Introduction

It seems that vision has come to be the central accepted mode of enquiry when it comes to 'reading' artworks. We have come to rely on vision as the only possible source of interpretation when we are positioned as an audience. Seeing is connected with receiving and it is this relationship that I want to alter. In my view, 'Works of Art', especially painting, are firmly located in this seeing/receiving tradition, however, if I want to re-build this relationship so that it functions two equal ways then this habitual submissive relationship needs to be addressed. 'Many forms of modernist theory separate the subject from the object: the artist or viewer is said to perceive a discrete and separate artwork (whether that is a painting, sculpture, print etc), which she or he then seeks to interpret[1].'

Subject and object are separate through hierarchies where there is an emphasis on emotion and a warped sense of worship. The viewer seeks a way into the work where they can then associate with it. Through my work I intend to unite art and lived experience, drawing attention to the present situation that is rooted in tradition where an artwork is still seen as two-dimensional, as separate from reality, thus promoting questioning and therefore an active response that questions this isolation. Vision should not be accepted without an enquiry that stems from the senses, the body, and cannot be relied on as the only proposition of a truthful insight.

For this to take effect we must untie ourselves from the hostile holds of tradition that we have become accustomed to, separating the subject and the object. Speaking from a modernist[2] point of view, the gifted painter is one entity that has created a high-valued piece of work[3], which is highly distinguished from his common (however elite) audience. The artist, then, is allegedly perceived to have an immeasurable amount of talent that could only have been given by God. This talent is not something that can be taught and it is this constricted view that continues to penetrate the whole of the art world[4].

Subject and object could possibly be considered as two opposite ends of the scale, such as black and white. This distinction between blackness and whiteness stems from a dualistic mode of thinking that the western world has thrived on since Plato[5]. This 'viewing', derived from the western Cartesian philosophical tradition, disconnects the subject and object where there is 'a complete detachment of the thinking self from the body and its senses[6].' A passive relationship is promoted between subject and object where painting, especially, is concerned; it is not seen in a physical light that exists in space and time but is understood solely as a static surface. 'In our culture, the predominance of the look over smell, taste, touch, hearing, has brought about an impoverishment of bodily relations...The moment the look dominated, the body loses its materiality[7].' How, then, can vision, which has been relied upon in the interpretation of artworks, be replaced with something that is more human?

When we look at a painting we tend to be drawn, by a matter of routine/tradition, to its surface. This surface exists in two-dimensions with the plaque on the wall stating them. Artwork is in fact physical, as are we, and it is this understanding that I believe should be re-enforced in order to develop a new relationship that is not enveloped in a false illusion, serving to our expectations. So, to immerse ourselves into a true, body-centred reality we need to re-experience in the present, in the here and now, not to fix ourselves in the established, and often inviting, past. I am proposing vision, and subsequently our perception of reality, as false. By this I mean something that has been separated and is detached from our bodies, which does not come about physically on a tactile, curious level but purely visually and pre-conceived. This visual relationship that we have is one of passivity, of acceptance, not immediate experience.

The in-between stage, this greyness, is the state that I am interested in and the one that has the potential to activate an audience. To acquire this new understanding about art, and just as importantly, about life, and to project it on to future encounters I propose that we put aside association and treat our encounters as individual wonders that welcome curiosity, not restricted presumptions. Our former experience builds up a knowledge that is stored and projected onto future situations. 'Kant argued that we can never experience pure sensation, sensation must always be combined with understanding[8].' This epistemology deprives us from experiencing encounters as new; instead, the present is made up from stale expectation derived from the past. Regarding this, Merleau-Ponty states that 'knowledge thus appears as a system of substitution', concluding that 'understanding is a fraud or an illusion[9].'

We must constantly question and re-question without being tricked by the solidity of vision that I feel we have mistakenly come to comprehend. By putting to use all of our senses we can find a new reliable source of understanding. I intend to claim that this new freedom is capable of providing a fresh, unfettered way of dealing with the world that reminds us that we must take nothing for granted. I do not however, propose these findings to result in one 'true' outcome, as might be expected in a detached, scientific way, instead suggesting that something indeterminate is reached that can be related back to the human[10]. This indeterminacy may be considered a sort of fuzzy logic where the focus is on this area of greyness[11]. There is no 'yes' or 'no', or black or white but a 'yes' and a 'no'; a state in between that lends itself to freedom of thought. 'The first philosophical act would be to reach the living world which precedes the objective world, and to rediscover the phenomenon, to reawaken perception and to unmask the disguise by which it makes itself possible for itself to be forgotten as a fact and as a perception[12].'

Through my work I intend to 're-humanize' by promoting an active response through accentuating the physical, re-placing and re-evaluating the relationship held between subject and object. The passive subject-object relationship should be open to re-consideration with the objective to target somewhere in between the two isolated distinctions. If I want to get away from this falsehood, this illusion that painting has been associated with then it must mean that I want to be involved in revealing some sort of truth: its physicality; to strip bare, almost, the characteristics that have, and are, being misrepresented.