Art Month Presents Collector’s Disgrace—Art frame: red removed

The title above is harsh, but so was the insult to the collectors of Art frame: red and to the sculptuation, itself, discovered last night at the opening of Art Month’s Collector’s Space.

Art frame: red is a sculptuation. As a sculptuation, it activates the physical space within which one stands to look at its various components. In so doing, actual space becomes its primary component. A sculptuation is a three-dimensional spacial art.

We, however, don’t recognise this space as a ‘something’ because it is the same space we walk through everyday. It isn’t art—it is the invisible ‘container’ of our breathing being.

Fair enough. A sculptuation understands and accepts this, yet makes no apologies. We ignore space, but a sculptuation is actual space, a space it doesn’t hide but makes present.

Our engagement of a sculptuation begins in this space (that we do not see) before it moves into the imaginary space of its various components, then returns to the physical space now changed for being made present—an actual thing. This is a sculptuation’s spacial circuit; not unlike a wired circuit that conducts electricity, except this circuit conducts thought. Without a spacial loop—its loopedosity—it is not a sculptuation, it is not art.

In the Art frame limited edition (Art frame: red and Art frame: blue), we see this made evident by the watercolour floor plan in which a framed watercolour hangs on a wall, a situation that echoes the actual framed watercolours of the sculptuation (that hang on a physical wall).

Accordingly, if Art frame is not hung on a wall, the watercolour floorpan cannot echo the actual space of its situation. It is no longer a sculptuation (a sculptural situation), it is no longer art.

So what does Art Month’s Collector’s Space do? Just this. It exhibits the watercolour components of Art frame: red not on a wall, but on the side of a waste high pedestal that thereby excludes the actual space of the work of art, its primary component. The work of art was openly, brazenly defaced.

If a painting was exhibited with its face to the wall, we would immediately recognise this as a misrepresentation of the painting in that we are prevented from seeing the painting. Yet the curator of Collector’s Space refused to recognise her misrepresentation of Art frame: red.

Sure, no one talks about space as I have just done in Australia’s art magazines and newspapers, but that doesn’t mean space as an aesthetic medium does not exist.

Art frame: red does exist, except for the time it spent in Collector’s Space—during which it was annihilated. The work of art is now safe for being removed from the exhibition—immediately. My thanks to the collectors James Roland and Becky Sparks, to Amanda Rowell and to Sebastian Goldspink.

In the end the question has to be asked: Is this what Collector’s Space is all about—devaluing art? Apparently, last year, it presented works of art in bubble wrap! Is the exhibition some weird pretext for making particular works of art worthless? Why promote collectors, only to devalue their collection? Moreover, is the inclusion of ‘space’ in the exhibition’s title a mindless grab of an art word presently in fashion, without any understanding of how space works?