The artist as Idea,


Ones actions don't make the person to what he is, vice versa this is offcourse also the case.
Someone who always makes meals, is not par definition a cook.
An office-emmployee who always works from 9 'till 5, is during that time mainly what he is what he's been hired to do: In this case an office-employee.
When this person gets home, he will probably not see himself anymore as an office-employee. Artists have many difficulty recognizing this line between
work and private-life, and have the tendency to always see themselves as artist. Which gives them sort of less a separate status. The 'title' of 'artist'
can work stigmatizing. Any action done by an artist can be seen as an work of art because of this. Manzoni understood this ridicule notion en successfully
showed the absurdity by canning his excrement. Sierra never called himself an artist; "That up to others to decide".

The (partly) unique character that is inherent to an individual, also becomes projected onto that persons actions/work.
I however hold stand to the opinion that my work could have been made by anybody else, which in some cases also (partly) is.
As an individual i might be unique, however I am also as an human being part of a larger social context which has transferred many of its (cultural) customs
over to me, which I emmit again deliberately or not. My work therefore is not at all a complete unificational aspect of myself, likewise my thoughts
and concepts also aren't par definition not completely unique and 'mine'. Concepts are mostly formed in language which is als common good.

This notion works through in my Graduation project which is shown parallel with the presentation of someone else whom work/concept I try to approach,
and vice versa. We do not execute ones work or idea, but rather play with the self-regulating system which forms definitions and conventions that show
the pseudo-unique characters commonly attributed to people in general, and artists (in this case) in particular.
We have exchanged the 'caricatural form' that attributed to us and our work.
Wouter Sibum is commonly known as the person who 'exhibits benches'. En I am commonly seen as a person who 'makes conceptual paintings'.
(Wherein I've also parodised myself and notion of 'conceptual painting' by making a painting with text saying "a conceptual looking painting").

Borders are always being pushed forward, but there never broken. Just as the benches I'm showing, is art always a series of conventions, likewise
the existence of countries. All conventions and arrangements... What we define as a "bench", is nothing more than some material on which we can sit on.
While meanwhile there is a heap load of other matter on which we also can and do sit, but what is not referred to as "a bench" (think for example: a rock,
the kitchen-counter, or the floor). A bench does inherent a function from it's own, we accredit it's function.
It then doesn't sound strange to hear that Japanese had some difficulty's to overcome after the introduction of the concept of the 'bench' and 'chair'.

When I show "benches" as if "their mine", the question of intellectual property mounts, the benches sort of less remain part of
'the work of Wouter Sibum'. The appropriation and transformation to a a "genuine" work of mine lies in two components. The first is the
origin of the bench which I exhibit: "Witte de With", which clearly refers to my surname. Secondly because we also exchanged the rights of our
works and that I'm now the owner what can be roughly be described as "Showing Benches as an Art-object". The contracts therefore are not
explanations about our work, but have become a essential part of it.
The whole context after all can be seen as a part of our form, including yourself.

Daniël Dennis de Wit