Deconstructions: Zero to Infinity

This project was conceived in 1968 but was never realised, although a small version comprising four cubes was then produced. After more than thirty years, it seems that the idea of this project has retained its freshness, significance and validity. The project comprises one hundred 24 x 24 x 24 inch open cubes, which are initially laid out on the ground as a minimalist sculpture either inside a gallery or outside in an open space of an urban environment.

Then public or participants are invited to dismantle this minimalist structure and reconstruct the whole thing in their own way, either as one another structure or many, without specific instructions from the artist. The project will be carried out in the open air using different public places in London. The new structures produced by the audience/participants will be removed from the site at the end of the day, and the operation will be repeated on a daily basis.

Some invited participants - artists or students from from art colleges - will be involved in much of the process, taking part in its realisation. The project will start each day with a talk or workshop in which its conceptual / historical background will be explained and discussed, laying down its philosophical and ideological underpinning. The artist will be involved throughout the process, sometimes as the initiator or conductor, or as a spectator. The artist will also engage the audience/spectators in verbal debate and discussion throughout the period of the project.

The work questions and challenges the idea of art as a fixed object of contemplation, conceived and realised by the genius of the artist alone. It was in fact a response and challenge to the modemist sculpture in the early 1960s in Britain, which was an important development in the modemist trajectory but carried with it traditionalism of hierarchic view of things, not only in its formal constructions but also ideologically. This response was first formulated in 1965 (as what historically became known as Minimalism), but then it soon began to free itself, in 1968, from its formal framework and constraints. The present work is a manifestation of the second phase.

The work not only represents a shifts from hierarchic structures but also pushes itself beyond its own fixed non-hierarchic concept and boundary, by allowing it to be constantly transformed. The movement in the early structures, which were fixed to a site or location, was achieved through their reflexivity, by what appears to be a movement within the structures as the response to the movement of the spectator. In the latter development, as in the case of the proposed work, the work is physically moved and reconstructed. Metaphorically, the work, in both cases, represents a shift not only from hierarchic structures but also from authoritarian egalitarianism (fixed and static symmetry - as in American Minimalism) to democratic egalitarianism (symmetry which is in constant transformation whose various stages may or may not represent symmetry), whose manifestation emerges not only through collective action by the masses but within which individuals can and should also act freely.

Philosophically, this work can be understood by looking at two basic systems, which are in constant opposition to each other: the first is based on an understanding that hierarchy manifests through asymmetry; if one wants to destroy the hierarchy of the first it should be done by replacing its asymmetric structure by a symmetrical structure, in which the masses are equalised not only economically but also socially. The result of this is that although everyone is guaranteed his or her basic needs, the whole population is forced into a kind of symmetry in which individuals are forced to lose their individual characteristics, desires and expressivity. Everyone thus becomes the same with the same appearance - same clothes, same hair cuts, same housing, etc - and is expected to express the same thing.

The dynamism of the former (asymmetry) is considered fundamental in human development and progress (capitalism) while the latter (fixed symmetry) is seen to represent egalitarianism (communism). The problem here is of philosophy based on binary opposition - the separation or division between mind and body, between inside and outside, between private and public -

so that the shift always takes place from one to other without a dialectical relationships between them. You either have asymmetry or its reversal - symmetry - both in their basic concepts and their visible social manifestations. In the latter case, the visibility of symmetry at the social/cultural level is seen to be essential in mirroring its basic egalitarian concept, which reduces the people as a homogenous matter which can be manipulated mechanistically - often leading to fascism or totalitarianism.

The proposed work involves both the symmetry and asymmetry: the basic conceptual frame is of symmetry (10 x 10 cubes placed symmetrically, as shown above) - at metaphoric level it can represent the economic/political structure - which when applied or subjected to the social space is constantly transformed into structures which may or may not be symmetrical.

For example, if there are 7 persons involved in reconstructing the 10 x 10 structure, the only outcome will be asymmetric. Which does not mean that the basic concept of symmetry (equality) has been destroyed, but that it can and should be allowed to manifest itself through asymmetry when transformed at the social/cultural level in which people should be free to interact with each other.

It may appear that what I'm trying to do is of a political nature; a work of art that can be described as political art. Not at all. In fact, there is no reference to any political reality. What I'm trying to do is to engage with ideas, structurally and formally, which are inherent within our culture, and in art. The art which is often described as 'art for art sake', may appear to be innocent of a political affiliation, but when its Form is analysed structurally it reveals an ideological underpinning representing a particular and specific position or worldview. In this work I want to show that it's possible to confront and challenge the established view of things or the status quo within the formal framework, and to do so without resorting to iconographic references or representation of reality realistically. This challenge doesn't have to occur at personal or individual level but the mass of people can and should be involved in the artistic process. This re-defines not only the nature of art but also the role of the artist in it, as well as of the audience.

Rasheed Araeen October 2003

https://www.tate.org.uk/art/artists/rasheed-araeen-2364