Settings: Artist Research- Peter Fischli and David Weiss

Peter Fischli and David Weiss
Untitled Work
1992
Polyurethane objects

Photo sourced from the Tate

This work by Fischli and Weiss is similar to the work by Thomas Demand where the viewer is forced to challenge what they think they are seeing. The installation was only viewable from a glass window on a locked door and so the viewer was limited in terms of how they were able to interact with it. The installation appears to be a storage unit or some sort of caretakers room filled with everyday objects such as buckets, tyres, furniture, masking tape, cigarette packets, paintbrushes, and other utensils that might be found within an art studio. The objects within it, however, are highly realistic replicas made from carved and painted polyurethane. 

The viewer may potentially look at this work and dismiss it based on the assumption that it is just items in a room, without realising that it is in fact something different to what the had assumed it to be. I find this to be such an interesting aspect that can be explored within installation art. I am drawn to the idea that an artist can cause a viewer to be sure of themselves and doubt themselves so interchangeably; that a viewer will potentially question their instincts when looking at a work. This notion is important as it follows the same values that were at play in Marcel Duchamp's works. The items within this work are, however, precise replicas of objects from the everyday. The viewer is given the opportunity to undergo a discovery that encourages them to look at their surroundings in a fresh way. Fischli speaks of the objects within the installation:

Perhaps our carved objects have more of an affinity with painted still lifes. In the case of Duchamp the concept of objets trouvés, or ‘found objects’, is important, whereas we try to create objects. Duchamp’s objects could revert back to everyday life at any point in time. Our objects can’t do that, they’re only there to be contemplated. They’re all objects from the world of utility and function, but they’ve become utterly useless. You can’t sit on the chairs we carve. They are, to put it simply, freed from the slavery of their utility. Nothing else is left other than to look at this chair. What else can you do with it?

(Fischli in Fleck, Söntgen and Danto 2005, p.22.)

This work is an example of a piece that forces the viewer to understand art in a different way; art should question and challenge the viewer rather than just appeal to the eye. This is especially relevant in the way that this piece is exhibited. Having a room within a gallery that is accessible to the viewer through only a window on a door, and furthermore a room that is so void of structure and organisation, is very important to the work; it is exploring the idea of the gallery as a place of order and high art. The window being the point of access is also very important in terms of the way that the audience is able to view the work; only a number of people would be able to do so at a time and would only be able to do so for a certain amount of time depending on the size of the potential audience. This would work to limit the viewing time which would cause the viewer to rely more on their instincts when interpreting the work. 

If I were creating this work I think that I would position the window so that the audience would have to alter their standing position to be able to see inside. I like the idea that the viewer would have to sacrifice their normal position to have access to the work. 

Robert Fleck, Beate Söntgen and Arthur C. Danto, Peter Fischli David Weiss, London 2005, pp.19, 22, 66, 136, 138–9, reproduced pp.20–1, 23, 124.

Nicolas de Oliveira, Nicola Oxley, Michael Petry, and Michael Archer, eds. 2004. Installation Art. 1. paperback ed., reprinted. London: Thames & Hudson, pp. 172