Mark Dion

There was a lecture at the beginning of the term by American artist, Mark Dion, which was very interesting, but did not influence me greatly at the time. However, in reading Colin Renfrew's book 'Figuring It Out' and learning more about his work from an archaeologist's perspective, I have found a greater appreciation for the poetic concepts behind Dion's work. I remember being most taken by his archaeological work in the lecture, and especially how he displays what has been found - not as a narrative or explanation as Museums usually do, but in a instinctual, childlike way, the ambiguity of which leaves the viewer much room for interpretation. This re-interpretation of the objects is exciting to me - it never occurred to me how museums manipulate our impression of history in the way they display artefacts, in a very subtle way that aids our understanding.

Renfrew's main point about Dion's work was how it questions the definition of archaeology. If archaeology is "understanding the past through the medium of its material remains", then Dion's work is a true example. The objects found during Dion's Tate Thames Digs were processed the same way as found artefacts from an professional archaeological dig - however, the difference, Renfrew says, is that the objects were found at random, washed up from the tide and therefore having little context. It would seem that Dion's work is a misconception - it is presented in a familiar way that we automatically assume to be logical and meaningful, but the history that the objects present has little meaning in a scientific sense. In this way his work questions what archaeologists are looking for.. single objects can tell a story to a certain extent, but it is a 'recovery of context' that is essential to a successful, useful archaeological find.

As I have a fascination for anthropology, I find these things very interesting - archaeology is a man-made science, a doctrine by humans, for humans and about humans... vulnerable to error, emotion and crime (it would seem looting has greatly disadvantaged archaeological accuracy). Dion's work seems so much more important (and of much more interest to me) after learning more about archaeology and museum curating. He questions the process, the meaning and the significance of understanding the past in this material way.

On a side note (because I have re-read it in my lecture notes), another point made by Dion that particularly resonated with me was his analogy of the artist as a film director- when asked what he thought about artists relying on other people to make their work he responded that although on a film set the light, sound, editing technicians are essential, they could be replaced and the film would remain the same - but if you removed the director, the film couldn't happen. This is the same for artists - the idea is the main body of the work. I find this a really useful metaphor for understanding artists such as Damien Hirst and Cornelia Parker.