need for iPads and jet-powered cars. Perhaps there is an inherent danger in the heightened technological climate we have created for ourselves if we can be so easily deceived.
The position of the artist in Floyer’s work is key in not alienating the viewer. Floyer plays on the notion of the artist as a genius or conjurer, a creator of something unachievable for the rest of us. This could easily present the artist as disingenuous, but instead through her ‘baring all’ approach to materials we are shown an eagerness not to exclude herself from the suggestions being made about human perception. Normally embarrassed or fearful of revealing our failures, through Floyer’s work we are given the freedom to laugh at our expectations being subverted. In her sound piece ‘0-10‘ (2010), we hear a rocket launch countdown in reverse, each number pronounced with slightly less excitement than the last. As we realise the original purpose of the official-sounding voice, we find an enjoyment in the snubbed anticipation of ‘lift off”. The Museum of Contemporary Art, Miami where this piece was shown explain that ‘Many of her trigger points result from peripheral observations of everyday non-events’ [MOCA, 20105], clearly demonstrated in ‘0-10‘ as the focus falls upon an event that is always a precursor and never the ultimate intention. An uncelebrated yet essential task being given precedence strikes a chord with our own understanding and experience of the unappreciated.
Floyer’s work uses domestic objects to infiltrate our perception by appealing to our willingness to be deceived. The familiar appeal of commercial or household items is coupled with a humorous acknowledgement of the expectations we bring to the work. Failure, error and the absurd are played out in ways we can associate with, which in turn reveal to us the space these actions inhabit outside of the gallery context. Floyer avoids becoming mere prank-puller, instead using double-takes to draw us into initially engaging with the work. Our ambivalent relationship to low-fi materials and the humour they can initiate is key within my own practice, and Floyer demonstrates how this can be successfully utilised by playing on our preconceptions and innate fascination with the instruments of everyday life.
1 Skye Sherwin, The Guardian (27th November 2010) p.39.
2 Martin Herbert, Art Forum (January-February 2010) p.88.
3 ‘Untitled’ (2009), Ceal Floyer. Shown at Frieze Art Fair, London, 2010.
4 ‘Ceal Floyer‘ 2010 [Exhibition accompaniment]. Lisson Gallery, London.
5 MOCA (Museum of Contemporary Art), Miami. ‘Ceal Floyer: Auto Focus‘. [Available at: http://www.mocanomi.org/ceal-floyer/]
