</fardo_de><1000x400><250/cm>

Some comments on the title of the work "Bundle of 1000 x 400 x 250 cm" composed of waste plastic and suspended from the front of a building at Isabel la Católica 5
by Santiago Sierra

The work of art discussed here is exactly what the title says it is: a bundle of waste plastic measuring 1000 x 400 x 250 cm, suspended from the front of a building, at Isabel La Católica 5.

To a certain extent, the formula used here in naming the work seems to share the descriptive criteria displayed on a technical label, as if we had substituted the traditional “Untitled” for what appears lower down on the information label for a work of art. There are not many differences. Usually the information provided for a three-dimensional work is the same as for any piece of art: date, dimensions, material and technique, and occasionally weight. For a work carried out specifically to be exhibited and then quite possibly disposed of once that exhibition is over, the date isn’t always specified, as it is obviously not necessary. The rest of the elements that commonly appear on a technical label, except the weight, appear in the title: dimensions: 1000 x 400 x 250 cm, material: waste plastic, and technique: object suspended on a façade. In order to be more specific about this particular work, the exact location is added: Isabel la Católica, 5, implying that the building itself is also part of the end result.

However, a technical label usually expresses values which are essentially different from those implied by the name of a work. Suppose we think of one work entitled Chair with Newspaper, and a second where we know what technique was used, namely a Chair with a Newspaper. We must assume that in the first work media is used to represent a chair with a newspaper, whereas in the second example a chair and a newspaper are used to produce a work of art. In this particular case the title and the technique coincide. However if this is not the case, where the two sentences are not identical, one as a title and one as a technique, then in order to describe the technique it is necessary to repeat the information about the bundle, being 1000 x etc. Therefore, and if we believe in the clarifying nature of the chosen title, we must consider that the work is nothing more than the presentation of its objectual circumstances.

The objective physical element seems to be a work of art, without any great addition. That leads you to question whether the author, who inevitably wrote these lines, is dismissing the possibility that his bundle of plastic could break the linguistic barrier and become something else. Taking into account that the building mentioned in the title is an art gallery, we can infer that, in this context, the bundle does undergo a metamorphosis, transforming it from linguistic limbo into clear meaning.

This concern that we have for the meaning, as it is written, has revealed that the title is in fact quite ineffective. Strictly speaking, the different elements that make up our bundle are not univocal units of meaning. The waste plastics, the way in which they are put together, their installation, etc., don’t have a specific meaning in the given context, rather they seem to fluctuate between being analogous or known expressions and representing their actual nature. In his early work, Christo packages objects in a way that reminds us of how goods were packaged about thirty years ago; although later that reference was lost in formalism and a lack of variety. If we produced this work in that way, to make ourselves understood we would have to use the current standard approach to packaging around the world. The end result would be very different because we would have to remove any possible reference to trade or goods or at least their official treatment.

However, this bundle of waste plastics is by and large an accumulation of material. It could be a reference to the collection of waste for re-use and recycling, with all the possible related social connotations, and as a comment on its environment. In that case, what is not clear is why the material has been installed in these circumstances, suspended on the front of a building.
The extreme nature of its location diverts attention away from the related socio-economic problems towards the gallery or the exhibition object, as well as increasing the audience. The audience then includes the specialized public that usually visits art galleries and the general public walking down Isabel la Católica. In the relationship between the gallery and the exhibition object, we can see how the architectural elements of the gallery are not used as a container or warehouse for works of art, but rather as something that physically supports the work.

Within the gallery, the only things you can see are the ropes tied to walls and doors which are holding up the bundle on the outside of the building. We can assume that the work operates by negating the space that was pre-established as the location for the plastic, creating a specific situation where the plastic interacts with the environment. But that proposal would only be effective if the bundle was somewhere else, or if the building at Isabel la Católica, 5 weren’t an art gallery. Such is life. The struggle remains, making the relationship between the gallery and the exhibition object inevitable, but uncomfortable.

The indicated expansion in the audience from a specialized to a more general public seems to be a rhetorical resource without any clear justification. The general public is not told that what is hanging from the front of the building is a work of art, and although there could be several intellectual explanations in most cases the public doesn’t have the capacity to determine its nature for itself. It is not therefore the case that more of the public see the work, or that unexpected people visit. Rather that those who are passing by and happen to notice the work of art will be part of a chain reaction to the piece, and they become involved in its evaluation in a similar way to people on a hidden camera show.

We have shown here that the aim of capturing precise semantic coordinates gets caught up in unrelated and contradictory considerations, and we have shown just a few of these. The elements that we judge to be more reliable and better evidence give way to peripheral elements which are sometimes far from the hierarchy proposed by the object. The title isn’t vague, exaggerated, and states only what is necessary. However, art’s social mechanism lies in its fringe, and without that, the deactivation of the meaning of the work would be absolute. A mechanism which is closed to any semantic clarification, focused on self-affirmation and ratified by each object which is installed. So, it is justified to wonder why a bundle of 1000 x etc. is being exhibited and not a chair with a newspaper, but that question has been answered here in the fact that you have patiently read these lines.

links:
Fardo de 1000 x 400 x 250