PQosiZ of Te Frme
as a conceptual device
I think of porosity as a quality that allows exchange across the boundaries - leakage, absorption, circulation. I use porosity of the frame as a conceptual device that helps me consider how an artwork's meaning is curtailed or unleashed by its framing.
​
If we would imagine a sliding scale of porosity, on the lower porosity end we could find works whose framing prescribes their meaning and mode of engagement quite narrowly. On the other end, the framing would be more ambiguous, leaving more space for meaning creation and unorthodox modes of engagement. The actor-network theory provides useful notions of the "space of prescription" and "space of negotiation" (Murdoch 1998, 362) to describe this kind of distinction.
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
Turning to real-life examples, on the left, we could find any Old Masters' gallery where gilded frames and velvet ropes prescribe quite clearly what we are supposed to be looking at and from where - often with a readily available didactic panel.
​
Inching towards the right, we might consider Shaun Gladwell's "Reversed Readymade", where he rides a replica of Duchamp's "Bicycle Wheel". However, he does not ride the original, and the didactic panel on the wall is very prescriptive in terms of how to access the AR experience through the smartphone. Thus, while Gladwell may further enhance the porosity of Duchamp's piece, his own gesture is not presented in any more porous manner than the Old Masters' works in the previous example.
​
Things get a bit more confused in Martin Kippenberger's "When It Starts Dripping From the Ceiling". The sculptural installation included a dirty-looking trough. The framing must have been rather ambiguous as it prompted the gallery cleaner to "clean" it. The museum lamented the "destruction" of a million-dollar work, but I do wonder whether Kippenberger may have anticipated and even welcomed such a response.
Finally, in "Salt Winning", Max Liboiron invited the audience to take anything they want from the exhibition as long as they replace the item with another, of equal or higher value. While it is easy to locate the focal point of the work, its boundaries are uncertain. What concepts and measurements of value are appropriate? Are audience members co-authors? Do the items removed remain as distributed parts of the work indefinitely or do they cease to be art as soon as they leave the room? Does it depend on the nature of the object? Here the frame is very porous, allowing objects, people and meanings to traverse it in all kinds of directions over and over again - continuously changing the work but at the same time keeping it intact.
​
Myself, I am interested in exploring framing strategies on the higher porosity end that open up the space of negotiation where new meanings can emerge.
​
Justas Pipinis
Last edited 18-APR-2024
REFERENCES
Daily Telegraph. 2011. “Cleaner Damages $1.1m Artwork,” November 7, 2011. https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/cleaner-damages-11m-artwork-by-martin-kippenberger-called--when-it-starts-dripping-from-the-ceiling/news-story/2e3edb0c5706e60e169c4479f7090f4f.
Liboiron, Max and Justas Pipinis. 2020. “Exchanging”. In Transmissions: Critical Tactics for Making and Communicating Research, edited by Katrina Jungnickel, 89-107. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press.
​
Murdoch, Jonathan. 1998. “The Spaces of Actor-Network Theory.” Geoforum 29 (4): 357–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0016-7185(98)00011-6.
“Shaun Gladwell | Exhibitions | MCA Australia | MCA Australia.” n.d. Accessed June 14, 2022. https://www.mca.com.au/artists-works/exhibitions/shaun-gladwell-pacific-undertow/reversed-readymade-augmented-reality-2019/.
​
