°I like the materials he uses
°I like the placement of his work
°I like the way his work deals with and creates limitations °I dislike elements of simplicity in his work
°I like the titles he uses in association with the work
I like the materials he uses:
Martin Creed uses materials from the everyday world to create his art. He will often use office supplies such as clean white paper, blue tack, polystyrene and cardboard. What interests me about using such materials is that he places these common supplies, used in a common way in an elitist arena such as a gallery. He is using materials which are considered low art' materials and places them in a high art' environment. I enjoy the way he uses such commonly found and used objects in a common way to create his art. He does not use these materials to create some elaborate construction, but rather he uses them in the way they are meant to be used. What I mean by this is that he uses blue tack the way it was designed to be used; he doesn't alter its original purpose. I feel there is something ingenious in using materials in this way, as a lot of art I see or contemporary art I study is all about the way in which one can change the function of a particular material. I like the way Creed is in a sense questioning the philosophy of an art gallery, like in Work No. 95' (1995) which amplifies the hidden, behind-the-scenes sounds of activities in a gallery. By exposing the sounds of everyday object i.e. phone, fax, computer keyboard etc, Creed is taking away the majestic holiness of a gallery, rather than a gallery being a place of quiet contemplation, or place to marvel in true beauty' of an art work. Creed is exposing the business side of a gallery, business deals are made, money transferred, arguments are held, yes arguments, even in the place famous for a whispering hum. I think that he is confrontingly obvious, here is blue tack, and this is how it is used. He does not try and fog our minds with over dramatic metaphorical meanings of why blue tack is stuck to the wall, it just is. I'm not saying that Creed's work has no meaning, but I am saying that he uses these materials in such a common way that it questions both the use of the materials in the art world and the hierarchy that is commonly associated with the art world. By using these common materials in a gallery Creed begins to investigate the relationship between art, materials, a gallery and the audience. Who has the power? Who decides what the art is really representing/expressing? Why does a gallery authenticate a thing as an artwork'?
I like the placement of his work:
With this statement I am referring to both his gallery work and outside works. Creed often creates works consisting of neon words (Work No. 232: the whole world + the work = the whole world' ). What is interesting about these works is that they are not located in a gallery, but rather in public areas. Thus meaning that not only are the typical gallery folk is able to see these works, but so is the general public. People who would not see these works normally, are exposed to them. I believe that this different environment creates and different or new response to the work. People without the vast knowledge of many art dealers, collectors and creators are also able to judge what they see possibly in a more naive, pure manner, or possibly more restricted manner. By presenting his work in public areas Creed is dealing with the constraints of the gallery (a common theme in his work). I often feel that artists' work is labeled in the sense of money, who has enough money to enter the gallery, who has enough money to buy the work. But, by placing his work in the middle of a busy, public area, there is a removal of that monetary importance and a return to the importance of the idea of the work. No one had to pay to see this work; it is free for all. This gives me the impression that Creed's work relies more solidly on...