AS FAR AS THE MIND CAN SEE

Yesterday I saw the Lawrence Weiner retrospective, AS FAR AS THE EYE CAN SEE, at the Whitney. Afterwards, my mind was racing with images, questions, and ideas.

According to Weiner, it is equally valid whether he or someone else fabricates his work or no one builds it at all. Most of his work is not built and exists only as text. A work's media are often listed as "text and the materials referred to." Whether you see the actual materials or the text, the important thing as a viewer is completing the material relationship in one's mind.

This got me thinking that perhaps the work is not even dependent upon being written out in language. Weiner's work could also be passed on orally. Imagine this: If I were to tell a friend the title of one of Weiner's pieces that he had not yet seen, he would have received all of the necessary information to complete the piece in his mind...basically he would have "seen" the piece the moment I told him about it.

However, Weiner often manipulates the text, using special fonts, colors, word positioning, and punctuation marks. But there is no reason the work couldn't communicate the artist's intent if it was spoken or existed typed out as a simple sentence in a generic font. I'm not totally sure if he aestheticizes the text because as an artist he cannot just let it be, or if he chooses to format it the way he does in order to further support the content embedded in the language. I'm leaning towards the latter.

The other thing that I can't figure out: Some of the pieces were listed as being part of someone's private collection. What exactly do these people own? If the work only exists once completed in the viewer's mind, then the object or text is just the stimulus for the mental image. By seeing (or hearing about) the work, you already "own" it.

He was walking around the gallery while I was there. I should have just asked him.