Le travail artistique ne se construit pas sur une question préalable mais sur l’émergence toujours renouvelée de questions imprévisibles.L’oeuvre d’art à l’époque de sa discrétion technique tire bien évidemment son titre du texte de Walter Benjamin L’oeuvre d’art à l’époque de sa reproductibilité technique. Dans son texte, Benjamin essaie d’envisager les conséquences esthétiques et politiques de la reproductibilité technique. Nous essayons (modestement) de reposer la même question à l’heure du numérique.Cette question n’était pas donnée d’emblée. Elle est apparue dans le tressage complexe de la pratique. Dans ce tressage de problématiques apportées par la pratique elle-même, deux temps sont aujourd’hui visibles :- le temps de la reproductibilité technique, du livre d’artiste et du don ;- le temps de la discrétion, du numérique et de la disponibilité.Ces questions sont apparues de proche en proche et jamais selon un plan préétabli. Le travail d’analyse, n’est donc pas la recherche d’une stratégie ou d’un plan préexistant mais le relevé a posteriori d’un territoire découvert par une marche dans un pays inconnu.Ce tressage continu de la pratique et de la théorie est présent dans l’écriture même de la thèse. S’y mêlent à égalité des oeuvres plastiques, des textes littéraires, des articles, des manifestes et des écrits théoriques. / Artistic work is not built on a previous question but always renewed by the emergence of unforeseen issues.The Work of Art in the Age of Technical Discretion obviously takes its title from the text of Walter Benjamin The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction. In his text, Benjamin tries to consider the aesthetic and political consequences of technical reproducibility. We try (modestly) to ask the same question in the digital age.This question was not immediately given. It appeared in the complex braiding practice. In this weaving problems introduced by the practice itself, two times are now visible:- Time of technical reproducibility, artist’s book and gift;- The time of discretion, digital and availability.These questions have arisen step by step and not according to a predetermined plan. The analytical work, therefore, is not looking for a pre-existing strategy or plan, but the survey retrospectively territory discovered by a walk in an unknown country.This continuous braiding of practice and theory is in the writing of the thesis too. Mingle with equal plastic works, literary texts, articles, manifestos and theoretical writings.

No description available.

No description available.

This practice-led research was initiated in response to a series of violent encounters that occurred between my fragile installations and viewers. The central focus of this study was to recuperate my installation practice in the wake of such events. This led to the development of a ‘responsive practice’ methodology, which reframed the installation process through an ethical lens developed from Emmanuel Levinas’ ethical phenomenology. The central propositions of this research are the reconceptualisation of ‘violent encounters’ in terms of difference whereby I accept viewers responses, even those which are violent, destructive or damaging, and secondly that the process operates as a generative excess for practice through which recuperative strategies can be found and implemented. By re-examining this process as it unfolded in the three phases of the practical component, I developed strategies whereby violated, destroyed or damaged works could be recuperated through the processes of reconfiguration, reparation and regeneration. Therefore my installations embody and articulate vulnerability but also demonstrate resilience and renewal.

No description available.

This study investigates effects on the ephemeral artwork and its ephemeral quality when documented and archived. To define the ephemeral artform a definition presented by Mary O’Neill in her thesis Ephemeral Art: Mourning and Loss (2007) is used, and two ephemeral artworks are studied: Zoe Leonard’s Strange Fruit (for David) (1992-1997) and Felix Gonzalez-Torres' ”Untitled” (Portrait of Ross in L.A.) (1991). Results from these case studies are compared to each other and to Peggy Phelan’s critical stance on the possibilities of documenting time-based and performative artforms in Unmarked: The Politics of Performance (1993). Results show that the ephemeral artwork becomes ephemeral through slow degradation and the experience this degradation generates in the observer; processes in time that cannot be documented. However, documentation can affect the observer’s experience of ”here and now,” which may alter the artwork’s communicative abilities and its effectiveness in creating a sense of presence within the passing of time. / I denna studie studeras påverkan på det efemära konstverket och dess efemära egenskap när det dokumenteras och arkiveras. För att definiera den efemära konstformen används en definition som presenteras av Mary O’Neill i avhandlingen Ephemeral Art: Mourning and Loss (2007), och två efemära konstverk studeras: Zoe Leonards Strange Fruit (for David) (1992–1997) och Felix Gonzalez-Torres ”Untitled” (Portrait of Ross in L.A.) (1991). Resultat från verkanalyser av dessa verk jämförs mot varandra samt mot Peggy Phelans uppfattning att performance-baserad konst inte kan dokumenteras i Unmarked: The Politics of Performance (1993). Resultat visar att det efemära konstverket blir efemärt genom sin långsamma nedbrytning och genom betraktarens upplevelse av denna nedbrytning – temporala processer som inte kan dokumenteras med exakthet. Dokumentering kan dock innebära att betraktarens upplevelse av ”här och nu” påverkas och således verkets förmåga att kommunicera effektivt om passerande tid och frambringa närvaro i nuet.

No description available.