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