7.4.21 The cage, forbidden touch and forbidding scale
For more aspects of the cage see:
8.4.21 Research and development of the idea of the cage
7.4.21 Why a cage?
6.4.21 The grid in contemporary art
5.4.21 Rosalind Krauss, Grids, 1979
23.3.21 Framing and creative illusion
8.4.21 Research and development of the idea of the cage
7.4.21 Why a cage?
6.4.21 The grid in contemporary art
5.4.21 Rosalind Krauss, Grids, 1979
23.3.21 Framing and creative illusion
From my proposal for rebuilding the cage in The Street:
'There are clear etymological links as well between ‘textile’ and ‘tactile’ (Tuttle in Dercon, 2014, p145). Normally, touching art isn’t allowed but most people find it impossible not to touch my knitting. In pre-Covid times, I would actually normally invite people to touch or even to wear my work. Now, of course, with very real fears of contamination, one other, very practical, aspect of my proposal is that the cage will very effectively prevent anyone from touching my work. In addition to this, the absurdity of containing knitting, which is usually regarded as comforting and benign, inside such a cage will add meaning as well. What or who is the cage restraining or protecting? The viewer or the work?
For me, the scale of the cage is significant too. It’s monumental, much taller and larger than the viewer. I want it to be an overwhelming experience.
I envisage that I will be the only person allowed in the cage and that when I’m not there it will be secured with a padlock and chain.
Like Young, discussing the analytic frame, I feel that ‘If I listed all the factors making up’ my cage, ‘I would still miss out some things and not capture its essence’ (no date).
Dercon, C. (2014) ‘Weaving words.’ in Tuttle, R. (ed.) (2014) I don’t know. The weave of textile language. Exhibition held at Tate Modern 14 October 2014 - 6 April 2015 and Whitechapel Gallery, London 14 October – 14 December 2014 [Exhibition catalogue] p144-145
Young, R. (no date) The analytic frame, abstinence and acting out Available at: http://www.psychoanalysis-and-therapy.com/human_nature/papers/pap110h.html(Accessed: 23 March 2021)
'There are clear etymological links as well between ‘textile’ and ‘tactile’ (Tuttle in Dercon, 2014, p145). Normally, touching art isn’t allowed but most people find it impossible not to touch my knitting. In pre-Covid times, I would actually normally invite people to touch or even to wear my work. Now, of course, with very real fears of contamination, one other, very practical, aspect of my proposal is that the cage will very effectively prevent anyone from touching my work. In addition to this, the absurdity of containing knitting, which is usually regarded as comforting and benign, inside such a cage will add meaning as well. What or who is the cage restraining or protecting? The viewer or the work?
For me, the scale of the cage is significant too. It’s monumental, much taller and larger than the viewer. I want it to be an overwhelming experience.
I envisage that I will be the only person allowed in the cage and that when I’m not there it will be secured with a padlock and chain.
Like Young, discussing the analytic frame, I feel that ‘If I listed all the factors making up’ my cage, ‘I would still miss out some things and not capture its essence’ (no date).
Dercon, C. (2014) ‘Weaving words.’ in Tuttle, R. (ed.) (2014) I don’t know. The weave of textile language. Exhibition held at Tate Modern 14 October 2014 - 6 April 2015 and Whitechapel Gallery, London 14 October – 14 December 2014 [Exhibition catalogue] p144-145
Young, R. (no date) The analytic frame, abstinence and acting out Available at: http://www.psychoanalysis-and-therapy.com/human_nature/papers/pap110h.html(Accessed: 23 March 2021)