willing hosting finalsubmission edits · photo: elizabeth willing figure 4.18: willing, elizabeth....
Post on 04-Aug-2020
4 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
1
HOSTINGFood-basedartworksformedandalteredbyperformance
_
ElizabethWillingBachelorofFineArts(VisualArts)(Honours)
Submittedinfulfilmentoftherequirementsforthedegreeof MasterofFineArts(Research)
SchoolofCreativeArtsCreativeIndustriesFaculty
QueenslandUniversityofTechnology
2019
2
Keywords
Contemporary art, food, guest, hosting, hospitality, host, Jacques Derrida, Judith Still,
participation,performance,practice-ledresearch.
3
Abstract
Thispractice-ledresearchprojectexploresthedynamicsofhospitalityandfoodthroughthe
creationandconsiderationofsculpturalobjects,installationandperformance.
Actsofhospitalityarenotforeigntocontemporaryandmodernart,havingbeenexploredin
varying ways since Filippo Tommaso Marinetti’s seminal Manifesto of Futurist Cooking
(Marinetti,1930).However,mostexamplesoffoodincontemporaryarttendtoforeground
the relational, non-material outcomes of the hospitality process such as conviviality,
conversation,experience,ethicsandrelationship-building.Furthertothis, littleemphasisis
giventothecommunicativeabilitiesoffoodbeforeandaftertheeventofitsconsumption.
Examining food-based artworks through a material lens offers a responsive platform for
discussing the often-overlooked material preparations and residues of performance
practice.Throughaseriesofcreativeworksthatemphasisethedurational,materialaspects
of food, this project explores the dynamics that inform our relationship to food and its
consumptionmorebroadly.Throughstudio-basedactivities,informedandcontextualisedby
theworkofJanineAntoni,AnyaGallaccio,andHelenChadwickandthetheoreticalwritings
of Jacques Derrida and Judith Still, this project proposes a new interpretative lens that
combineshospitalityandperformanceartpractice:hosting.
Thequestionthisprojectconsidersis:Howdoes‘hosting’serveasatheoreticalandpractical
tool for reconsidering food-based artworks, formed and altered by performance? In
addressing this question, my project examines the various ways in which hosting can be
applied in, and understood through, my studio-based research. This approach involves
combining food,utensilsandrelatedcookingprocesses includingparticipatory interactions
withtheaudience.
It is my contention that ‘hosting’ allows a broader understanding of certain modes of
performanceart,whilealsogivingemphasis to the formalartefacts thataregeneratedby
theinteractionsbetweenbodyandobjectinfood-basedartworks.Whilethistermhasbeen
developed and understood through my own practice-led research, it is envisaged that
hostingalsohasthepotentialforbroaderapplicationasatheoreticalterm,chieflythrough
art,design,orperformancepractices.
4
TableofContents
Keywords..............................................................................................................................2
Abstract.................................................................................................................................3
ListofFigures........................................................................................................................5
StatementofOriginalAuthorship.........................................................................................8
Acknowledgements..............................................................................................................9
CHAPTER1:METHODOLOGY..............................................................................................13
CHAPTER2:HOSTING.........................................................................................................16
2.1DerridaonHospitality...................................................................................................16
2.2JudithStillonDerrida....................................................................................................17
2.3Hosting:DevelopingAnInterpretiveLens....................................................................18
2.4TheVirtualGuest..........................................................................................................19
2.5HostingandPower........................................................................................................20
CHAPTER3:CONTEXTUALREVIEW.....................................................................................23
3.1HostinginContemporaryArt........................................................................................23
3.2JanineAntoni’sGnaw...................................................................................................28
3.3AnyaGallaccio'sStroke.................................................................................................33
3.4HelenChadwick’sCarcass.............................................................................................38
CHAPTER4:CREATIVEPRACTICE........................................................................................42
4.1CreativePractice:Methods...........................................................................................42
4.2CreativePractice:Artworks..........................................................................................43
4.3Vessels:MilkTeethandWarmLight.............................................................................44
4.4Intoxication:Umber,Anxiolytic,Pacify.........................................................................49
4.5Impressions:LimnandKernel.......................................................................................56
CHAPTER5:CONCLUSION...................................................................................................63
References..........................................................................................................................65
5
ListofFigures
Figure3.1:Tiravanija,Rirkrit.1992.Untitled1992(Free)installationviewatDavidZwirnerGallery,
NewYork.Image.Accessed24thFebruary,2019.
http://www.artnet.com/magazineus/features/saltz/saltz5-15-07_detail.asp?picnum=7
Figure3.2:Spoerri,Daniel,1959-60.ProsePoems.Theremainsofamealstucktoboard.Accessed
24thFebruary,2019.https://www.tate.org.uk/art/artists/daniel-spoerri-1979
Figure3.3:Gonzales-Torres,Felix.1991.“Untitled”(PortraitofRossinL.A.).175lbcandies.Accessed
24thFebruary,2019.http://magazine.art21.org/2014/04/28/getting-beyond-good-and-bad/felix-
gonzalez-torres-untitled-portrait-of-ross-in-l-a-1991/
Figure3.4:Alhäuser,Sonja.2001.ExhibitionBasicsinstallationviewatBusch-ReisingerMuseum,
Cambridge.Image.Accessed24thFebruary,2019.http://artbanquete.blogspot.com/2008/02/eat-art-
joseph-beuys-dieter-roth-sonja.html
Figure3.5:Antoni,Janine.1992.Gnaw.600lbschocolatecubeand600lbslardcubegnawedbythe
artist,27heart-shapedpackagesofchocolatemadefromchewedchocolateremovedfromchocolate
cubeand130lipsticksmadewithpigment,beeswax,andchewedlardfromlardcube.Accessed24th
February,2019.http://www.janineantoni.net/gnaw
Figure3.6:Antoni,Janine.1992.Gnawdetail.600lbschocolatecubeand600lbslardcubegnawedby
theartist,27heart-shapedpackagesofchocolatemadefromchewedchocolateremovedfrom
chocolatecubeand130lipsticksmadewithpigment,beeswax,andchewedlardfromlardcube.
Accessed24thFebruary,2019.http://www.janineantoni.net/gnaw
Figure3.7:Antoni,Janine.1992.Gnawdetail.600lbschocolatecubeand600lbslardcubegnawedby
theartist,27heart-shapedpackagesofchocolatemadefromchewedchocolateremovedfrom
chocolatecubeand130lipsticksmadewithpigment,beeswax,andchewedlardfromlardcube.
Accessed24thFebruary,2019.http://www.janineantoni.net/gnaw
Figure3.8:Gallaccio,Anya.1993.Stroke.Chocolateandcardboard.Installationview.Accessed24th
February,2019.https://www.blumandpoe.com/exhibitions/anya-gallaccio-0
Figure3.9:Gallaccio,Anya.1993.Stroke.Chocolateandcardboard.Installationview.Accessed24th
February,2019.https://www.blumandpoe.com/exhibitions/anya-gallaccio-0
6
Figure3.10:Chadwick,Helen.1986.Carcass.Installationview.Accessed24thFebruary,2019.
https://theartstack.com/artist/helen-chadwick/carcass
Figure4.1:Willing,Elizabeth.MilkTeeth.Nesquikandmilkonwindow.110x30cm.2017.Installedat
TolarnoGalleries,Melbourne.Photo:AndrewCurtis
Figure4.2.Willing,Elizabeth.DocumentationfromtheconstructionofMilkTeeth.Nesquikandmilk
onwindow.110x30cm.2017.InstalledatTolarnoGalleries,Melbourne.Photo:ElizabethWilling
Figure4.3:Willing,Elizabeth.MilkTeeth.Nesquikandmilkonwindow.110x30cm.2017.Installedat
TolarnoGalleries,Melbourne.Photo:AndrewCurtis
Figure4.4:Willing,Elizabeth.WarmLightinstallationimage.Glassandlocalliqueur.2018.Installedat
NewEnglandRegionalArtMuseum,Armidale,NewSouthWales.Photo:ChrisHowlett
Figure4.5:Willing,Elizabeth.WarmLightdetail.Glassandlocalliqueur.2018.InstalledatNew
EnglandRegionalArtMuseum,Armidale,NewSouthWales.Photo:ChrisHowlett
Figure4.6:Willing,Elizabeth.WarmLightdetail.Glassandlocalliqueur.2018.InstalledatNew
EnglandRegionalArtMuseum,Armidale,NewSouthWales.Photo:ChrisHowlett
Figure4.7:Willing,Elizabeth.Umber#1and#2.RecycledAustralianhardwoodscarved.
105x105x37cm.2018.InstalledattheMelbourneArtFairforTolarnoGalleries,Southbank,
Melbourne.Photo:AndrewCurtis
Figure4.8:Willing,Elizabeth.Umber#2.RecycledAustralianhardwoodscarved.105x105x37cm.
2018.InstalledattheMelbourneArtFairforTolarnoGalleries,Southbank,Melbourne.Photo:
AndrewCurtis
Figure4.9:Willing,Elizabeth.Anxiolytic.Cocktailservicewithvaleriantincture,customglasswareand
numbinglipbalm.CollaborationwithCennonHanson.2018.Photo:MichaelaDutková
Figure4.10:Willing,Elizabeth.Anxiolytic.Cocktailservicewithvaleriantincture,customglassware
andnumbinglipbalm.CollaborationwithCennonHanson.2018.Photo:MichaelaDutková
Figure4.11:Willing,Elizabeth.Pacify.Etchedglasscup.9x9x9cm.2018.Photo:ElizabethWilling
Figure4.12:Willing,Elizabeth.Pacify.Etchedglasscup.9x9x9cm.2018.Photo:ElizabethWilling
Figure4.13:Willing,Elizabeth.Anxiolytic.Cocktailservicewithvaleriantincture,customglassware
andnumbinglipbalm.CollaborationwithCennonHanson.2018.Photo:MichaelaDutková
7
Figure4.14:Willing,Elizabeth.Kernelexhibitiondocumentation.2018.FrankMoranGalleryZ11,
CreativeindustriesPrecinct,QUTKelvinGrove.Photo:ElizabethWilling
Figure4.15:Willing,Elizabeth.Limn.Highdefinitionvideo.16.05minutes.2018.Videostill,QUT
KelvinGrove.
Figure4.16.Willing,Elizabeth.Limn.Highdefinitionvideo.16.05minutes.2018.Installation
documentation,FrankMoranGalleryZ11,CreativeindustriesPrecinct,QUTKelvinGrove.Photo:
ElizabethWilling
Figure4.17:Willing,Elizabeth.Kernel.Fortoncastofbuttersculpture.40x40x35cm.2019.Photo:
ElizabethWilling
Figure4.18:Willing,Elizabeth.Kerneldetail.Fortoncastofbuttersculpture.40x40x35cm.2019.
Photo:ElizabethWilling
8
StatementofOriginalAuthorship
Theworkcontainedinthisthesishasnotbeenpreviouslysubmittedforanawardatthisor
anyotherhighereducation institution.Tothebestofmyknowledgeandbelief, thisthesis
containsnomaterialpreviouslypublishedorwrittenbyanotherpersonexceptwheredue
referenceismade.
Signature:
Date:
22/07/2019
QUT Verified Signature
9
Acknowledgements
Iwould like togiveamostenthusiastic thank-you tomyprimarysupervisorCharlesRobb,
whose positive attitude and perceptive feedback has kept me on track. It has been a
pleasure to further my creative practice with his guidance both in undergraduate and
postgraduatestudy.
TomysecondarysupervisorsRachaelHaynesandShannonSatherley,thankyouforstepping
inregularlywithyouracuteadviceandvastexperience.
ThankyoutoJanMinchin,LaurenZoricandTinaDouglasfromTolarnoGallerieswhohosted
twoexhibitionsrelatedtothisproject.ThankyoualsotoRachaelParsonsfromNewEngland
RegionalArtMuseumwhohostedmeforaresidencyandexhibitionrelatedtothisproject.
Finally, thankyou toChrisHowlett,whoaccompaniedmepatiently through thegoodand
baddaysofmyMFA,butwhohasalsohelpedmetodevelopmyideas,write,make,install,
andde-installforthepasttwoyears.
10
INTRODUCTION
This practice-led research project analyses the complex inter-subjective relationships that
occurbetweenartist,viewer,andartworkwhenperforminghospitality.Theterm‘hosting’is
the interpretive tool that I have used to consider the dynamics of host and guest
relationships within hospitality. In this research project, ‘hosting’ is the process of
constructionfornewsculpturalobjects,installationandperformanceworks.
Actsofhospitalityhavebeenvisible throughoutmodernandcontemporaryart,notably in
FilippoTommasoMarinetti’sseminalManifestoofFuturistCooking(Marinetti,1930).More
recently, artists Rirkrit Tiravanija and Jennifer Rubell have adopted the gallery as site to
servemealstoguests;FelixGonzales-TorresandSonjaAlhäuserhaveleftedibleinstallations
in the gallery for guests to eat; and artistsMichael Rakowitz andAllen Ruppersberg have
produced off-site artworks framed as restaurants, serving guests edible and inedible
ethically-chargedmeals.Iwouldarguethatbyenactinghospitalityasatypeofperformance,
theseartistshavereorientedtheconventionalrolesthatsurroundtheworkofart,reframing
theartistandviewerashostandguest.
Throughout my research I have encountered countless ways in which the notion of
hospitality can be explored through creative practice, these range from the personal,
political,cultural,andhistorical.Theseinterpretationsofhospitalityimportantlyanalyseand
critique attitudes towards immigration, refugees, colonisation, religion, race and gender
politics, all of which are enduring conversations in contemporary Australia where this
researchhasbeendeveloped.Forthepurposesofthisproject,myresearchscopewillonly
focusonthepersonaland intimatenotionsofhospitality.This isduetothecontentofmy
workwhichisprimarilysubjective,butalsoinapracticalsensethescaleoftheMastersdoes
notallowforthismoreexpansivescope.
Thisprojectconsidersthequestion:Howdoes‘hosting’serveasatheoreticalandpractical
toolforreconsideringfood-basedartworksthatareformedandalteredbyperformance?The
researchquestionhasbeenaddressedthroughpractice-led,studio-basedresearch.Chapter
1 outlines the research methodologies applicable to this project. Under the umbrella of
practice-ledresearch Ihaveutilisedauto-ethnography,reflection-in-action, informedbyan
11
attitudeofmaterialproductivity(Bolt,2007,pp.27–34).Thisresearchisgroundedinstudio-
basedmethods.
Theartworksdrivingthisresearchtaketheformofinstallation,sculpture,performance,and
video, and consistently utilise food-basedmaterials as their starting point. Over the past
decademypractice has exclusively used food as subject andmedium, through amaterial
palette that includes such diverse ingredients as shortbread, chocolate, beeswax, liquor,
fruitcake,sedatives,marshmallow,butter,andprocessedcheeseslices.Actionsofcooking,
serving,andeatingareadoptedinthestudioinordertoconstructtheseworks,includingthe
actofredesigningkitchentoolsandutensils.
Within my practice, food has been a significant element that highlights the dynamic
between viewer, art object, and artist. Food has allowed for a particular type of
participation; taste, smell, and consumption. Over the past five years, I have frequently
adopted acts of hospitality as a branch of my performance practice, often directly
implicatingtheaudienceasguests.Theresulthasbeenaspectrumofperformativeworks:
participatory installations, ephemeral edible sculptures, artworks generated by the act of
consumption, and multi-course dining degustations in which each course presents new
materialorexperientialelements.
AsIhavefurtherexploredthesebranchesofhospitalityinmypractice,Ihaveendeavoured
tofindavisualartscontextthatthoroughlyanalysesthiswayofworking.Morespecifically,
what I have found lacking in both theoretical and curatorial platforms is a deeper
considerationoftheartobjectasmediatorandoutcomeofperforminghospitality.Accounts
ofhospitality in visual artpractice tend to focusmoreon theperformativeaspectsof the
workratherthanitspreparation,materialexpressionortraces.Thisprojectseekstoredress
thistendencybyfocussingonthematerialoutcomesoffood-basedperformanceworks.
Therefore, during this research project I have developed the term ‘hosting’ as an
interpretive lens through which to consider food-related acts of hospitality that are
empathetictothecreationofanobjectthroughperformance.Asaterm,‘hosting’isrelated
to the performance of hospitality in that it emphasises the complex inter-subjective and
inter-objectiverelationsthatoccurinperformativefood-basedworks.
12
The interpretive lens of ‘hosting’ is discussed in Chapter 2, drawing from theories of
hospitality including Jacques Derrida’s key texts Hostipitality (Derrida, 2000), and Of
Hospitality (Derrida & Dufourmantelle, 2000). Judith Still’s analysis of Derrida’s work
providesanimportantframeworkinordertoconsidertheroleofgenderwithinhospitality.
While Iunderstandthatthesetheorieshaveastrongfoundation incultural,historical,and
politicalinterpretationsofhospitality,thescopeofthisresearchismoreacutelyfocussedon
thepersonalandintimatedynamicsofhostandguestrelationships.‘Hosting’describeshost
andguest relationshipsasamodeofperformanceactedby theartist,viewerandartwork
bodies.Thischapteroutlines theshifting rolesbetweenhostandguest,and thenatureof
these relationships as reciprocal, or non-reciprocal. These complex and unstable
relationships are sublimated into materials in the physical act of making and through
audienceparticipation.
Chapter 3 analyses three artworks by contemporary female artists, Janine Antoni’sGnaw
(1992), Helen Chadwick’s Carcass (1986), and Anya Gallaccio’s Stroke (1993). These
examplesmakeuseofhostingrolesandrelationships,framedasperformativeactionsthat
shapetheartworks. Ineachcase Ihavediscussedhowtheperformance issublimated into
object/s which may stand as a material recording of its performative making. Chapter 4
addresses the practice-based outcomes, which comprise 70% of this masters research
project. Seven works are discussed and include installations, performance, video and
sculpture. Eachof these food-basedworksare formedandalteredby theperformanceof
hospitality.Theyeachelaboratenewvariantsonhostandguestrelationships,exhibitedas
tracesinorontheartwork.
Asacriticaltool,‘hosting’hasbeendevelopedoutofmypractice-ledresearch,whereithas
provided away of capturing an array of complex aesthetic and performative interactions
thatcomprisemystudiopractice.Itisfurthermoreenvisagedthathostinghasthepotential
for broader application as a theoretical term, chiefly through art, design, or performance
practices.
13
CHAPTER1:METHODOLOGY
This practice-led research project addresses the primary research question through the
creation, consideration and analysis of artworks (Sullivan, 2009). As this chapter outlines,
the practice-led research methodology entails a reflexive process of studio practice and
exegetical analysis of the ‘data’ generated within the practice. In conjunction with
exploratoryandgenerativecreativepracticemethodsofmaking,Schön’spracticemethods
ofreflectioninandonactionareappliedtofacilitateiterativecriticalanalysisofthestudio
practice through the interpretive lens of ‘hosting’. Barbara Bolt’s theory of ‘material
productivity’ informsthesemethodsofmakingandanalysing,exploredthroughtheuseof
autoethnographicmethodswhichengagewithartist,practiceandoutcomesassubjects in
theresearch.
GraemeSullivan(2009,2010)andBradHaseman's(2006)respectiveapproachestopractice-
led research have beenmost relevant to this project. Haseman in his text Manifesto for
Performative Research (2006)makes the case for a new research paradigm, Performative
Research.Hearguesthatperformativeresearchconsiderspracticeastheprimaryresearch
activity,andthe“materialoutcomesofpracticeasall-importantrepresentationsofresearch
findings intheirownright”(Haseman,2006,p.103).Furthermore,Hasemanobservesthat
practice-ledresearch“isintrinsicallyexperientialandcomestotheforewhentheresearcher
creates new forms for performance or exhibition” (Haseman, 2006, p. 100). This is
particularlyrelevanttotheperformativeandparticipatoryfacetsofmypracticeinwhichthe
research isdeveloped live,experienced for the first timebymyselfandtheaudience.This
focusonbothprocessandoutcomesasequallyimportantfacetsisalsoreflectedinGraeme
Sullivan’s approach topractice-led research inwhich the artist is both the researcher and
also ‘the researched’ (Sullivan, 2009, p. 51), (Sullivan, 2010, p. 70). This research project
adoptspractice-ledmethodologiesbyobservingboththecreativeprocessanditsproducts
asdriversofnewunderstandings.
Viewing both the creative process and its outcomes as research, I also acknowledge a
particular relianceonmypersonal food stories and an autoethnographic approach to this
project.JamesHaywoodRollingsJrdescribestheprocessofautoethnographyas“[moving]
livedevidencetothecenteroftheresearcher’shypotheses”(HaywoodRollingsJr,2008,p.
842). Autoethnographicmethodologieswere central to the development of this research,
14
whichdrawsfrommyownpastandpresentinteractionswithfood,food’sinherentmaterial
qualities and its ability to impactmy life in anethical and social capacity. In thisway,my
embodied memories and experiences became a tool and a lens through which to
understandandconnecttomaterials.Thebodyasatoolinautoethnographicmethodologies
reflectstheprocessof:
[j]uxtaposing and rejuxtaposing the self as the instrument of inquiry within the
confines of objective framing structures, altering those structures as one moves
reflexively along, makes a form of performance art out of acts of story and self-
representation.(HaywoodRollingsJr,2008,p.842).
Donald Schön’s book The Reflective Practitioner (1983) has been useful in framing the
reflective nature of my art making in this research project.While ‘hosting’ considers the
creative agency of the artist, audience, and artwork, Schön’s Reflective methodology is
limited to my own contribution as artist. Schön combines two major ideas: that
practitionershavea‘knowing-in-action’,anexpandedapplicationofpracticebasedinbody
knowledge,andalsoa‘reflection-in-action’,anabilitytorecognise,criticise,andrestructure
in the act of practice (Schön, 1983). In this research project,my embodied knowledge of
food-based materials, or knowing-in-action, is grounded in extensive studio-based
experimentation, as well as my activities as an amateur cook. Reflection-in-action is
particularly relevantwhenworkingwith volatilematerials such as food, and in the highly
charged and somewhat unpredictable space of participatory performance,wheremy role
changes inresponsetotheviewer.AsSchönnotesonthetopicofperformance,whichhe
claims to have some of themost interesting examples of reflection-in-action, that “when
intuitive performance leads to surprises, pleasing and promising or unwanted, we may
respond by reflecting-in-action” (Schön, 1983, p. 56). Reflection-in-action is useful in this
practice-led research as it helps to articulate the continual cycle of reflection, and
restructuringintheactofstudioexperimentationandperformancecontexts.
Barbara Bolt’s conception of ‘material productivity’ provides an important framework for
thispractice-ledresearchasitconceptualisesaspecificrelationshipbetweentheartistand
artmaterials.BuildingonPaulCarter’stextMaterialThinking(2004),Boltdifferentiatesher
own term from Carters’ by privileging the relationships between artist and material,
whereasCarterprivilegesthatbetweenartistandwriter(asinterpreteroftheartwork).Bolt
argues this approach, “involves a particular responsiveness to or conjunction with the
intelligenceofmaterialsandprocessesofpractice”(Bolt,2007,p.30).Inthisway,material
15
productivityfacilitatesdeeperinsightintothecomplexnatureofmyresponsetomaterials;
and how the nature and qualities of food-based materials, combined with experimental
processes, drive the form of the artworks. To this end, I understand the practice as a
collaborative relationshipbetweenartistandmaterial.The roleof food-basedmaterials in
artworks will be discussed as having performative qualities in this research, and will
thereforeplayanimportantroleinformingandalteringartworkswithin‘hosting’.
Thissectionprovidessummaryofthechiefresearchmethodologiesemployedinmyproject.
Chapter4willexpanduponthecreativepracticemethodsadopted,andtheirapplicationin
a reflexive research process. It will also discuss a selection of works created toward
understandinghow‘hosting’canserveasa theoreticalandpractical tool for reconsidering
food-basedartworksformedandalteredbyperformance.
16
CHAPTER2:HOSTING
Introduction
ThischapterwilldefinehospitalitythroughadiscussionofkeytextsbyJacquesDerridaand
Judith Still. This is followed by a comprehensive development of the term ‘hosting’. The
dynamicsofhostandguestrelationshipswillbediscussedasatypeofperformanceinwhich
therolesbecomeunstable,movingbetweenartist,viewerandartwork.Theseideaswillbe
appliedtoperformanceandparticipatoryartcontexts.
2.1DerridaonHospitality
The expression of hospitality, in the common sense of the word, implies a set of power
dynamics.TheanalysisofthisinterplayformsthebasisofDerrida’skeytextsOfHospitality
(Derrida & Dufourmantelle, 2000) and Hostipitality (Derrida, 2000). Derrida’s writing on
hospitalityischieflyconcernedwiththerelationshipbetweenthehost(nation,state,home,
orbody),andtheguest(foreigner,parasite,orother).Thelawsofhospitalityare,
namely, the conditions, the norms, the rights and the duties that are imposedon
hosts and hostesses, on themen andwomenwho give awelcome aswell as the
menandwomenwhoreceiveit(Derrida&Dufourmantelle,2000,p.77).
Through what he calls “the laws of hospitality”, Derrida attempts to determine what is
absolute and conditional hospitality. Conditional hospitality hinges on such limitations as
birthright, citizenship, names, social status, whereas “absolute hospitality requires that I
openupmyhomeandthatIgivenotonlytotheforeigner…buttotheabsolute,unknown,
anonymousother,andthatIgiveplacetothem…”(Derrida&Dufourmantelle,2000,p.25).
Hequestionsmanyofthelimitationsplacedonhospitality,forexample,theabilitytospeak
the same language (Derrida&Dufourmantelle, 2000, p. 15), citing these as complications
that delay or deter the offering of an unconditional hospitality between host and guest.
Derrida’s unpacking of the interactions between host and guest are extensive, hinging on
complexpoliticsandsites.Forthepurposesofmyformulationof‘hosting’,Ihavemadeuse
of Derrida’s ideas that clarify the interpersonal relationships between host and guest as
relevanttothesitesofgalleryandstudio.
17
Negotiation of the interpersonal dynamics of hospitality takes place on contested sites.
Derrida’s laws of hospitality hinge on sites that are controlled by the hostwith a right to
citizenship throughbirthright (Derrida&Dufourmantelle,2000,p.21), anddeterminedby
the status of the guest (foreigner or other). Derrida refers to the threshold as the site of
welcome(authorization),thatthresholdbeingalineoverwhichtheguestcrossesintosites
controlledby thehost (Derrida,2000,p.8).Heargues that thepowerof sovereigntyover
one’s space (home, temple,etc)and therefore thehost’sability towelcome, is thepower
“exercised by filtering, choosing, and thus by excluding and doing violence” (Derrida &
Dufourmantelle, 2000, p. 55). Public and private are therefore negotiated in terms of
belonging,butalsobyactsoffinitude,exercisingtherightsofthehostwithinthehome.The
hostistheownerandcontrollerofthesiteonwhichhospitalityisenacted.
Derridaacknowledgestheeasytransferofrolesbetweenthehostandguest.Inoneexample
henotes,
theawaitedguest, isnotonlysomeonetowhomyousay“come,”but“enter.”
Enterwithoutwaiting,makeapauseinourhomewithoutwaiting,hurryupand
comein,“comeinside,”“comewithinme,”notonlytowardsme,butwithinme:
occupyme, take place inme,whichmeans, by the same token, also takemy
place(Derrida&Dufourmantelle,2000,p.123).
In this examplewe can see how the roles of host and guest begin to cross over.Derrida
providesdiverseexamplesinwhichthehost’sroleisexchangedwiththeguest’s,aconcept
thatbecomesacatalystfordiscussingthecomplexinter-subjectiverelationsoccurringinthe
galleryandstudio.Below,Iwilldiscusstheshiftingrolesofhostandguestinrelationtothe
artist,artworkandviewerinparticipatoryandperformancecontexts.
2.2JudithStillonDerrida
Judith Still’s analysis of Derrida’s theoretical work on hospitality enables a refinement of
host and guest roles. Still interprets Derrida’s themes of hospitality through the lens of
gender, specifically opening up conversations about the space thatwomen occupywithin
theactofhospitality.Shenotesthecritical lackofdiscussionintermsofsexualdifference,
which“features lessoften indiscussionsaroundhospitality thandoquestionsof raceand
nationality”(Still,2010,p.2).Stilloutlinestwokeythemeswhichelaborateonthegender-
basedgapsinwritingsonhospitality-theinvasionofthefemalebody,andmotherhood.
18
StillarguesthatmanyofthesourcesusedbyDerridaexistwithinapatriarchaleconomyof
hospitalitywherethefemalebodyiscontrolledinordertomaintainorder(Still,2010,p.22).
Shehighlightsthatwomen’spositioninthehomeisinsecureandvolatile,evendispensable
(Still, 2010, p. 75). In a patriarchal systemwomenmay be the guests of their fathers or
husbands, “thus their power to act as hostess would be delegated and secondary” (Still,
2010,p.60). Inexampleswherewomenclaimownershipoftheirownspace,theybecome
dangerous, sexually entrapping theirmale guests,who become slaves to the senses (Still,
2010,p.66).Thisleadstotheconceptualisationofinvasion,notonlyofthefemalebodyby
themale,butoftheuterusbythefoetusinmotherhood.
Whilewomenmaynothavethepowerassignedtothehost,they“veryoftenperformthe
labour of hospitality” (Still, 2010, p. 78). As a female artist who is performing acts of
hospitality, it is significant that this can be interpreted as an embodiment of gendered
labour.Yetitisalsorelevanttoconsiderpregnancyasastrandofthislabour(Still,2010,p.
129),asthefemalebodyhascontrolovertheirhosting/hostageofthefoetus(Still,2010,pp.
77–78).Thenotionthat“[b]iologicallywomenareindeedthefirsthome”(Still,2010,p.126)
and the notion of motherhood will be elaborated, where motherhood is not only a
containment, but “a choice to share with an other” (Still, 2010, p. 128). The artworks I
considerinthisresearch,includingmyown,willbepartiallyinformedbyStill’snotionofthe
womb-home,which nourishes, captures, contains, and nurtures its guest.While themain
emphasisofthisprojectwillbeontheinter-subjectivematerialoperationsthatplayoutvia
theprocessof‘hosting’,Still’sfeministperspectiveformsabackgroundtothisinterpretative
process.
2.3Hosting:DevelopingAnInterpretiveLens
Ahostisbothacontainerandabodythatperformstheactofcontaining.Definitionsforthe
hostinaphysicsandchemistrycontextincludea“molecularstructurecontainingaforeign
ion,atom,ormolecule;spec.”(“host,v.2,”2018),andwithinbiology“[a]nanimalorperson
that is the recipient of tissue, an organ, etc., that has been transplanted into it from
another.”(“host,v.2,”2018).Inbothexamplesthehostisactivelycontaininganotherbody
(verb), and are a container for another body (noun). In this section I will discuss the
19
capabilitiesofahosttoactivelycontainsomethingother,andalsoitsstatusasacontainer,a
singlebody.
Thesedefinitions of a ‘host’ froma scientific perspective indicate that it is too limiting to
consider only the living human body as a potential host. This project is informed by the
premisethatahostisabodythathasthecapacityorabilitytocontainanother.Therefore,
the intimate relationships formed between the artwork and performing or participating
bodies make it possible for the artwork-host to contain the guest, and vice versa.
Consequently,ahostcanbeanartist,aviewer,oranartwork.
Commontothesedefinitions,however,isthewaythatthehostisontologicallydependent
ontheincursionofanexternalelement.Asco-dependententities,hostandguestrefernot
to individualpeople,but to thebondthatunites them(Visser,2015,p.91), (Still,2010,p.
193-194). The host and guest enact hospitality together. Viewed from the perspective of
performative art practice, the host and guest relationship is activated at the site of art
making, whether that be the studio or gallery. The performance of, and participation in
hospitalitybytheartist,viewer,andartworkformsco-dependentrelationships.
The containment embodied and enacted through the act of hospitality brings the guest
inwards, sometimes to thepointof blurring theboundariesbetweenhost andguest. This
couldbeseenforexamplewhentheartistorvieweringeststheartwork,orwheretracesof
theparticipant’sbodyareleftontheartwork’ssurface.Intheseinstancestheartworkand
participant have made physical impressions upon one another, and finding where one
begins, and the other ends is difficult. In the process of containment, the host and guest
“overlapeachother’sterritorywithoutanyoneexactlymappinganother”(Still,2010,p.4).
Thetwoarephysicallydependentonone-another,sharingpartsofone-another’sbodieslike
puzzlepieces.However,asthephysicalboundariesofhostandguestintertwine,sotoocan
theirrolesandresponsibilities.
2.4TheVirtualGuest
Althoughtherolesofhostofguestmaybeco-dependent,itispossibleforthehosttoexist
asastateofwelcoming,withoutthedirectpresenceofaguest.Theactiveroleofthehostas
definedbyJacquesDerrida isanattitudeofwelcomingwithout identification;saying“yes”
‘towhoorwhatturnsup’(Derrida&Dufourmantelle,2000,p.77).AsDerridaremindsus,
20
hosting isalwaysa forward-facing,affirmativeact.Havingnopre-conceivednotionofwho
or what the guest is, the host exists in a state of openness. The host is expectant, in
anticipationof, and ready to contain a guest. Therefore, in the first instance,Hosting is a
stateofmindbelongingtothehost;anattitudeofwelcoming.Thisnotionisrelatedtothe
stateofanticipation(preparation)fortheguestinparticipatoryartworks.Thisappliestothe
preparatory elements of an artwork that enacts hospitality. But for the purposes of this
interpretivelens,Iamalsoconsideringtheartworkasitexistsaftertheparticipatoryacthas
beencompleted.Forthepurposesofthisproject,thevirtualguestconsidersboththeguest
whomayarriveandonewhohasjustleft.
Anticipatingaguestwhohasnotyetarrived,orcapturingthetracesofonewhohasrecently
left, is a featureofhospitalityprocesses in art-making. Inmypractice thepreparation for
and tracesoftheperformanceareequally importantelements.As Ishallelaboratebelow,
an artwork is not limited to the times in which a guest/viewer participates, but instead
extendsthehospitablerelationshipbeforeandaftertheseactions.Therefore,theartworks
producedinthisresearchprojectinvestigatethelogicofhospitality,evenwhentheyarenot
beingperformedorparticipated in.Theumbrella termof ‘hosting’, and thenotionof the
‘virtualguest’reconsiderstheaestheticsofhospitalityandextendsbeyondthedirectactof
hospitalitytoincludethepre/posthostingstate.
2.5HostingandPower
“Hospitality involves specialized spaces” (Kunze, 2004, p. 170), a stage to enact the
performance of host and guest relationships. For Still, “[t]he body is the first sphere of
hospitality,beforethehome,thecity,thenationstateorthecosmos….”(Still,2010,p.22).
Ahost isacontainer,abodythatperformstheactofcontaining.Consequently, theactof
hostingcanbesaidtosetforthafieldofpowerrelationsthatoccuronorinthesiteofthe
host-guestbody.
Hostandguestrelationshipsarecomplicatedbypowerdynamicsfuelledbytheownership
of the body. To qualify as the host, one must be in control of the body on or in which
hospitalityisstaged(Derrida,2000,p.14),(Fusi,2012,p.13),(Visser,2015,p.94),andthe
guest conforms to this site. Thehost thereforeobtainspower through their ownershipof
thecontainingbody,whetherthatbealiteralbody,orananalogousonesuchasamaterial
orgalleryspace.
21
However,powerofadifferentkindexistswithintheguest.JudithStilldefineshospitalityas
“a structure that regulates relations between inside and outside” (Still, 2010, p. 11).
According to this formulation, the inside is the host’s body, and the guest is “temporarily
brought within” from the outside (Still, 2010, p. 11). In an act of hospitality, the host,
exercising power over their own body, welcomes from the outside, an unknown and
unnamedguest(Derrida&Dufourmantelle,2000,p.77).Maintainingastateofopennessor
welcoming,“lettingtheotherintooneself,toone’sownspace”(Still,2010,p.13),makesthe
hostvulnerable (Derrida,2000,p.9), (Derrida&Dufourmantelle,2000,p.125).This lends
the guest power as the unknown element entering from the outside; the guest has the
potentialtobeaninvader.Hostandguestthereforeeachholdpower(Visser,2015,p.91),
(Still,2010,p.200);thehostasthecontrollerofthesite,theguestastheinvasive‘outside’
element.
The relationship between the host and guest is therefore a delicate balance of power,
shadowedbythepotentialforhostility(Visser,2015,p.91).Whenagencyandresponsibility
are reciprocated between host and guest, the power dynamics are balanced. Judith Still
explains that while hospitality is often theorised by the structure of reciprocity, “non-
reciprocity and inequality are at least as important” (Still, 2010, p. 15). Non-reciprocity
betweenhostandguestmightoccurfromapowerimbalance,resistance,orabuseinawide
rangeofsituations.Itisthisexchangeofpowerrolesthatmakesparticipatoryworkssucha
challengingandrichareaofstudio-basedenquiry.
Theshiftingofhostandguestroles is inevitableandconstant,blurryat timestothepoint
wherethetwoare inseparable,oractingacrossmanybodiesatonce.Derridaprovidesan
exampleoftheslipperinessoftheroles:
theguest,theinvitedhostage,becomestheonewhoinvites,themasterofthehost.
Theguestbecomesthehost’shost(Derrida&Dufourmantelle,2000,p.125).
In participatory art, an example of this shift would bewhen a guest does not follow the
anticipated boundaries of the experience. In such situations, Derrida observes, the guest
becomes host to the host, taking power over both site and situation. When interpreted
throughthelensofhosting,theartwork,artistorviewerislikelytoshiftbetweenroles,and
may also be positioned in various roles simultaneously. Like aMatryoshka doll, the other
role isalwayspresent justundertheskin.While Imighttrytopindowntherolesthrough
22
language, I also believe hosting becomes a performance in which the players continually
embody all the roles, either in an active or dormant capacity; “[t]he parasite is always
already present within the host” (Miller, 1977, p. 446). In place of the conventional
distinction between artist and participant, the act of hosting raises amore indeterminate
continuum in which host and guest continually give way to one another in the act of
performanceandparticipation.
Each time an artwork is presented afresh, a new platform is created for unique hosting
relationships, reciprocal and non-reciprocal. In my own practice, performative and
participatoryartworksusingfood-basedmaterialsdeliverradicallydifferentoutcomeseach
timetheyareinstalled.Thisisduetochangesinaudience’sattitudes,thevolatilityoffood-
basedmaterials,myownbody’sphysicalandmentalstateasaperformer(allframedashost
andguestdynamicsinthisresearch).Thismeansthathostingartworksaretheproducersof
endlesslychanginginter-subjectiveandinter-objectiveforms.Hosting,throughthelanguage
ofhostandguestroles,sublimatestheseshiftingpowerdynamicsintoobjects.
Summary
In this chapter I haveprovided a set of definitions for ‘host’ and ‘guest’ that can act as a
usefultool foranalysingthecomplexdynamicsoftheperformanceof,andparticipation in
hospitality. The power dynamics within hospitality anchor the varied interpersonal
relationshipsthatoccurintheencounterbetweenartist,viewer,andartwork.Beyondthis,
hosting has the capacity to reveal the ways in which those varied relationships are
sublimatedintoobjects.It isthecreationofobject/formthroughhostingrelationshipsthat
willbethefocusoftheContextualReviewthatfollows.
23
CHAPTER3:CONTEXTUALREVIEW
Introduction
Thischapteroutlinesaselectionofartist’sprojectsthatofferapreliminaryinterpretationof
hosting invisualartspractice;creating relationshipsbetweenartistandmaterials,artwork
and audience. Some of the works reflect hospitality as performance, others adopt more
nuancedversionsofhostandguestrelationships.Athemerunningthroughalltheseworks
isarejectionoftheconventionsoperatingwithinthegallery,suchasbringinginephemeral
materials that compromise conservation efforts, or asking audiences to engage physically
with the artworks - sometimes destroying them.Hosting crosses the boundaries of inside
andoutside,onebodyintoanother.Hostingalsoembracesthechaosofnon-reciprocitythat
comeswith breaking the rules of the host (that is, the gallery/artist). Lastly, these artists’
projectsexhibitanattempttoconsidertheartobjectasreflectiveoftheactofhosting,and
the preparation for and traces from a performance as equally significant. Three in-depth
analyses form thebodyof this contextual review,discussing JanineAntoni’sGnaw (1992),
AnyaGallaccio’sStroke(1993),andHelenChadwick’sCarcass(1986).Itismycontentionthat
viewingsuchworksasmanifestationsofhosting,allowsnewunderstandingsofhospitalityas
a type of performance with a specific focus on the object as facilitator and trace of art
making.
3.1HostinginContemporaryArt
In the seminal text Relational Aesthetics by Nicholas Bourriaud (2002), the participating
audience as co-producer is framed as a “guest” (Bourriaud, 2002, p. 58).While the term
guestisfrequentlyusedinrelationtoartistsstagingactsofhospitality,theapplicationofthe
title host is rare, a few exceptions being in relation to artists Rirkrit Tiravanija (Hartung,
2002,p.82),Christian Jankowski (Kroger,2012,p.219), LeeMingwei (Maravillas,2014,p.
171), and Martha Rosler (Buttrose, 2014, p. 19). Food-based hospitality in the gallery is
commonlyreferredtoasorganised,served,staged,orofferedbytheartist.Thismaybedue
to the multi-faceted cultural associations and expectations of a host, as compared to a
performer. One example that has most fully extrapolated ideas around host/guest
relationships is Feast: Radical Hospitality in Contemporary Art. Initially staged as an
exhibitionat theSMARTMuseumofArtChicago (2013), itnowexistsasacomprehensive
catalogueofessaysandreflectionsonthecuratedartworks.Feastembracestheapplication
24
of host and guest designations to the artist and viewer throughout the catalogue, and
maintains a strong focus on the physical objects that facilitate the performance of, and
participationin,hospitality(Smithetal.,2013).
Figure3.1.Tiravanija,Rirkrit.1992.Untitled1992(Free)installationviewatDavidZwirnerGallery,
NewYork.Image.Accessed24thFebruary,2019.
http://www.artnet.com/magazineus/features/saltz/saltz5-15-07_detail.asp?picnum=7
Dininginthegallerycannotbeaddressedwithoutacknowledgingthecontributionofartist
RirkritTiravanija.Well-knownsincethe1990sforhiscookedmealsserved-upinthegallery
space,Tiravanija’swork isboththemeal,andtheremnantsof themeal leftbehind in the
gallery as traces of the performance (Kirschenblatt-Gimblett, 1999). Tiravanijamirrors the
roleofhostsosuccessfullythatsomeguestsareunawareoftheirroleasparticipantsinan
artwork(Trippi,Antoni,&Tiravanija,1998,p.152).Theviewerentersthespaceasaguest,
contained in the artist’s performance. Through their consumption of the meal, and by
determining theaestheticsof theartwork’s traces, theviewer takesover the roleofhost.
The photographs post-performance show an untidy scene; cups, bowls, and cutlery
discarded on various surfaces. The artwork’s residue is no longer a functioning space of
hospitality, yet it is equally important, for theperformative constructionof theartwork is
embodiedinthetracesofitsmaking.
25
Figure3.2.Spoerri,Daniel.1959–60.ProsePoems.Theremainsofamealstucktoaboard.Accessed
24thFebruary,2019.https://www.tate.org.uk/art/artists/daniel-spoerri-1979
DanielSpoerriisanartistwhoprecededTiravanijawithhisworkscapturingthe“evidenceof
consumption rather than aesthetic intention” (Smith et al., 2013, p. 140). Spoerri’s Snare
Picturescapturedalltheremnantsofachosenmeal;foodcrumbs,glasses,beerbottles,and
napkinswerepermanentlystucktoatabletopandthenturnedsidewaysandhungonthe
wall like a painting.Restaurant Spoerri (1968)was the sitewhere he createdmany of his
Snare Pictures; and while the restaurant was the site for the creation of host and guest
relationshipsbetweenartistandguests,thefinaldestinationoftheobjectswasthegallery.
Thesnarepicturesactas formal compositions, andalsoassemblages, sublimating into the
object the performance that came to create it, such that “the territory of the original
encounterwassecuredasanobjectofcontemplationwhosedishesreturnedthegazeofthe
viewersoiledwiththeirownhistory”(Snyder,2013,p.152).Theinter-subjectiveandinter-
objective relationships developed through the performance of dining is now captured as
tracesinthesnarepictures,whichactasapermanent‘host’totheviewer-guest.
26
Figure3.3.Gonzales-Torres,Felix.1991.“Untitled”(PortraitofRossinL.A.).175lbcandies.Accessed
24thFebruary,2019.http://magazine.art21.org/2014/04/28/getting-beyond-good-and-bad/felix-
gonzalez-torres-untitled-portrait-of-ross-in-l-a-1991/
Theactofofferinghospitality isnotalwaysreliantontheartist’spresenceashost, forthe
artworkitselfmayperformashostofferingitselfuptoguests.InUntitled(PortraitofRossin
L.A) (1991),Gonzales-Torrespileshundredsofwrappedcandiesonthefloorofthegallery,
the amount mirroring the weight of his partner Ross whose AIDS-related death in 1991
inspiredanumberofmemorableartworks(Markus,2012,p.171).Audienceswereallowed
to take pieces of candy from the pile, which was replenished regularly. This act of
deconstruction, taking, or consuming, is a reflection of loss on behalf of the artist. The
artworkchangesformconstantly inresponsetothese interactions,swellingandsubsiding,
reflectingtheguest’sengagementwiththework,theartwork’sperformanceasahost.
27
Figure3.4.Alhäuser,Sonja.2001.ExhibitionBasicsinstallationviewatBusch-ReisingerMuseum,
Cambridge.Image.Accessed24thFebruary,2019.http://artbanquete.blogspot.com/2008/02/eat-art-
joseph-beuys-dieter-roth-sonja.html
SonjaAlhäuser’schocolateandpopcornplinthsaredesignedtobeeaten,theyareobjects
acting as hosts for the guest-audience. Unobstructed by guards, and encouraged by the
evidenceofpreviousattempts,guestsnibble,bite,orchewtheobjectturnedfood-offering.
Interactionswiththesculpturehavevaried,where,“[s]omeviewers,revoltedbytheworn,
fingerprinted chocolate, wrinkle their noses and pass. Some scratch graffiti into the
hard…exterior.Othersdigin.”(Dupree,2003,p.13).Ontheirsurfaces,thesculpturesshow
theaggressiveandgreedyengagementoftheguestswhochiselattheworkwiththeirteeth
and hands, consuming the body of the host. The audience’s eating bodies are tools
reshaping the sculptures, creating increasingly expressive forms. The artist facilitates a
particulartypeofengagementmadepossiblebyediblematerials.Throughitsconsumption,
theobjectitselfembodiesatypeofgenerativedecay,recordingtheguest’sengagementand
complicity in itsdisappearance. Intheprocessofconsumption,theroleofthehost isnow
sharedwiththeviewerwhocontrolstheformoftheartwork–andcontainsthework(albeit
briefly)intheirdigestivetract.
Theaboveartworksreveal thecomplexitiesofhostingdynamicsas theycanbeappliedto
performative, food-basedartpractices.Through theperformanceofhospitality, roles shift
and change betweenbodies, allowing for an in-depth consideration of the complex inter-
subjective and inter-objective relationships in performance practice. I would now like to
28
address in a more sustained way, three artworks by contemporary female artists, Janine
Antoni’s Gnaw, Anya Gallaccio’s Stroke, and Helen Chadwick’s Carcass. I have chosen
contemporary female artists, firstly because their works facilitate an examination of the
femalebodyinrelationtohosting,andsecondlybecausetheseartistshavebeenparticularly
influential on my practice. The selected works have been chosen for the use of food
materials,andforvariedexplorationsofhostandguestrelationships.
3.2JanineAntoni’sGnaw
Figure3.5.Antoni,Janine.1992.Gnaw.600lbschocolatecubeand600lbslardcubegnawedbythe
artist,27heart-shapedpackagesofchocolatemadefromchewedchocolateremovedfromchocolate
cubeand130lipsticksmadewithpigment,beeswax,andchewedlardfromlardcube.Accessed24th
February2019.http://www.janineantoni.net/gnaw
Janine Antoni is a New York based artist exploring the body as tool and subject across a
rangeofmediumsincludingsculpture,photography,installation,videoandperformance.
Antoni’s practice consistently returns to performative acts that are sublimated into
materials,andtheseactsareoftenendurance-basedandrepetitive.Repetitiveactionswere
usedinworkssuchasButterflyKisses(1993)wheretheartistappliedmascaraand‘painted’
a canvas with her eyelashes, and in the workAnd (1996-1999) involving two 600 pound
limestoneblocksgroundagainstoneanothertoachieve“twobodiesmutuallytransformed
bycontinualcontact”(Martinez,2000,p.133).TheworkGnaw(1992)wascreatedthrough
an intimate performance between artist andmaterial undertaken over a six-week period
29
(Trippietal.,1998,p.142),aperformance thatwasdocumented through its traces in the
object’sform.
InGnaw, a sculptural installation by Janine Antoni, two enormous minimal sculptures, a
block of chocolate and a block of lard dominate the gallery space, engaging visual and
olfactoryregisters.Bothblockshavehadtheirpreciseupperedgesgnawedoffbytheartist,
softening theiroverall silhouettes, turningcorners intocurves.Theaudience identifies the
artist’sgnawingactions through the teethmarks rakedacross thesurfaceof theseblocks.
ThedestructionwhichAntoni initiatedbyrakingherteethalongthesurfaceof theobject,
willalsobeaccomplishedbytimeduetotheephemeralnatureofthematerials.Assuch,we
areremindedthatthisisaperformativeworkinbothactionandconservation.
Figure3.6.Antoni,Janine.1992.Gnaw.600lbschocolatecubeand600lbslardcubegnawedbythe
artist,27heart-shapedpackagesofchocolatemadefromchewedchocolateremovedfromchocolate
cubeand130lipsticksmadewithpigment,beeswax,andchewedlardfromlardcube.Accessed24th
February2019.http://www.janineantoni.net/gnaw
Thematerialthattheartisthasbittenoffhasbeentransformedintochocolatecastsofheart
shapedbonbontrays,andthelardintobrightredlipsticks,bothsecondaryreferencestothe
mouth. These objects are displayed alongside the gnawed blocks in a tall glass cabinet
reminiscentofadepartmentstore.Themouth is themediatorofall thesematerials.First,
theartist’smouthhasbeenusedasatooltocarvethesculpturesandsecondly,weconnect
30
theobjects,lipstickandchocolatebonbons,toourownmouths.Thelipstickanddecorative
chocolateboxesareembodimentsofdesire,love,andsex:toolsusedintheartofseduction.
This“dialecticofdesire”(Heon,2001,p.5)sharplycontraststheimmenseactundertakenby
theartist,whichismorelikelytoinducerevulsion,sickness,orhorrorinboththeartistand
the audience. And yet, there is in the work something deeply obsessive (Kirschenblatt-
Gimblett, 1999, p. 5), a craving, whichwemight also recognise in love and sex, and this
balancebetweendesireanddisgustcreateapowerfulcontradictioninthework.
Theartist’schoicetousethemouthastoolforcreationisimportantfordrawinginideasof
hosting. The body has temporarily takenmaterials into its cavity. The resulting sculptural
negativespacesontheblocksofchocolateandlardrelatetotheinternalspaceofthehost.
Theartistisre-shapingthechocolateandlardwithhands/teeth/tongueandeithermakingit
partofherbodyorejectingitasanotherform.
InCarnalAppetites (2000)ElspethProbyn considers themouth as a tool and its ability to
crossthethresholdbetweenoutsideandinside,hostandguest:
Themouthmachine iscentral tothearticulationofdifferentorders thatgo
beyond the division of public and private: the tongue sticks out, draws in
food,objectsandpeople.Ineatingweconstantlytakeinandspitoutthings,
peopleandselves.(Probyn,2000,p.20)
Themouthisatoolthatmakes;selectsandtakesfromtheoutside,andbringstotheinside,
inordertohostwithinthebodyasavessel.Astheartist is invitingthematerial insideher
body,Antoniisinthefirstinstanceperformingasahost.Butwecouldalsosimultaneously
recognise the guest role that Antoni’s body plays as it accepts nourishment from the
ingestedmaterial.Antoniissimultaneouslyhostandguest,hostingandbeinghosted.
Gnaw sets up a relationship between the female artist and the artwork that could be
connectedbacktoStill’sdescriptionofthesuperabundantwomb-homethat“containsand
retains theguest to thepointof imprisonmentevenas thishostage is lavishlynourished”
(Still 2010, p. 129). The artist appears trapped (contained) in the act of feeding, but is
simultaneouslynourished,caredfor.Antoni’scaptiveinteractionwiththesculptureshowsa
ravenous (or revolting) desire for the material, one that teeters between a devoted
perseveranceandahostagesituation.Inherobsessive,relentlessgnawing,Antonicontains,
andiscontainedbythematerial.
31
Whateveristakeninsidebecomespartofthehostbodyintheformofnutrients,butmuch
ofitalsopassesthrough,orisrejectedalmostimmediately(asinAntoni’scase).Therefore
theactofgnawingisshapingboththeartist’sbodyandthematerialsthatitengageswith.
Antoniaggressivelybitesorchiselsherwayaroundthecube,softening itsedgestoreflect
theformofthebodyitself.Gnaw’ssoftroundedformreflectsa“lossofcontroloverone’s
ownphysicality,andthetransformationofthecorporealselfintosomethingthatnolonger
registers as desirable social currency” (Cameron, 2000, p. 29). Cameron simultaneously
considersthesocialimplicationsofsuchravenouseating,andthelossofcontrolthatoccurs
fromtakingthingsinsidethebody.“TellmewhatyoueatandIwilltellyouwhatyouare”
(Brillat-Savarin, 2009, p. 3) thewell-quoted saying fromThePhysiology of Taste simplifies
this idea.Whatwe take in through ourmouth becomes part of our body, temporarily as
energy,permanentlyasnutrients,orpsychologicallyasemotion/sensation(Betterton,1996,
pp.145–146).Whilewemakethedecisionaboutwhattoputinourmouths,whathappens
afterthatisthematerialactingonus.Theexampleoffood-basedmaterialsinartprovidea
tangibleversionofthis,forthesematerialsliterallybridgethegapbetweenartwork,maker
orviewerbyenteringintotheirbody(Drobnick,2005,p.272).Thematerialsthatenterthe
body may be anticipated or unpredictable, nourishment or pollutants, welcome guest or
parasite. InGnaw, the artist is not eating the materials but expelling them. The artist is
controlledbythematerial’sintoxicatingqualitiesandisthereforepositionedasaguest.
32
Figure3.7.Antoni,Janine.1992.Gnaw.600lbschocolatecubeand600lbslardcubegnawedbythe
artist,27heart-shapedpackagesofchocolatemadefromchewedchocolateremovedfromchocolate
cubeand130lipsticksmadewithpigment,beeswax,andchewedlardfromlardcube.Accessed24th
February,2019.http://www.janineantoni.net/gnaw
Aparasite is “aguestwho iswrong, illegitimate,clandestine, liable toexpulsionorarrest”
(Derrida&Dufourmantelle,2000,p.61),orthe“undesirableguest”(Derrida,2000,p.3).In
Gnaw,Antoni isengaging ina typeofparasitismupon theobject,and theobject isalsoa
parasite upon her. Antoni performs eating, and therefore requires “intensely intimate
contact…with the food” (Visser, 1991, p. 301). Antoni is applying an intimate part of her
bodytotheobject,themouth,asiteforsatiatingculinaryandsexualdesires.Sheengages
withtheobjectinawaythatachefneverwould(butamotherorlovermight);shepollutes
itwithherteeth,tongueandsaliva.
Theexcessofthematerial,butalsotheexcessivenatureofthematerial(richchocolateand
fattylard)makeitpossibletoputourselvesintotheartist’spositionandempathisewiththe
threat of a parasitised body, potentially sharing in the artist’s material saturation or
revulsion.Theartiststates,“Iwanttheviewertoimaginewhatitisliketodothesethings,to
feel it through their body…My work is an absurd attempt to enter the object, to be as
intimateandobsessedaspossiblewith theobject” (Trippietal.,1998,p.148). In thinking
abouttheperformanceofGnaw,undertakenentirely inthestudio,wemightevenbeable
toreadagradualtransformationofthemarksofperformance;hungeranddesiremightturn
intohesitation,rejection,orfrustration.
33
TheartworkexhibitsthetracesofAntoni’sbodyonitssurfacelongaftertheartist’shosting
acts are over, it remains, in its exhibited state, a performance frozen in time. The power
dynamicsbetweenartistandartworkareendlesslyloopedinourmindsaswe,theaudience,
become guests to this multisensory installation, and the power relations that the work
embodies.
We witness a violent crossing of thresholds, the artist teeth open and close like a door,
breaking into the body of the sculpture, while the artwork invades the artists body. The
generosityandproblematicnatureofDerrida’s‘absolutehospitality’andStill’snotionofthe
‘wombhome’aregenerated through theartist’sperformanceand leading topower shifts
betweenhostandguest.
3.3AnyaGallaccio’sStroke
Figure3.8.Gallaccio,Anya.1993.Stroke.Chocolateandcardboard.Installationview.Accessed24th
February,2019.https://www.blumandpoe.com/exhibitions/anya-gallaccio-0
EnglishArtistAnyaGallaccioproduces immenseandoftenmulti-sensory installationsusing
massesof ephemeralmaterials such as flowers, fruit, plants, or chocolate. The fragility of
thesematerialsiskeytothewayinwhichtheworkstransformorareinteractedwithover
time.
Stroke isanartworkthatadaptstospaces,orhasspacesmadespecificallyforit,givingita
scalablecapacityforhosting.Stroke(1993)byBritishartistAnyaGallaccio,isaninstallation
ofwallspaintedwithchocolate,asensoryenvironmentthataudiencescanenter into.The
wallsareadeepbrownfromthefloorup,brushedwithchocolatewhilethematerialisina
34
meltedstate,creatingastreakytexturedfinish.Therearecreamybloomsonitssurface,the
entireworkslowlychangingcolourandconsistencyovertime.Theinstallationisreminiscent
ofanarchitecturalsurface,arenderofchocolateonthegallerywalls,anditisalsofunctions
asapainting.Oneormorechocolate-colouredbenchseatsareprovidedfortheviewertosit
on in the space, offering a site for contemplation, or absorption. As the work cannot be
moved, it is destroyed at the end of the exhibition. It acts as a temporary space for the
audience,muchlikeabanquetordinnerparty:thefood,anditsservice,isephemeral.
Figure3.9.Gallaccio,Anya.1993.Stroke.Chocolateandcardboard.Installationview.Accessed24th
February,2019.https://www.blumandpoe.com/exhibitions/anya-gallaccio-0
The artwork is installed in a dimly-lit space, sowhatmight on first glance appear to be a
darklypaintedroomisrecognisedaschocolatethroughthesmellswaftingfromthespace.
Strokeisinfactsmelledbeforeitisseen(Drobnick,2005,p.276).Theworkreeksofacandy
store,achocolatefactory,orperhapstheuniquequalitiesoftheairinsideafreshlycracked
Easter egg. The audience connects with the material through olfactory registers inciting
desire,revulsion,curiosity,oramorepersonalsetofnostalgicmemories.
Thescentgivesthemostobviouscluetothework’smateriality,andactivatesawholeseries
ofreactionsandactions.Someviewersmayfeelthattheextentoftheintendedinteraction
issimplyolfactory,aspacetosmellandabsorbthesweetfattyodours.Otherstakethesmell
as an invitation, as a direction to begin licking the walls, a difficult act given the vertical
planeof thewalls. In comparingdifferent responses from the audience’s the artist notes,
“[w]ith the first piece in Vienna, 1993, everyone engagedwith it sensually by licking and
35
rubbing their noses in the chocolate walls, but the second piece in London, 1994, the
interactionwasmorefurtive”(Gallaccio,2009,p.284).Participationinthisworkistherefore
opentointerpretation,butalsopotentiallyculturallyspecific.
The simplicity of Gallaccio’s act, creating a space enrobed in chocolate, allows for varied
responsestothepiece-toenter,tosit,smell,touch,andtoeatareallresponsesavailable
totheaudience,andaremadepossiblethroughthestrategicselectionofmaterial.Without
writtenpermissionfromtheartist,theaudiencesaremakinguptheirownmindstointeract,
spurred on by the seductive smell, and the lack of deterrence (in the form of guards or
alarms).Thesmelloftheworkmightencouragefurtherinteraction,enticingengagement.As
one viewer testified: “the aroma awakens a desire to partake in the many layers of
chocolate,as ifwewereHanselandGretelencounteringan irresistibletemptation”(Gron,
2017, p. 110). The audiencemust decide if their tongue is finding new territory; has this
exact chocolate spot been licked before? Does that matter? The tongue impressions of
anotherguestmightlooksuspiciouslylikethetexturalstrokesoftheartists’paint-brush,so
thevisitormayneverbesure.Throughparticipationtheaudiencesarechangingtheformof
thework, thinning the chocolate paint one layer at a time, andmanipulating the surface
textureinaseriesofsmallgreedygesturesofthetongue.Theworkisbrokendownthrough
its natural surrender to decay, but also through the expedited demolition due to the
audiences’actions.
Decay is a method returned to repeatedly by artist Anya Gallaccio. Some of the artist’s
chosenmaterialsincludecutflowersinredongreen(1992),orangesintense(1990),andice
in intensities and surfaces (1996). These installations embrace the transient nature of
materials, making the performance of decay central to the display. Through her chosen
materials, followedby their inevitabledecay,Gallaccio’swork “boasts significantolfactory
and tactile components” (Rugoff, 1999, p. 9). Through the process of decay, and through
audience interventions, (suchas lickingachocolatewall,orwalkingacrossa floorof salt),
theworkcontinuallychanges.Viewersareinvitedtobearwitness,andtakeanactiverole,in
the evolving nature of the work. Having installed these environments, the artist’s role is
over,andtheaudienceasguestsarenowthecreatorsofthese“performativeobjectsthat
enlistusinellipticalslow-motiondramas”(Rugoff,1999,p.13).
36
Stroke is a platform for hosting as a space that welcomes the guest inside. To further
reinforcethehostingrelationshipthereisanexchangeoffood,nourishmentfortheguest.
ThebodiesatplayinStroke’shostingrelationshipsaretheartworkasbodycavity,andthe
viewer’s body as consumer. Both artwork and viewer take on the role of host
simultaneously,throughtheactofparticipation.
Thechocolatethatenterstheviewer’snoseastheyapproachthespacecrossesthebody’s
threshold;thisispotentiallyunexpectedlikeaparasite.Itisaningestiontheviewerhasno
controlover(unlesstheyquicklyexitthegallery),butiftheviewerchoosestostaytheyare
overwhelmed,physicallywiththesmell,internally,andmentally.JustlikeHanselandGretel
who are seduced into the gingerbread house, Gallaccio’s guests are threatened by
consumption;theartworktakestheminside,swallowingthem.Theworkisdisseminatedby
the guests who un/willingly take it with them inside their bodies, “[o]nly food – all-
necessary, visible, divisible, an external object which becomes internal, and which then
turns intotheverysubstanceoftheeater–couldgiverisetosuchaclearyetmysterious
andeffectiveritual”(Visser,2015,p.87).Theviewerleavestakingwiththemthematerial,
whichgentlylingersintheirnostrils,stickstotheirclothingandshoesoles,and(perhaps)in
their bellies. Stroke is a constantly performing artwork, providing an offering to its
audiences,bothoffoodandofsmell.Theaudiencebecomespartofthework,integraltoits
hostingcapacity,andthematerialofStrokebecomesthesubstanceoftheeater.
Gallaccio’s installation forms a space distinct from the gallery, a microcosm capable of
establishing its own rules. Stroke is an offering that requires the audience to break the
ocularcentric rules of the gallery, and to break with the conventional choreography of
eating,whilealso facilitatingthebreakdownof thework. Inagalleryspacewheresmell is
normally“pathologizedasaformofpollutionorsymptomaticofpests”(Drobnick,2005,p.
266),Strokeoffersshelterfromthecoldblanknessofthegallery.Thehostartworkiswomb-
like,darkandwarm, insulatedby fatandoffering richnourishment. The invasivenessofa
guest inside the host-artwork becomes particularly potent in this example. As the guest
beginstoeattheirwayout,theyarealsoimpactingontheformoftheartwork.Chocolate’s
ephemeralnaturemakesthistransformationpossible,asafacilitatorofconsumption.Inthis
actionareversal isperformed:theviewer-guestbecomesthehost,shapingandcontaining
thematerialandformofthework.
37
Stroke,likeGnaw,isaworkthathasacertainentropicdimension:itnoticeablybreaksdown
duringthecourseof itsexhibition.Stroke isdefinedbythechangesthatoccurthroughout
the exhibition, a process of generative destruction – although it is not diminished
completely. Some material is licked off the wall, while the smell’s constant dispersal is
furthertestamenttothework’sbreakdown.Strokeisdismantledintopiecesasitisinhaled
and eaten by the audience. The artwork continues to offer nourishment throughout its
display, but towards the end it is less about the embodied pleasures, andbecomesmore
about traces. The traces of audience’s tongues are layered over one-another, actions
sublimatedintoform.Weareawareofanendtothiswork’slife,theinevitablelossofsmell,
therancidityofmaterial,adecay;thetransienceofhosting.Theartisthascreatedthiswork
through thenotionof thevirtualguest,aviewerwho is inevitablygoing toencounter the
installation and leave their trace upon it. The role of host has been yielded to thework,
whichcontinuallyperformshospitalitythroughoutthecourseoftheexhibition,embodying
alltheephemeralandmultisensoryimplicationsofthatoffering.
The host installation is created as a womb-space that nourishes the senses of the guest.
Through the consumption of the work the roles are exemplified in both audience and
artwork; the chocolate crosses into the audience’s body, and the audience impresses
themselves on to the artwork body. Host and guest are interdependent and through the
interactionswithinStroketheyareinterchangeable.
38
3.4HelenChadwick’sCarcass
Figure3.10.Chadwick,Helen.1986.Carcass.Installationview.Accessed24thFebruary2019.
https://theartstack.com/artist/helen-chadwick/carcass
Carcass is a body that is fed daily by the gallery, which like Gallaccio’s Stroke, does not
require the artist to be present; the artwork instead acting as the facilitator of an act of
hosting. Across English artist Helen Chadwick’s oeuvre we bear witness to the artist’s
sophisticatedinvestigationsintothephysicalandmetaphoricalbodyasatoolto“findways
of capturing themessybusinessof humanexistence” (MacRitchie, 2005, p. 91). Chadwick
used a rangeof low-fi and high-end technologies to produce sculpture, photography, and
installation. InherworkPissFlowers (1991-92) theartistandherpartnerurinated indeep
snow, the negative space created was cast in bronze and exhibited as solid inverted
‘flowers’. In Chadwick’s 1998 installation Blood Hyphen, the artist displayed enlarged
photographicdocumentationofcellstakenfrominsideherowncervix.Theseworks,aswell
asthepieceCarcass(1986),demonstrateChadwick’sinterestinthescienceandmechanics
ofthehumanbodybrokendowntoacellularlevel,whichtheartistbelievedtohavea“far
greater range of potential exchange than more traditional, anthropocentric models”
(Walker,2010,p.460).Chadwickgivesformtotheotherwiseformlessinternalworkingsof
thebody,whichisamajorthemeoftheworkCarcass.
39
Carcass isdeliveredtothegalleryempty,avesselmadeofclearglass,arectangularprism
aroundtwofeetwide,andstandingafootorsohigherthantheaverageadultvisitor.Ithas
a small tap at the very bottomof oneof its sides like awater tank. Beginningduring the
installation, and continuing throughout the exhibition, the artwork is gradually filledwith
compostable scraps from the lunches of the gallery staff, intermittently alternated with
layers of biodegradable paper. Standing on top of a stepladder to reach the opening, the
scrapsaretippedindailybyastaffmember.Asmellfillsthegallery,differentpeoplemight
describeitasrankorsweet,butthisalsodependsonwhatfoodstuffsthegalleryhasadded
tothework.
The foodmatter thathasbeenaddedtothevesselcanbeviewedthroughthesculpture’s
clear glass walls, presented as a cross-section of the artwork’s ‘stomach’, subject to
digestion. Food scraps that are loosely tossed in at the top are gradually crushed by
increasingweightsfromabove.Asthematerialdecays,producingwarmth,itbecomesarich
dark matter towards the bottom; in the act of composting. Imogen Racz describes the
work’s digestive-like process, “[c]arcass was actually very much alive, with the contents
bubbling and emitting an aroma” (Racz, 2017, p. 63). Encouraged by the roughly human
scaleofthetransparentbox,theartworkimitatesthebody’sdigestiveprocess,turningfood
materials at themouth, to excrement at the base. A small tap at the base of the object
indicatesthatthefinalproductfromthebodycanorwillbeused.
The work is a microcosm, a narrative of time and space directly relating to the specific
exhibitioninwhichit isshown.Theinstitution’scontinualfeedingofthisartworkiscentral
toitspresentation.Hosting,asundertakenbythehostinstitutionstaff,isaninvolvedaction
inthiswork,alaboriousaccommodation.Carcassshowsthroughitsglassskinthematerials
thatmakeitup,butalsothematerialsthatmakeupthebodiesofthestafffeedingit.The
work is site-specific, just as a dinnerparty in anyparticular countrywould servedifferent
cuisine,theworkisamirrortolocalfoodcultures.WhenIsawtheworkinstalledatTrapholt
Museum of Art and Design for the Exhibition EAT ME (2017), it was apple season in
Denmark,andapple-coresmadeupasubstantialpartofthecompost.Theworkactsasthe
guest of a host institution, and by extension is exposed to the subtleties of a particular
seasonalcuisine.
40
Therolesofhostandguestareco-dependent,exertingthemselvesupontheanother“[t]he
guest satisfies the host’s hunger as well as the inverse” (Still, 2010, p. 9). Carcass (as an
empty object) is clearly dependent on the gallery-host to satisfy its ‘hunger’. The role of
artwork-guestmayreciprocatebyentertainingornarratingitsownstory:
The ritualofhospitality includes sustenanceornourishment–notonlyof the
bodybutofthemind.Whenguestsarerefreshedtheyshouldbeentertained–
but there is an element of reciprocity. While it may not be acceptable to
demand that guests be entertaining in their turn, guests may demand it of
themselves, and the act of telling may bring relief, satisfaction or other
pleasurestothenarratingguest(Still,2010,p.94).
Carcasscanbesaidtoperformthisentertainmentinthewayitdocumentsthesite-specific
patternsoffoodconsumptionseenthroughthetransparentskinofthevitrine.Theartwork
(assatiatedguest),entertainsornarratesinresponsetothehost’shospitality,evidentinthe
generativeaestheticsofthework.
Theactofcompostingmight, intime,converttheartworktothestatusofaparasiteupon
the gallery – an unwanted guest producing visual or olfactory pollution. In light of this
threat, thedelicacyandcareof compostingcorrectlyprevents theguest frombecominga
danger,from‘turning’onthehost.Carcassisbasedonadelicatebiologicalbalancewhichif
broken would result in the contamination of the space. The unpleasant interior of the
artwork isacceptablewithin thegalleryas longas itsunpleasantness iskeptpurelyvisual.
Thework retains thepotential to ‘reject’ thedailymeals in ablightofmould and spores,
with the warm sweet tang of food decay turning into something rancid, rotten, and
parasitical tothehost institution. InCyraMcFadden’sTheSerial1976,she likensadinner
partytocomposting,“youcouldn’texpectpyracanthatrimmingsandpotatopeelstobreak
downintoorganicmatteratexactlythesamerate,andsometimesyougotalotoffruitflies”
(McFadden,1993,p.295).Hostandguestrelationships,likecomposting,areabalance,and
therefore represent a fine line between reciprocity and non-reciprocity. The smell of the
work is perhapsmore complex and perceptive, and will embody the nuances of hosting.
Whilethecompostingmaterialiscontainedrelativelysecurelyinthework,thesmellisviral,
immaterial, it slips out of the cracks, floods the gallery, and crosses the thresholds of
viewers’ bodies without their consent. Beyond simply the aesthetics of the piece, the
complex and constantly evolving olfactory qualities of the work are a reflection of the
hostingrelationshipsthatcreateCarcass.
41
ThroughoutthedurationthatCarcassisinstalledinthegallery,wecanseetheriseofatype
ofhostingembodiedbytheartworkashost.KarenGronprovidesadescriptionofCarcass:it
“referstoahumanbody,anditcontainsauniquekindofenergyandexcitement,butalso
turmoil,dramaandopulence”(Gron,2017,p.170).Carcass reflectstheprocessofhosting
performed by the gallery, but it also reflects a type of hosting that our own bodies
undertake.Carcassimitatesthedailyritualofingesting,masticating,digesting,andexcreting
food. This can be seen as a creative output, an act of fermentation as well as one of
generative decay. It is amore palatable decay than the human body undertakes, for the
alchemyofthisbody isacleansingone.Compostingcreatesmatterthat isrichandearthy
andthatcanbefedbackintothefood-makingprocessasgardenfertiliser.Thisworkactsas
ahostbytransforminganuncomfortableguest(waste),intoawelcomeone(compost).The
transience of the gallery’s hosting relationship is exaggerated by the knowledge that this
workmustbe re-created in eachnewhost institution. Each time thework is re-created a
new series of hosting relationships are developed, providing an entirely new palette of
formalandsensoryexperiences.
Carcassprovidesaplatformtoconsiderthereciprocalrelationshipbetweenhostandguest,
exploringinmaterialformthecomplexitiesofnon-reciprocitywrittenaboutbyDerrida,and
Still.Carcassprovidesauniquenarrationofahostandguestrelationship,forcingaudiences
toconsiderthegalleryinstitutionsroleashosttoanartworkswelfare.
Summary
In this chapter Ihaveanalysed threekeyartworksGnaw,Stroke, and Carcass through the
lensofhosting. Ihavediscussedtheshiftingnatureof‘host’and‘guest’rolesinthestudio
andgallery.Thereciprocalandnon-reciprocaldynamicsofhostandguestrelationshipshave
alsobeenconsidered.Thedocumentationoftheserelationships is integraltohosting,asa
way of capturing and narrating the dynamics of performing hospitality in a visual arts
context. Therefore this chapter has provided a model for the way in which the creative
worksproducedinthisresearchhavebeenanalysedanddiscussedintermsofhosting.
42
CHAPTER4:CREATIVEPRACTICE
4.1CreativePracticeMethods
Centraltothemethodsemployedinthiscreativepracticeresearchistheprocessofcooking,
which has developed hand-in-handwithmy use of food as a sculpturalmediumover the
past decade. I have embraced these preparatory processes as an integral part of the
artwork.Theperformanceworkthereforepotentiallyincludespreparation,cooking,serving,
feeding,eatingandcleaning,aswellasthephysicaltracesoftheperformanceprocess.
Framingmyapproachtoperformance inthisresearch, isthetheoreticalworkofHenryM.
Sayre.ForSayre,performanceart“existsonacontinuumbetweenritualandnarrative,and
itsplacementonthatcontinuumdependsonitsrelationtoitsdocumentation,totheobjects
itproduces”(Sayre,1989,p.17).Inthiscreativeresearch,IhaverelatedtoSayre’snotionof
‘narrative’ in which the object is a medium through which experience is worked and
organized,andwhich“embodiespresence”(Sayre,1989,p.17).TheperformancesIcreate
encompass, like a recipe, the ingredients, methods, and product. Sayre’s conception of
performanceasamediumthatcapturesexperienceenablesmetoconsidermyrole inthis
narrative,aswellastheroleofthematerial,andthatoftheaudience.
Sayre focuses heavily on the photographic medium as the primary form of performance
documentation.DrawingonAnneMarsh,thisresearchconsidersdocumentationinrelation
to performance whereby, “performance exists both in the time of its enacting, as it
disappears,andinitstraces–inthememoryofthosewhowitnesseditandthosewhoread
aboutitandvieweddocumentspertainingtoitaftertheevent”(Marsh,2014,p.83).Marsh
considersthenon-photographicobjectsrelatedtoperformancesasrelicsortraces(Marsh,
2014, p. 52), and even in one instance, as a “mutewitness” (Marsh, 2014, p. 56). Inmy
practice,photographicdocumentationofmyperformancesarenotconsideredtheartwork.
However,theworkLimn(2019)involvesaperformancewhichwasmadeforvideo.Itismy
intention that the traces of each performance reinforce its narrative. The role of
performance photography spurs the audience to “reinvent the performance for itself”
(Sayre,1989,p.17).However,Iamseekingtoinstigateobjects,whichimplicatetheartist’s
andaudience’sbodiesinarangeofmaterialrelationships.
43
Foodevents,whileinherentlyperformative(Kirschenblatt-Gimblett,1999,p.22)alsoeasily
lend themselves to participation. In fact, Clarke and Petersen claim that relationality as a
performance form, “is defined precisely by the act of feeding the audience …Wemight
posit,infact,thattheappearanceoffoodwithinperformanceworkistheprecisemomentat
whichthecharacterofitsrelationalitycanbespecified”(Clarke&Petersen,2013,p.67).This
claimhighlights thepotential linkbetweenparticipationand food-basedperformanceand
identifiesaudienceinteractionasasignificantcomponent.
Participatorymethods were used in this project in a number of works, and in particular,
therewasa strongemphasison the formas createdandaltered throughparticipation. In
hercritiqueofBourriaud’sRelationalAesthetics,ClaireBishoprevealsthatparticipatoryart
tendstoplacemoreemphasisontheethicsandrelationshipsofengagementsasopposedto
thesignificanceofobjectsasfacilitatorsorcommunicatorsofparticipation(Bishop,2012,p.
38).However,mypracticewasstronglyfocussedontheobjectsthataroseasoutcomesof
performativeactions.Participationthroughtheuseoffood-basedmaterials,allowedmeto
bringtheaudienceintophysicalcontactwiththeartworksIcreated,wherebytheyaffected
thematerialformofthework.Alternatively,inworkssuchasthe‘conceptmeals’orcocktail
events,participationwasinfluencedbythetoolsthatIcreatedtofacilitateconsumptionand
interaction. For the purposes of this research project, I investigated the ways that the
interactions of participants (andmyself) – here reconceptualised as host-guest relations –
wererecordedintheresultingobjects.
4.2CreativePractice:Artworks
This sectionwillexaminea selectionofcreativeworksproducedduring the last twoyears
that provide the richest platform for discussions around hosting. These works have been
createdalongsidemydevelopmentofhostingasaninterpretivelens,butarealsoreflective
of a style of working in line with my past decade of practice. Hosting allows a new
perspectiveontheseworks,acontextualisationofhowperformanceformsandaltersfood-
basedartworks.
FirstIwilldiscussMilkTeethandWarmLight.Theactsofdrinkingperformedinthecreation
of these artworks are sublimated into objects, tracing the interaction between artist and
44
material. In the installationAnxiolytic, site and tools are carefully designed to encourage
interactionwitha functionalcocktailbar.Actingas thehost, Iamnourishingtheaudience
with cocktails, in turn the guests are participating through consumption, and potentially
intoxication.Thefacilitatingsculpturescreatedfor,andalteredbytheAnxiolyticcocktailare
theprimaryfocusofthesediscussionsofhosting.Finally,thischapterwilladdressartworks
Limn and Kernel, the two final works created for this Masters project. These artworks
considerthekitchenassiteofhosting,specificallyaddressinghowtheactivationofkitchen
toolscanbeusedtofacilitatethecreationofsculpturalform.Eachoftheseworksusesthe
interpretivelensofhostingisadifferentway,althoughIhavegroupedtheworksintopairs
inthefollowinganalysis,toacknowledgecrossoversbetweentheworks.
4.3Vessels:MilkTeethandWarmLight
Figure4.1.Willing,Elizabeth.MilkTeeth.Nesquikandmilkonwindow.110x30cm.2017.
InstalledatTolarnoGalleries,Melbourne.Photo:AndrewCurtis
Milk Teeth is a site-specific work in which a thin layer of chocolate milk appears on the
gallerywindow:asubtle,almost invisibleresiduethatcouldbemistakenforanuncleaned
surface. The frame of thewindow is the boundary of thework, the chocolatemilk forms
strata lines stretched from edge to edge. The top of themilk residue is frothy, and a bit
splashyinsections.Theworkisaportraitofahalf-hourperformanceundertakenon-sitein
the gallery; all the tools of its production are removed except for this one trace, the
flattenedtracesofdrinking.
TheperformanceofMilkTeethrequiresa‘fishtank’securedtoawindowasatemporarybut
watertight extension on the window frame. Mixed to an ideal consistency in a bucket,
45
Nesquikmilkisthenpouredintothewindowtank/frame.Thechocolatemilksettlesforfive
minutes in this state, the floating froth begins to congeal on the window, the lumps of
Nesquikadheretotheglass,andadarksludgestartstosettleatthebottom.
Figure4.2.Willing,Elizabeth.DocumentationfromtheconstructionofMilkTeeth.Nesquikandmilk
onwindow.110x30cm.2017.
InstalledatTolarnoGalleries,Melbourne.Photo:ElizabethWilling
Suddenlytheleveldrops,asIsucktheliquidfromthebaseofthetankviaaflexiblestraw.
Thedraininghappensinstages,somebrief,somedrawn-out,andaredictatedbyaesthetic
decisionsforthelookofthework,andmyownphysicalcapabilities.Throughthestrawthe
milkentersmymouthandisinturnejectedbackintoabucket,thisprocessisrepeateduntil
the desired amount of chocolate milk is removed. This act is symbolic of a maternal
relationship: I take nourishment from the ‘host’ artwork. Each time I pause the draining
process, the frothy milk settles, and at the top a tide line is created on the window, a
shallowdriedcrustrepresentsthepause.Thedistancebetweenthestratalinesofthemilk
aredirectlyrelatedtothedurationandferocityofmysuckingaction,audiencescanreada
smallbreakasasip,orabigbreakasagulp.Whenthetankiscompletelydrainedofliquid,
and themilkon thewindowbecomesdryandcrusty, the temporary fish tank is removed
anddiscarded.Onlythedustybrown,slightlytransparentwindowimpressionsareleftasa
representationofthematerialrelationshipplayingoutbetweenartworkandartist.
46
Figure4.3.Willing,Elizabeth.MilkTeeth.Nesquikandmilkonwindow.110x30cm.2017.
InstalledatTolarnoGalleries,Melbourne.Photo:AndrewCurtis
Warm Light is a wall-based installation that also makes use of straws – this time as
compositionalmaterial.Theseglassstraws,suggestiveofneonsigns,areonlypartiallyfilled
with liquor, the liquid settles in the bends and grooves of the curved tubes, only partly
affectedbygravity.Thisliquidcolourcaptureslightbutdoesnotcreateit,itmakesasecond
image,onelimitedbythestraws,butnotdefinedbythem.
Figure4.4.Willing,Elizabeth.WarmLightinstallationimage.Glassandlocalliqueur.2018.
InstalledatNewEnglandRegionalArtMuseum,Armidale,NewSouthWales.Photo:ChrisHowlett
WarmLightbeginsasaselectionoflinedrawingsthatIsourcedfromimagesoftheinternal
body; human, animal, or bacterial. In Photoshop, the singular lines are then arranged
together, forming new bodies, images, or compositions. Converted to glass tubes, these
forms become an exaggeration of the ‘silly straw’ from my childhood. The straws have
periodic lumpy joins in themwhere theglassneeds tobewelded together,butasobjects
47
they are transparent, elegant, rigid, and delicate. The compositions are abstract in their
simplicity,yetactasopeninvitationsfortheviewertoattachcharacterornarrativeto.They
arepartsofmanybodiesbroughttogether,toformnewimaginaryhostbodies:containers
awaitingfilling.
Figure4.5.Willing,Elizabeth.WarmLightinstallationimage.Glassandlocalliqueur.2018.
InstalledatNewEnglandRegionalArtMuseum,Armidale,NewSouthWales.Photo:ChrisHowlett
Onceinstalled,Isuckbrightsweetliqueursintotheinternalsofthestraws,gainingsomeof
the harsh qualities of a neon sign. Liqueurs are selected for their site-specific significance
and theirbrilliant colours. In theexhibition ImpossibleGuest atNewEnglandRegionalArt
Museumthesourceforthisvividliquidmaterialwasalocaldistillery.Duringtheinstallation
process,cupsfilledwiththeliqueursaresomewhatawkwardlymanoeuvredontooneendof
the straw, the other to my mouth. I suck the liquid into the vessel, aborting the action
(ideally)justbeforeitfillsmymouth.Theliquidrelaxesintothebendsofthetubesleaving
airpocketsinthesculptures,andlettingexcessspillout.Eachstrawcontainstheliquidina
different (and unpredictable) way depending on how much - and in which way - I have
suckedtheliquidinside.Theliquidisthereforearepresentationofthatspecificperformed
actionofsucking,andcanneverbereplicated.Finally,theglassstrawsareclippedintothe
walls using transparent fixings thatmake the tubes hover out from thewall around 5cm
causingstarkshadows,andjustenoughspacethatapairofun-invitedlipscouldagainclose
aroundtheendofthestraw:thevirtualguest.
48
Figure4.6.Willing,Elizabeth.WarmLightdetail.Glassandlocalliqueur.2018.
InstalledatNewEnglandRegionalArtMuseum,Armidale,NewSouthWales.Photo:ChrisHowlett
Milk Teeth andWarm Lightmake use of the transparent nature of glass as a surface to
presentthesubtletyofthematerial’sinteractionwiththedrinking‘guest’body.Bothworks
usethestrawasanextensionofmymouthanddigestiveorgans,anoesophagusorumbilical
cordbetweenmaterialandmyself,outsideandinside.Bothworksaresculptedthroughthe
process of sucking, an action undertaken by the lungs, the stomach, the oesophagus, the
mouth;andtheartworkismarkedbythenuancesofactivatingtheseorgans.MilkTeethand
WarmLightoffernot justaportraitofmyperformative interactionswiththe liqueurs,but
also become a stand in for the internal body; intestinal organs digestingmealswith their
mysteriousacidicfluids.Inbothcasestheglassandmyselfactastheguest,recipientsofthe
liquidartmaterial.
However,asdiscussedabove,undercertainconditionstherolesofhost-guestcanreverse.
In theseworks, this reversaloccurs via themovementof the liquidmaterial: in theactof
being fed by the work, I take thematerial insidemy body, sculpting it, and through this
containment Ibecome thenewhost to thematerial. In the caseofMilkTeeth andWarm
Light, I have some control overmy sucking actions towards forming the artwork, but the
material also influences me. As I step away from performing the construction of these
artworks, Iamoverlyawareofmyownbodily intoxication.Myheadis fuzzy,andstomach
sick, thematerial gains control overmy body like a parasite. Polluted by the sickly sweet
chocolatemilk,orintoxicatedbythecolourfulliqueurs,mybodyisrestatedasguesttothe
overwhelming volume and intensity of the material which consumes my body. Hosting
relationshipsnowtakeplaceinmyownbody,aswellasontheartwork’sbody.Theobjects
hostthetraceswithinandupontheirbodiesforthedurationoftheexhibition.
49
In these works the roles of host and guest form a continuum through themovement of
materialfromtheobject’sbodytomyown.Thestrawsactasthresholds,siteswhereaguest
crosses intoahostbody tobe contained.Theseworks therefore capture themomentsof
‘welcoming’, and can provide a portrait of the non/reciprocity occurring in those
interactions.
4.4Intoxication:Umber,Anxiolytic,Pacify
Figure4.7.Willing,Elizabeth.Umber.RecycledAustralianhardwoodscarved.105x105x37cm.2018.
InstalledattheMelbourneArtFairforTolarnoGalleries,Southbank,Melbourne.
Photo:AndrewCurtis
Umber (#1and#2) are rectangular prisms,measuring 105 cm x 105cmx 35cmandmade
fromrecycledAustralianhardwoodtimberssourcedfromdemolishedhouses,theircolours
rangingfromsoftpinks,warmcreams,todeepredsandchocolatebrowns.Theepidermisof
the timber exhibits their past lives,marked by their history and decay; nail holes stained
withrust,termiteandborermarks.Amongstthesenaturalmakingsaremyownhand-carved
excavationsofshortbreadforms,carvedinnegativeacrossthesculpture’ssurfaces.
My interest in the shortbreadmould beganwhile thinking about the origins of Australian
baking culture, and specifically the foods we ritually bake/eat at celebrations such as
Christmas. Shortbread is traditional, and has strong roots in English, Irish, Scottish, and
Scandinavian cultures, which is my personal heritage. My carvings are transformed and
evolvedfromthetraditionalmouldforms.ThenegativespacescarvedintoUmber#1and#2
arecreatedtohavearesonancewiththehieroglyphic,thearchaeological,orthebiological.
Much like the inherent afflictions into the timber – the unexpected timber knots, borer
50
marks,andnailholes,myownadditionsintothetimbersculpturesare‘guests’,aggressively
carvedintothehostbody.
Figure4.8.Willing,Elizabeth.Umber.RecycledAustralianhardwoodscarved.105x105x37cm.2018.
InstalledattheMelbourneArtFairforTolarnoGalleries,Southbank,Melbourne.Photo:Andrew
Curtis
Althoughthesculpturesaremadeinthelikenessofoneanother,theyareentirelyuniquein
function. One timber sculpture lies flat on its largest side - presenting itself as aminimal
sculptureinthestyleofDonaldJuddorCarlAndre1.Thesecondsculpturestandsuptall,in
moredirectconversationwithour standingbodiesasadrinkingbar. This simple inversion
makesthesculpturesalwayshypotheticallyusefulashostingobjects,waitingactivation.
BothUmbersareanabsurdtakeonadomesticitem,thesmalldecorativemouldformaking
biscuitsinthehome,convertedhereintoaheavy,hardwoodvolume.Itisatoolforhosting;
themouldhoststhemalleablecookiedoughthatittakesinsideitsbody;butitisalsoatool
in hospitality for serving guests (amore direct formof hosting). In this exhibition context
theyserveasaplatformtohostthecocktailperformanceAnxiolytic,providingasurfacefor
exchange,nourishment,andembodiedpleasures.
1SeeCarlAndre’sEquivalentVIII(1966),andDonaldJudd’sUntitled(1980)bothofwhichmadeuseofsimilarrectilinearforms.
51
Figure4.9.Willing,Elizabeth.Anxiolytic.Cocktailservicewithvaleriantincture,customglasswareand
numbinglipbalm.CollaborationwithCennonHanson.2018.Photo:MichaelaDutková
Anxiolytic is a performance presented as an hour-long cocktail service intended to sedate
the audience. This performance ismultifaceted andmulti-sensory, containing at least five
separate elements woven into the choreography undertaken by both the artist and
audience.
Prohibitionsagainstalcoholinmuseumexhibitionscontinuetothisdaybutare
relaxedwheninstitutionscourtfunders,artdonors,andothersupporters.For
theseupperechelonpatrons,drinksaregenerouslyservedinthegalleriesfor
specialeventssuchassocietygalasandfundraisers(Drobnick,2016,p.296).
Alcoholnormallyonlyhasaplaceinthemuseumorgalleryinthecontextofaneventsuch
as an opening. Eating and drinking in the gallery can make the patron unwieldy, and
thereforecouldthreatentheconservationofworks.JimDrobnick inhisarticle Intoxicating
theSense:AlcoholandArtintheMuseumsaysofalcoholthatithasa“twofoldnature-asa
social lubricantandanunpredictableintoxicant…”(Drobnick,2016,p.297).Butclearlyit is
an act of hospitality, and creates social ties between the public and the institution. The
social spaceof theartopening is thecontext for thisperformanceAnxiolytic, andalcohol,
the acceptable social lubricant, is the material through which the artwork enters the
viewer’sbody.
52
Figure4.10.Willing,Elizabeth.Anxiolytic.ValerianTinctureusedinperformance.2018.Photo:
AndrewCurtis
Anxiolytic is an alcoholic cocktail,mixed and served in the gallery forwilling participants.
Umber istheplatform,thefunctionalbar.Viewerswerenotexpectedtopayforthedrink,
but neither were they offered a second serving. The base ingredient in this cocktail is
valerian tincture, a vodka base that has had valerian roots soaking in it for around six
months,duringwhichtheplantoilsgraduallypercolateintothevodka.Valerianisusedasa
sedativetoreduceanxietyandimprovesleep;mymotherwouldgiveittomeintablet-form
asateenager.Ihavebeennaturalisingthevalerianplantinmygardeninordertomakemy
own tinctures. The valerian plant also allows me to address my own concerns with self-
medication.Myparentspropagated,andsmokedmarijuanamostofmychildhood;theiract
of relaxation and sedation had the opposite effect on me: it caused me anxiety.
Exploringvalerianasartmaterialgivesmeaspace to re-claimtheactof sedation through
legal plants.Anxiolytic facilitates a conversationwith the public aboutwhat I feel are the
anxietiesoftakingpart intheartcommunity,suchasself-worth,belonging,mental illness,
andtheinsecurityofworkandincome.
The cocktail recipe is a collaborative artwork with mixologist (experimental bartender)
CennonHanson.Toturnthissomewhatrepellentvaleriantinctureintosomethingappetising
Hanson added various other medicinal liquors including brandy, bitters, and vermouth.
AdditionallyHansondevelopedacloveoillip-balmthatnumbedthedrinker’slips,tomatch
their‘numbed’minds.
53
The cocktail was served by Hanson and myself at the Melbourne Art Fair in 2018. We
presented two one-hour long performances throughout the fair. Viewers approached the
bar (Umber) attracted by the action, one crowd breeding another until the fair booth
resembleda crowdedbar.Participantsweremadeawareof theactive ingredient valerian
while the cocktail was being prepared for them, they also engaged in conversation with
Cennonormyselfabouthowtheplantisgrown,harvested,orinfused,oroneoftheother
botanicals or ingredients used in the cocktail. The artist bar allowed for contactwith the
artist directly, to engage in conversation and exchange, but it also allowed for embodied
pleasures.ThepotentialsoftheartistbariselaboratedonbyJimDrobnickwhosaysofthe
multisensory and relational performance, “as the senseof distance collapses, so toodoes
thefaçadeofdisinterestedness”(Drobnick,2016,p.309).
There is nowayofdocumentingwhat theeffectof this cocktailwason theguests in this
context.Thereforethepsychologicaleffectswillnotbecoveredbythisresearch.Oneonly
needstoobservearegularexhibitionopeningtounderstandthevaryingintoxicatingeffects
that anxiety and alcohol take on guests. This drink feeds and soothes these issues
concurrently,itusesanintoxicantasadeliverysystemforananxiolytic,complementingand
contradictingitself.
Theperformancecreatedahostingsituation.Itformeda‘space’,usingfamiliaractionsand
gesturestogenerateparticipation.Eachobjectusedasatoolinthisperformanceactedasa
hostinitself,facilitatingsomefacetoftheperformance,buttheindividualobjectsalsocome
together to formonehosting actionundermy choreography. Theaudiencemovedwithin
thatspace,becominggueststotheobjects.
Figure4.11.Willing,Elizabeth.Pacify.Etchedglasscup.9x9x9cm.2018.
54
The glass that the cocktail is served in gently leaked. This cup, titledPacify,was specially
designed for the Anxiolytic cocktail performance at theMelbourneArt Fair. It takes as its
startingpoint clear thinglass intended to feel fragile in thehandof thedrinker.Theglass
was made from an altered beaker that would normally be used in a chemical lab. The
taperedtopwasremovedfromthebeakertocreateatidyusefulcocktailglass,sphericallike
an eyeball. Clues to its previous functionwere evident on the side of the glasswhere its
manufacture stamps remained in white. Leaving these on welcomed the connection to
chemicalexperimentation,alchemy,andthecreationofsedativesanddrugs.FurthermoreI
haveaddedtothesestamps;etchedalongsidetheexistingbrandingismyownlogo,aleaf.
Theleafisastylisedcombinationofthevalerianplantleafsilhouette,structuredlooselyin
theformofatypicalmarijuanaleafsymbol.
Figure4.12.Willing,Elizabeth.Pacify.Etchedglasscup.9x9x9cm.2018.
Theglass,Pacify,hadatinyholeaboutone-thirdofthewayupitsside.Theholewasalmost
invisible,excepttheprocessoffabricatingithasslightlywarpedandrippledthesurrounding
glass.Normally piercing a hole in the side of a glass vessel iswith the intent ofmaking a
waterpipetosmokemarijuana–butinthiscase,ithadanotherfunction.Whenthecocktail
waspouredintotheglasstheholeallowedtheliquidtoweepoutverygently,onlydripslike
tears. Thedrinkerwasencouraged to stem the flowwith their finger, to comfort, soothe,
pacifythecupinitsstateofloss.Intheactofblockingthetinyholethedrinkerwasmade
awareoftheirbody,thedelicatechoreographyoftheirhands,andtheactofdrinkingthatis
normallysotrivial.Theguestalsohadadirectconnectionofthecocktailwiththeirfingertip
andmouth,creatingafullcircleofpacification.
55
WhileusingthecupattheMelbourneArtFair,someparticipantsfounditdifficulttomanage
pacifyingtheglass,whileotherswerestrictlydedicatedtoit.Eitherway,theliquidbecomes
amaterialembodyingcontrol,orthelackthereof,eitherendingupinthedrinkers’bodies,
orontheirhandsandclothing.
Figure4.13.Willing,Elizabeth.Anxiolytic.Cocktailservicewithvaleriantincture,customglassware
andnumbinglipbalm.CollaborationwithCennonHanson.2018.Photo:MichaelaDutková
Anxiolytic was a performance that exploited the timber sculpturesUmber, the glass cup
Pacify, anda collaborative recipe. In collaborationwith theartworks, Iwas the facilitator,
the host of the performance. By engaging with the work the audience were choosing to
become a guest and to be contained, even consumed, by that experience. The objects
UmberandPacifywerefunctional,abarandadrinkingglass, familiartotheactofserving
guests. These existed as art objects because they request a level of consideration,
implication,andparticipationthatarenotnormallynecessaryinaregularbar.Thecocktail
was in contactwith the audience’s fingertips, or on their clothing, or in theirmouth, and
noses,andinteracted(atleastslightly)withtheirneurologicalfunctions.Theobjectscreated
for the performance were designed to form relationships between themselves and
audiences;attachingthemselvesto,andcrossingthethresholdoftheaudience’sbody.The
guest participantwas simultaneously invited into these object bodies as the performance
waswelcomedintotheirbody.Inthisworktherewasbothaclassicrepresentationofhost
andguestrolesintheactofservice/welcoming,buttherewasalsotheunderlyingparasite
plantedbytheartist.
A small portion of the Art Fair crowd was sedated by the work, with the artist as host
providingasenseofcalmandcontrol.Thepop-upbarwasacatalystforanexchangeover
56
drinks, familiar to theart context, andyetbringing to the fore through the sculpturaland
performance medium, a requirement for the audience to care for their objects of
consumption,andthinkmorecloselyabouttheeffecttheirconsumptionwillhaveontheir
mentalstate.
4.5Impressions:LimnandKernel
Figure4.14.Willing,Elizabeth.Kernel,exhibitiondocumentation.2018.FrankMoranGalleryZ11,
CreativeIndustriesPrecinct,QUTKelvinGrove.
Tolimnistodepictordescribeanotherthing(“limn,v.3,”2019),yetthiswordcouldverbally
bemistaken for limb, such as that of a body or tree. This video work Limn captures the
creation of form between two objects – found tree branches, and the artist’s body. The
performancewasfilmedovertwohoursandeditedtoa16-minuteperformancevideo.The
cameraviews theperformanceas ifbearingover theaction,asa viewermightencounter
thework if standing in thegallery space.At times theentire sceneofactivity is captured,
framed by the timber floorboards, and at other times the video cuts to close-ups of the
body,capturingthemoreintricateanddelicatemovements.
57
Figure4.15.Willing,Elizabeth.Limn.Videostill.16.05minutes.2018.
Thecentralfocusofthevideoistwotimber logsfoundinbushlandlocaltomyhome.The
timberwas specifically chosen for its size, and its complex surface texture includingborer
marks, termiteholes,and lumpyknots in thesurface.Continuing theprocessemployed in
Umber, Ihavecarvednegative impressionsofvariousshortbreadformsintothesurfaceof
theselogs;smallexcavationsthataddtothenaturaltermiteandwoodbordermarksonthe
surface.Throughthisactofcarving,theseobjectsbecomecumbersomeandabsurdmoulds
forshortbreaddough.Theydonotresemblethe importedEnglishorEuropeanshortbread
mouldswith their flat surfaces and smooth indentations for pressing dough, nor are they
similartotheindentedrollingpinsusedformakingsheetsofidenticalcookies.Theirsurface
islumpyandirregular,camouflagingthemouldsamongstthenaturalgroovesandtextures.
Duetotheirawkwardsizeandshape,intryingtoobtainanimpressionfromthismould,the
dough would capture both the hand-carved indentations made by the artist and the
readymade wavy carvings created by woodborers – a feature that complicates the
authorshipofthemarksandemphasisestheassertivenessofthewoodasanaturalhostof
boththeinsectandthedough.
Theuseoftheirregulartimber‘moulds’revealstheflawsandthepotentialoftheirhosting
capabilities.Thelogsareadysfunctionalandalienobjectwhenconsideredinrelationtothe
traditionalcontextofakitchen;theyoffernoneofthemanualeaseandconveniencethata
kitchentoolnormallyexemplifies.InLimn,thepreparationofadelightfullydecorativefood
is converted into a strenuous, wrestling process. In order to activate their ‘material
productivity’, these timber limbs need something equally as awkward and lumpy to press
against, not a kitchen bench or a rolling pin. In thiswork, that surface is provided bymy
body.Limncombinesthetimbermouldwiththebodyasamould;ahardobjectforcreating
identicalcopiesconjoinedwiththesoftercorporealsubject.Thesetwoorganicformscome
58
together in an attempt to ‘validate’ the shortbread tool, providing a platform for the
possiblecreationofbiscuits.
Themouldandthebodyaredependentononeanothertocreateacast,justasthehostand
guestareco-dependenttoenacthospitality.Boththemouldandmyperformingbody‘host’
thedough inthenegativespacesofourbodies. Inmyroleashost, Iexertpoweroverthe
performancetool(mould),butthistoolinturncontainsandmanipulatesmyownflesh.The
ambiguityanddependenceofthecorrelatedrolesofhostingareembodiedinthisactionof
capturing,andbeingcaptured.Amouldimpliesacast,andacastimpliesamould.
Figure4.16.Willing,Elizabeth.Limn.Highdefinitionvideo.16.05minutes.2018.Installation
documentation,FrankMoranGalleryZ11,CreativeindustriesPrecinct,QUTKelvinGrove.
Theshortbreaddoughisthemediatorofthisrelationshipbetweenlimbs.Shortbreaddough
isintendedtobecrumbly,fragile,yetalsotoretainthedelicateimpressionsforceduponit.
Its creamy yellow colouring is a direct reflection of its high fat content, butter, but this
qualityalsomakes itevocativeofskin. In thevideo, I roll thetimberandmediatingdough
acrossmystomach,legsandshoulders,beginningwiththehandsandprogressingdownmy
body, finally forcing my knees and feet against it. Any available surface of my body is
exploredasapotential surface forpressure. Theperformance isnot recorded in termsof
successful‘casts’fromthetimber,butasanexhaustionofpossibilities,anglesfromwhichto
sandwichthefattydoughbetweenmylimbs.
59
Siftedwhite flour isusedasa releasebetweenbodyandmould,progressivelybuildingup
aroundthespaceandsuggestiveofBruceNauman’sFlourArrangements(1966)2.InLimnit
capturesandexaggeratesthemarksoftheperformanceonthefloorandartist’sbody.The
whiteflourbleachesthealreadywhitebody.Asthevideoprogresses,thespacearoundthe
performancebecomes scatteredwith thedebrisof the repeatedactions, footprints in the
flour, scattered crumbs of dough, remnants of successful impressions like fossils or
archaeological artefacts. The gallery floor becomes the studio, and the kitchen. The video
surfacebecomestexturedwiththehistoryoftheperformance,myselfasperformerwrithing
inthecentreofit.
Asthedoughisformed,capturedbythevideo,thedoughitselfbecomesthefinal‘host’to
the actions that have befallen it. Throughout the video we see the dough record in its
surface and shapemy bodily interactions - as a stage and amaterial it hostsmy body –
howeverthroughthisprocessitlosesitsdoughypliabilityduetotheexcessflouraddedtoit.
The successes and limits of the hosting actions are written (or hosted) in the dough’s
surface.
Theactofcreatingtracesandimprintsashostinggesturesislikewisereflectedinthework
Kernel.Thecube-likesculpturehasnoneoftheprecisionofaminimalobject,itscornersare
unevenly rounded, and its surface is chaotic.Kernel is partially covered in imprints, small
indentations of corn kernels pressed and raked across the surface.Where the objectwas
oncemalleableandimpressionable,itisnowcastinahardconcrete-likesubstance.
Figure4.17.Willing,Elizabeth.Kernel.Fortoncastofbuttersculpture.40x40x35cm.2019.
2FlourArrangements(1966)wasaworkinwhichtheartistmadecompositionsoutofflouronthefloorofhisstudioeverydayforamonth.Theseephemeralarrangementsnowexistasaseriesofphotographs.
60
Anoff-site performancewas held inmy kitchenwhere I invited 20-30 friends for a party.
Cobsofcornwereboilingonthestove,andanenormous30kgblockofbutterwassittingon
thebench.Asguestswereofferedacobtheywereinvitedtoseasonitwithbutter,rollingit
along the surface of the butter, melting and shaping the malleable material as they
performedtheaction.Knifeandspoonmarksarealsoengravedintothebutter,atestament
to the varied and personalised approaches to eating food, and the curiosity (or perhaps
suspicion)of thediners.Theguestsperformed thisactionwithoutmy instruction, soeach
guest approached it differently, forming, and re-forming it through their unique
participation.Thisbutterobject is the thresholdofhospitalitybetween thebodiesofhost
andguestforitactsasasiteofcontactandexchange.Theguestsadoptapositionofpower
throughtheircontroloverthisbutterform.
Thenextdaythebutterwascapturedandreplicatedthroughamould-makingprocess,asa
type of performance documentation in object form. The butter sculpture was cast in
silicone, fixing the fugitive gestures in its surface, and then a copy was made in a
plaster/resinmaterial. Thematerial is grey, solid, durable, and reminiscent of concrete: a
sculpture designed to last, in contrast to the impermanence of its original material. The
artwork is editioned to reflect the number of people that participated in the corn
performance:14editionsfor14participants.
Supportingthesculpture,atableactsasaplinthforKernel,itisreminiscentofadiningtable
forasmallfamily,andyetitisalsomarked,scratched,andhasdrawingsandmeasurements
onitssurface.Thistablehasexistedassurfaceinbothmydiningroomandstudioatvarious
times.Itisinsomesensethematerialembodimentofthespacestraversedbymypractice,a
crossoverbetweenthekitchenandstudio,adoptingperformancesrelativetoboth,drawing
simultaneouslyfromthekitchencabinetsandthestudiotoolbox.
In its final durable state the sculpture on exhibition is no longer open to further hosting
through service or ingestion; the relationships between host and guest are instead
sublimated into theobjectpresentedto theviewer.Kernel isanartefact fromthe fleeting
performance,hostingonitssurfacethetracesofparticipationandco-creation.
61
Figure4.18.Willing,Elizabeth.Kerneldetail.Fortoncastofbuttersculpture.40x40x35cm.2019.
WhileKernelexistsasbothperformanceandobject,thisresearchisprimarily interestedin
thefinalobjectsasformedandalteredbyperformance–shapedbytheinteractionsofthe
competingforcesofguestandhost.Limntooexistsinboththespaceofperformance,and
object (shortbread impressions and video). These twoartworks are the result of intensive
performances involving customised tools that challengeandextendonactsofhosting.By
significantlyenlargingablockofbutter,andbymakinginoperativeatraditionalshortbread
mould,howcanIyieldanewlanguageofperformativeco-creationinthevisualartscontext,
anewlanguagethroughthelensofhostandguestroles?Throughtheuniquephysicaltraces
of thehost andguest, in collaborationwith these absurdobjects, I haveextrapolated the
usefulnessofhostingasamethod,anditsemploymentasaninterpretivelensforvisualarts
practice.
Summary
Eachofthesecreativeworkscanbeanalysedasexpressionsofhostingdynamics.Theinter-
subjective relationshipsbetweenartist,artwork,andvieweroccurascomplex interactions
within the studio and gallery. The roles within hosting constantly shift between bodies
throughperformanceandparticipatorymethods.Theshiftingroles invitereflectiononnot
onlythecorrelationandco-dependenceofthehostandguest,butalsotheabilityforhost
andguesttobepresentinmultiplebodiessimultaneously.
IntheworksMilkTeethandWarmLight,thetracesofdrinkingweresublimatedintoafinal
objectthatnarratesthe interactionbetweenthebodyandartmaterial. Justas inAntoni’s
Gnaw, the art object becomes a record of the relationship between the artist’s body and
62
material.Theperformativecreationofthatobjectisembodiedinthenuancedtracesofthe
foodmaterials.
The cocktail performance Anxiolytic, presented on the timber stage of Umber and with
Pacifyglasses,madeuseofobjectsthatareinthemselveshosts,andalsoutilisedastoolsin
theperformanceofhospitality.Thisperformancewasnarratedthroughtheobjects,which
will potentially leave a lasting impression on the guest-audience: a leaked cocktail on the
shirt, the lingering smell of cloves, or the sedated mind. As in Gallaccio’s Stroke, or
Chadwick’s Carcass, the artwork is a stage for hosting, employing complex multi-sensory
guestengagements.
The material embodiment of hosting relationships is of equal importance to the
performative and participatory processes that create them. Limn and Kernel are, like
Antoni’sandChadwick’sworks,performativeobjectsexhibitingthemarksoftheircreation.
Theseworksexistasperformancesfrozenintime;theyarenotpermanentlyhostinginthe
activesenseof theverb,but rather theyareartefacts thatdocument their statusashost-
objects.
63
CHAPTER5:CONCLUSION
Utilising food inmy art practice has changed the dynamic between viewer, artwork, and
artist,allowingareconsiderationofthecreativeworkthroughthelensofhospitality.Food
actsasacatalystforpotentialmomentsofphysicalcontact,touch,smell,taste,sharing,and
satiation.Asenseoffamiliaritywiththematerialhelpsinprovidingpermissiontoaudiences
to become guests to these installations. As the body comes into contactwith these food
artworks,itbecomesacontainerforthem,suchthattheaudienceisimplicatedinthework
asbothaco-creatorofform,andasabodywhonowhoststhematerialinside.Justasahost
andguestrelyonone-anothertovalidatetheirrespectiveroles,theseartworksrelyontheir
relationship with the maker to form and alter them. The artwork consumes, and is
consumed.
Asthisexegesishasdiscussed,thecreationoftheseartworkscanberegardedasasitefor
power dynamics between host and guest. These dynamics flow from a set of codes and
conventions built into the act of hospitality which is “fuelled by emotion, excess, and
sensitivity” (Still, 2010, p. 125). The space of artmaking highlights the potential instability
that underlies sensitive host and guest relationships. Hosting may include conflict,
conviviality,parasitism,intoxication,upheaval,hostility,pleasure,orgreed; inthisresearch
project all of these complications contribute to the understanding of host/guest
relationships.
The artworks produced in this practice-led research project are regarded as sites for
generatingrelationshipsbetweenhostandguest,andtheresultingtraceswereasvariedas
therelationshipsthemselves.Thedifficultyofthisprojecthasbeenindrawingtogethersuch
diversetracesfromperformativemaking.Thematerialisfood,andtheiractionsarerelated
toservingandeating,buttheformsarevastlydifferent.
This research asks, how does ‘hosting’ serve as a theoretical and practical tool for
reconsideringfood-basedartworks, formedandalteredbyperformance?Hostingfacilitates
theanalysisofthecomplexrelationshipsbetweenartist,viewer,andartwork. Itaddresses
thewayinwhichperformanceandparticipationcreate instability inthedynamicsofthese
relationships.Therolesofartist,viewer,andartwork,whichactatdifferent timesasboth
64
‘host’ and ‘guest’, are therefore all responsible for the outcomes and material traces
produced.Therefore,thevariationsanddynamicsofrelationshipsbetweenhostandguest
aremethodsofcomposition,eachprovidingitsownuniquetrace.
Performanceandparticipationwerethemainmethodsofcompositionforthisbodyofwork,
and each was complicated through the inter-subjective and inter-objective relationship
betweenhostingbodies. Theartworkspresented in this researchwill neverbe able tobe
replicated, for each time that hosting is performed, the relationships change, and new
methodsofcompositionwillbecreated.Likethematerialsofbutterandshortbreaddough,
the roles of host and guest are malleable, responsive, capable of folding back on one-
anotherinwaysthatareoftendifficulttopredict.Itisthisinstabilitythatmakesfood-based
performancesuchafertilesiteforreflectingonthecomplexsocial forcesthatoccurwhen
peopleeattogether.
65
References
Betterton,R.(1996).IntimateDistance:WomenArtistsandTheBody.London,NewYork:Routledge.
Bishop,C.(2012).ArtificialHells.ParticipatoryArtandthePoliticsofSpectatorship.VersoBooks.
Bolt,B.(2007).TheMagicisintheHandling.InPracticeasResearch:ApproachestoCreativeArts
Enquiry.London:I.B.Tauris.
Bourriaud,N.(2002).RelationalAesthetics(S.Pleasance,F.Woods,&M.Copeland,trans.).Les
pressesduréelDijon.
Brillat-Savarin,J.A.(2009).ThePhysiologyofTaste:orMeditationsonTranscendentalGastronomy.
Vintage.
Buttrose,E.(2014).HarvestAnExhibition.InHarvest:Art,Film,andFood.QueenslandArtGallery/
GalleryofModernArt.
Cameron,D.(2000).PartsandWhole.InJanineAntoni.InkTreeEdition.
Clarke,L.B.,&Petersen,M.(2013).CriticalIngredientsinaFreeLunch:FoodandtheComplexof
GenerosityinRelationalPerformance.TheatreAnnual,66,65–81,106.
Derrida,J.(2000).Hostipitality(B.Stocker&F.Morlock,trans.).JournalofTheoreticalHumanities,
5(3).https://doi.org/10.1080/09697250020034706
Derrida,J.,&Dufourmantelle,A.(2000).OfHospitality:AnneDufourmantelleinvitesJacquesDerrida
torespond(R.Bowlby,trans.).Stanford,California:California:StanfordUniversityPress.
Drobnick,J.(2005).VolatileEffects:OlfactoryDimensionsofArtandArchitecture.InEmpireofthe
Senses:Asensualculturereader.Berg.
Drobnick,J.(2016).IntoxicatingSenses:AlcoholandArtintheMuseum.InFoodandMuseums.
BloomsburyPublishing.
Dupree,C.(2003).SonjaAlhäuser’sSweetInstallations.Gastronomica,3(1).
http://dx.doi.org.ezp01.library.qut.edu.au/10.1525/gfc.2003.3.1.10
Fusi,L.(2012).DisappearingHumanBeings,NotProblems.InTheUnexpectedGuest:Art,Writingand
ThinkingonHospitality.ART/BOOKS.
Gallaccio,A.(2009).AnyaGallaccio.InEatingtheUniverse.VomEsseninderKunst.Dumont.
Gron,K.(2017).EATMETrapholt.Kolding:TrapholtMuseumofArtandDesign.
66
Hartung,E.(2002).Food,ArtandCommunication:FoodasaNewModelofArtReception.InToEat
OrNottoEat:OrRelationshipsofArtwithFoodinthe20thCentury.CentrodeArtede
Salamanca.
Haseman,B.(2006).AManifestoforPerformativeResearch.MediaInternationalAustralia
IncorporatingCultureandPolicy,118(1),98–106.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1329878X0611800113
HaywoodRollingsJr,J.(2008).ContestingContent,orHowtheEmperorShedsHisOldClothes:Guest
Editor’sIntroduction.QualitativeInquiry,14(6),839–850.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800408318297
Heon,L.(2001).JanineAntoni’sGnawingIdea.Gastronomica:TheJournalofFoodandCulture,1(2).
http://dx.doi.org.ezp01.library.qut.edu.au/10.1525/gfc.2001.1.2.5
host,v.2.(2018).InOxfordEnglishDictionaryOnline.Retrievedfrom
http://www.oed.com.ezp01.library.qut.edu.au/view/Entry/88748
Kirschenblatt-Gimblett,B.(1999).PlayingtotheSenses:FoodasaPerformanceMedium.
PerformanceResearch,4(1),1–30.https://doi-
org.ezp01.library.qut.edu.au/10.1080/13528165.1999.10871639
Kroger,M.(2012).BetweenRepresentationandRetreat.InAtelier+Kuche=LaborederSinne.Hatje
Cantz.
Kunze,D.(2004).TheMissingGuest:TheTwistedTopologyofHospitality.InEatingArchitecture.
London:TheMITPress.
limn,v.3.(2019).InOxfordEnglishDictionaryOnline.Retrievedfrom
www.oed.com/view/Entry/108501
MacRitchie,L.(2005).TheBodyAccordingtoChadwick.ArtinAmerica,93(1),90–97.
Maravillas,F.(2014).TheUnexpectedGuest:FoodandHospitalityinContemporaryAsianArt.InM.
Antoinette&C.Turner,ContemporaryAsianArtandExhibitions:ConnectivitiesandWorld-
making.Retrievedfromhttp://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt13wwv81.12
Marinetti,F.T.(1930).ManifestoofFuturistCooking(S.Brill,trans.).SanFansisco:BedfordArts.
Markus,D.(2012).Chicago.“Feast:RadicalHospitalityinContemporaryArt”SmartMuseumofArt.
ArtinAmerica,100(6),171.
67
Marsh,A.(2014).performance_ritual_document.Melbourne:MacmillanArtPublishing.
Martinez,R.(2000).ConjunctionsandDisjunctions.InJanineAntoni.InkTreeEdition.
McFadden,C.(1993).KatePullsItOff.InC.Spencer&C.Clifton(Eds.),TheFaberBookofFood.
London:FaberandFaber.
Miller,J.H.(1977).TheCriticasHost.CriticalInquiry,3(3),439–447.https://doi.org/10.1086/447899
Probyn,E.(2000).CarnalAppetites:Foodsexidentities.PsychologyPress.
Racz,I.(2017).HelenChadwick’sOfMutability:ProcessandPostmodernism.JournalofVisualArt
Practice.https://doi.org/10.1080/14702029.2016.1206442
Rugoff,R.(1999).LeapofFaith.InAnyaGallacio.TramwayandLocus.
Sayre,H.M.(1989).TheObjectofPerformance:TheAmericanAvant-gardesince1970.Chicagoand
London:TheUniversityofChicagoPress.
Schön,D.A.(1983).TheReflectivePractitioner:HowProfessionalsThinkinAction.BasicBooks.
Smith,S.,Hirschel,A.,Higgins,H.,Waxman,L.,Snyder,S.,Terrassa,J.,…Aristarkhova,I.(2013).Feast:
RadicalHospitalityinContemporaryArt.SmartMuseumofArtTheUniversityofChicago.
Snyder,S.(2013).HospitalityasWitnessintheWorkofDanielSpoerri.InFeast:RadicalHospitalityin
ContemporaryArt.SmartMuseumofArtTheUniversityofChicago.
Still,J.(2010).DerridaandHospitality:TheoryandPractice.EdinburghUniversityPress.
Sullivan,G.(2009).Makingspace:ThePurposeandPlaceofPractice-ledResearch.InH.Smith&R.
T.Dean(Eds.),Practice-ledResearch,Research-ledPracticeintheCreativeArts.Edinburg
UniversityPress.
Sullivan,G.(2010).ArtPracticeasResearch(2nded.).SagePublications.
Trippi,L.,Antoni,J.,&Tiravanija,R.(1998).UntitledArtists’ProjectsbyJanineAntoni,BenKinmont,
RirkritTiravanija.InEatingCulture.StateUniversityofNewYorkPress.
Visser,M.(2015).TheRitualsofDinner:TheOrigins,Evolution,Eccentricities,andMeaningofTable
Manners.OpenRoadMedia.
Walker,S.(2010).ViralArchitecture,ViralLandscapes:TheImpactofModernScienceonHelen
Chadwick’sArt.Leonardo,43(5),458–463.https://doi.org/10.1162/LEON_a_00038
top related