TY - JOUR
AU - Mag Uidhir, Christy
AB - Most artworks—or at least most among those standardly subject to philosophical scrutiny—appear to be singular, stand alone works. However, some artworks (indeed, perhaps a good many) are, by contrast, best viewed in terms of some larger grouping or ordering of artworks, specifically as either the parts or the sums thereof. In what follows, I target works of this kind, which I call serial artworks. Understood in this broad sense, serial artworks can be found quite commonly throughout the artworld (both high and low) and in a variety of media across not just the Narrative Arts but also the traditionally nonnarrative Visual and Plastic Arts as well. To help illustrate this, consider the following examples of ostensibly serial artworks and the varied media in which they appear: Novel: John Updike's Rabbit series Poem: George Oppen's Discrete Series Comic: Hal Foster's Prince Valiant Film: Universal Pictures’ Flash Gordon Television: Tony Warren's Coronation Street Painting: Sean Scully's Catherine series Sculpture: Walter de Maria's Channel Series Drawing: Sol Lewitt's Drawing Series A+B Printmaking: The Small Landscapes published by Hieronymous Cock Photography: Danny Lyon's The Bikeriders Performance Art: Marina Abramovic's Seven Easy Pieces Conceptual Art: George Brecht's Water Yam. Despite the artworld prevalence of serial works, there has been little to no serious philosophical inquiry into the nature of serial art itself. What makes this absence all the more troubling is the fact that artworks being of the serial sort looks to be an art relevant feature and as such prima facie ought to figure (if not crucially so) for the philosophical and critical inquiry into such artworks (that is, description, classification, ontology, interpretation, appreciation, and evaluation). However, one cannot simply defer to art practice to settle such issues, as the standard sense of ‘series’ in use within the artworld looks far too broad and imprecise to be commensurate with the work minimally required of it. At the very least, an account of serial art must provide the means by which to make a principled distinction between series as: An art historically informative or art critically productive thematically, stylistically, or formally unified ordering or grouping of individual and distinct artworks within an artist's larger body of work (for example, Kiki Smith's Blue Print series, Dan Flavin's Monuments to V. Tatlin series, Jeff Koons's Made in Heaven series, Robert Rauschenberg's Tribute 21 series) An individual and distinct artwork that is itself so composed (for example, Walter de Maria's Statement Series, Krzysztof Kieslowski's Three Colors). To be sure, inquiry into (1) no doubt seems a philosophically substantive enterprise worth undertaking and perhaps may even be crucial to any full understanding of (2). However, for my purposes here, I take the principal (art theoretic) notion of series operative for serial art to be that in (2). Before I proceed any further, note that nothing in what follows requires understanding the terms ‘series’ or ‘sequence’ (along with their relevant cognate forms) in their precise, mathematical senses (that is, sequence as a linearly ordered collection of elements, series as the sum of the elements of a sequence). Moreover, I take their being so understood to be wholly inadequate to the task at hand in that not only are the ordering relations on standard examples of so called serial works of art structurally more varied than this would allow, but also in many cases there are multiple distinct ordering relations—not all of which are linear—on the components that are relevant to our understanding and appreciation of the works in question. That said, I think it nonetheless instructive to regard issues surrounding series in the art theoretic sense to roughly mirror those similar surrounding issues for series in its more precise mathematical sense, especially with respect to issues of ordering (for example, trivial vs. nontrivial, partial vs. complete, linear vs. nonlinear, intentional vs. nonintentional, incidental vs. constitutive, compositional vs. noncompositional). Finally, nothing in what follows should be taken to entail, suggest, or invite commitment to anything particularly controversial, whether philosophically, art historically, or art critically so. My aim in the brief space that follows is simply to sketch a minimal descriptive and classificatory framework for serial art within which informative distinctions may be made and further philosophical inquiry may productively take place. I. SERIAL ARTWORKS Presumably, what it is for an artwork to be a serial artwork is for an artwork to be composed of a sequence of things (objects, events, items, works). There is, of course, a trivial sense in which an artwork might be considered a serial artwork. For example, I suppose one could coherently consider The Count of Monte Cristo to be composed of the chronologically ordered sequence of the eighteen parts in which it was originally published (or alternatively, the numerically ascending sequence of its later numbered chapters). Of course, doing so fails to add anything of substance to the analysis of The Count of Monte Cristo, as its being so composed would fail to be constitutive of the work qua art (if not also qua novel). Likewise, one can coherently take the film Fitzcarraldo and the poem “The Lover's Complaint” to be composed of the narratively ordered sequence of scenes and stanzas, respectively (even taking those to be respectively composed of sequences of photographs and sentences). However, that fact alone licenses nothing of philosophical, aesthetic, or artistic import about either artwork in that from the fact that either can be trivially so composed, it does not thereby follow that either must be so composed, that is, that their being so composed must be constitutive of the way in which they are artworks (if not also the way in which they are films and poems, respectively). Any minimally adequate notion of serial art must distinguish between the above trivial ways in which artworks might be composed as such and the philosophically substantive sense relevant for artwork analysis. To do this, I define Serial Art as follows: W is a serial artwork if and only if: W is itself an artwork. W is wholly (nontrivially) composed of some (nontrivial) sequence {w1, w2, … wn}. Properly attending to (engaging with) W qua artwork—that is, access to any and all of the constitutive art relevant features for that W—requires properly attending to each element in that sequence (in the order/arrangement prescribed by that W).1 An immediate advantage of the above account is that it provides us with a principled way to distinguish between those artworks to which some series or sequence is at best only trivially or incidentally related and those artworks with constitutive (nontrivial) serial compositions. Serial artworks prescribe reception of, attention to, or engagement with elements in sequence precisely because their being wholly and nontrivially composed of such sequences is itself constitutive of the way in which they are artworks. As such, even though some artworks may no doubt support or even prescribe some sort of “serialized” reception, attention, or engagement, unless their doing so follows from their nontrivial serial composition, they cannot be serial artworks. For example, consider Dickens's Bleak House and its initial publication format of twenty monthly “shilling installments.” Determining whether or not Bleak House constitutes a serial artwork presumably involves something more than merely pointing to its initial serialized publication format; more precisely, it requires certain further and far more substantive determinations be made, such as (i) to what extent, if any, serialization figures in the artwork's production or prescription of its reception conditions, (ii) how, if at all, serialization connects to the artwork's narrative structure or audience appreciation thereof, and (iii) whether each element within that series is itself an individual and distinct work (art or otherwise).2 So, although Bleak House being initially published in serial form may itself warrant making further determinations of the aforementioned sort, absent such further determinations, its initial serialized publication format should itself no more be counted as constitutive of Bleak House either qua artwork or qua novel than Richard Attenborough's Gandhi (1982) initially being screened with an intermission should itself be counted as constitutive of Gandhi either qua artwork or qua film. Furthermore, even supposing such further determinations to show Bleak House to constitute a (genuine and nontrivial) serial artwork, it nevertheless does not follow merely from the fact of its initial serialized publication format that Bleak House (either qua artwork or qua novel) must be properly understood, engaged with, or attended to as such—no more than merely from the fact that its initial screenings featured intermissions does it likewise follow that properly understanding, engaging with, or attending to Gandhi (either qua artwork or qua film) requires even knowing as much (let alone having to pause midway through the screening to use the restroom and purchase concessions). II. HOMOGENOUSLY SERIAL ARTWORKS Another informative distinction to be had I take to concern the relation not so much between serial artworks and those elements in the sequence composing them but rather the sorts of things they are, specifically the forms or media in which they appear. That is, the kind of serial artwork of interest here is a series of works of some such form or works in some such medium that is itself a work of that very form or in that very medium (e.g., a series of comics, novels, poems, films, or sculptures that is itself a comic, novel, poem, film, or sculpture). Call this Homogenously Serial Art. W is a homogenously serial artwork iff W is a serial artwork composed of {p1, p2, … pn}  and there is some artform/medium F such that: W is itself a work of/in that F. For each pm ∈ {p1, p2, … pn}, pm is also a work of/in that F.3 This obviously captures distinctions between serial artworks that are and serial artworks that are not works of the same form or within the same medium as the elements in the sequences composing them. Of course, this by no means exhausts the category of serial art. In fact, those thinking otherwise would quickly find themselves incapable of making crucial art relevant distinctions between those artworks (nontrivially) composed of some (nontrivial) sequence of things (objects, events, items, and so on) and those (nontrivially) composed of some sequence of artworks. I call serial art of this latter sort Strictly Serial Art. III. STRICTLY SERIAL ARTWORKS Consider the literary debate as to whether we ought to construe T. S. Eliot's The Waste Land as a collection of five poems or as a single poem in five sections. This is not just a debate about The Waste Land's fundamental (and so nontrivial) composition qua poem (and thereby qua artwork) but also about the status of its parts also qua poem and thereby qua artwork. That is, should we determine The Waste Land to be a sequential (poem) artwork, we must also determine the nature of the elements in the sequence composing it, both qua poem and qua artwork, for example, the dependence relation, if any, to which they might stand to the sequential artwork that is The Waste Land and the extent to which, if any, each may constitute an individual and distinct (poem) artwork. To this end, I propose the following: W is a strictly serial artwork iff W is a serial artwork composed of nontrivial sequence {p1, p2, … pn}  and: For each pm ∈ {p1, p2, … pn}, pm is an artwork. There is some art relevant feature Φ (for example, some intentional relation, aesthetic property, artworld function, semantic content, narrative uptake, and so on) such that W has Φ but no pm ∈ {p1, p2,… pn}   has that Φ (for example, stands in that particular intentional relation, instances that particular aesthetic property, serves that particular artworld function, conveys that particular semantic content, facilitates that particular narrative uptake, … in that particular way).4 Of course, I assume here not just that any member of that series may itself have some other art relevant feature(s) that may or may not be also had by W but also that the art relevant properties of W depend on {p1, p2,… pn}  but not vice versa (in the case when individual pm are artworks). Consider Marina Abramovic's Seven Easy Pieces: a sequence of performances in which over seven consecutive nights, Abramovic re created performance works of five other artists—Bruce Nauman's Body Pressure (1974), Vito Acconi's Seedbed (1972), VALIE EXPORT's Action Pants: Genital Panic (1969), Gina Pane's The Conditioning (1973), Joseph Beuys's How to Explain a Picture to a Dead Hare (1965)—as well as two of her own works—Lips of Thomas (1975) and Entering the Other Side (2005). Presumably, each of Abramovic's performance re creations was an individual and distinct artwork. So, too, presumably, for Seven Easy Pieces itself. That is, one might plausibly take Seven Easy Pieces to name an individual and distinct serial artwork wholly composed of the nontrivially ordered sequence of those Abramovic re created (RA) performances: {RA Body Pressure, RA Seedbed, RA Action Pants, RA The Conditioning, RA How to Explain …, RA Lips of Thomas, RA Entering the Other Side}. From this then it presumably follows that the particular way in which Seven Easy Pieces is an artwork is distinct from that which makes any of the elements in its sequence artworks. Moreover, it follows then that at least when construed as a work of performance art, Seven Easy Pieces is both strictly serial and homogenously serial.5 IV. LOOSELY SERIAL ARTWORKS So far I have more or less assumed there to be nontrivial issues of ordering that are aesthetically or artistically relevant for works of serial art broadly construed. However, I think there is an informal and perhaps artworld entrenched usage of ‘serial art’ that picks out artworks for which there is no nontrivial ordering of elements in the sequence composing them. For example, consider Walter de Maria's Statement Series (2011) as a strictly serial artwork composed of three paintings (which are also themselves artworks): Yes. PEACE. Yes (2011), No. WAR. No. (2011), and The Color Men Choose when They Attack the Earth (1968). Presumably, properly attending to de Maria's Statement Series requires properly attending to each of the paintings within the series but presumably does not prescribe attending to any particular ordering of the paintings therein. That is, although proper reception of Statement Series looks to require that the constitutive works within the series be displayed in some close lateral proximity to one another, it appears as if the order in which those works are so displayed is not itself constitutive of Statement Series qua artwork. As such, Statement Series frustratingly seems to be a strictly serial artwork composed of a sequence of individual and distinct paintings that nevertheless fails to identify one particular painting as first, last, or otherwise order theoretically distinguished. That is, limited to the framework established thus far, Statement Series looks to be a strictly serial artwork for which there is no ordering other than the trivial symmetric relation of co exhibition. To rectify this, I propose the following: W is a loosely serial artwork iff: W is an artwork. W is composed (in a nontrivial way) of a (trivial) sequence or a (nontrivial yet nonordered) set {p1, p2, … pn}. There is some art relevant feature Φ such that W has Φ but no pm ∈ {p1, p2,… pn} has that Φ. Properly attending to (engaging with) W qua artwork requires properly attending to each element in that sequence or member of that set (in the nonordered manner prescribed by W). Notice that the above allows for there to be artworks that are both loosely serial as well as homogenously serial. For instance, one might plausibly construe de Maria's Channel Series: Circle, Square, Triangle (1972) as an individual and distinct sculpture composed of a set (or otherwise trivial sequence) of three sculptures—Channel Series: Square (1972), Channel Series: Circle (1972), Channel Series: Triangle (1972)—that are also themselves individual and distinct artworks. The sculpture [Channel Series: Circle, Square, Triangle] is exactly what it says it is: a series of three brushed stainless steel geometric shapes, each with a channel in which a silver ball sits.6 So construed, Channel Series would thereby constitute an artwork not just loosely serial but homogenously so. V. CONCLUSION There are no doubt several pressing issues that not only have I not the space to address but also are ultimately well beyond the purview of my project, the aim of which has been to provide the minimal framework for further philosophical inquiry into the nature of serial art. That said, I conclude by employing this framework to ask a few of the questions further inquiry into serial art should strive to answer. Assuming there is such a thing as a strictly serial artwork over and above the individual and distinct artworks comprising it, what (ontic) kind of thing must it be? A standard set theoretic object? A nonstandard sort of (impure) abstractum? A spatially dislocated concretum composed of all and only those individual and distinct artworks that stand in certain relevant intentional, behavioral, epistemic, attitudinal, conventional, or relations to that artwork, its artist, or the surrounding artworld institutions, conventions, and practices? Perhaps the mereological sum thereof? Which, if any, of the art forms or art media might be more conducive to admitting homogenously serial artworks? Which, if any, might frustrate or altogether preclude such admissions? How might homogenously serial art fare within the Literary/Narrative Arts as compared to the Visual/Plastic Arts? Could a strictly serial artwork—homogenously so or otherwise—be such that being in that series entails being an artwork of a certain form or medium—that is, being an element in the sequence composing that strictly serial artwork is ipso facto to satisfy the conditions for being an artwork of that form? Can there in fact be an artwork that is both strictly and homogenously serial? Note that this question is not trivial. If W and any pm ∈ {p1, p2, … pn}  are works of the same art form, then to what extent, if any, might this suggest that any art relevant feature of W must also be an art relevant feature of some particular pm ∈ {p1, p2, … pn}?7 1. Note that this is consistent with such prescriptions being made either explicitly so by artist declaration or implicitly/tacitly so by artworld convention. 2. Such issues are explored within the two other symposium contributions in this volume: Roy T. Cook's “Canonicity and Normativity in Massive, Serialized, Collaborative Fiction” and Henry John Pratt's “Why Serials Are Killer.” Given that both principally if not exclusively focus on serial narratives, I have made a point to have the examples of serial artworks employed throughout my work here to be in the main nonnarrative works in the Visual/Plastic Arts. 3. This may be more strongly stated as: W being a work of that F entails that for any pm ∈ {p1, p2, … pn}, pm must also be a work of F. 4. Or alternatively that no pm ∈ {p1, p2, … pn} has that Φ in the manner had by that W. For more on the role of manner in art, see Christy Mag Uidhir, “Failed Art & Failed Art Theory,” Australasian Journal of Philosophy 88 (2010): 381–400; Christy Mag Uidhir, “Why Pornography Can't Be Art,” Philosophy and Literature 33 (2009): 193–203; and Christy Mag Uidhir, Art & Art Attempts (Oxford University Press, 2013). 5. Another example of an artwork both strictly and homogenously serial would be Krzysztof Kieslowski's film The Decalogue (1989), which I take to be a case of a nontrivially ordered sequence of ten one hour films—that are themselves artworks—composing a strictly serial artwork that is itself also a film. 6. Joseph Campana, “Perfect Decay,” Culture Map, http://houston.culturemap.com/newsdetail/10 09 11 15 22 walter de maria/. 7. I owe a huge debt of gratitude to Roy T. Cook, with whom I collaborated on earlier versions of this article (as well as the symposium project itself), as well as to Henry Pratt for his helpful comments and suggestions. That said, any mistakes herein surely must be mine and mine alone. © The American Society for Aesthetics This article is published and distributed under the terms of the Oxford University Press, Standard Journals Publication Model (https://academic.oup.com/journals/pages/open_access/funder_policies/chorus/standard_publication_model) © The American Society for Aesthetics
TI - How to Frame Serial Art
JF - The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism
DO - 10.1111/jaac.12019
DA - 2013-08-06
UR - https://www.deepdyve.com/lp/oxford-university-press/how-to-frame-serial-art-lP01Z1Fvkw
SP - 261
EP - 265
VL - 71
IS - 3
DP - DeepDyve
ER -