STRUCTURES
AND
BEING
STRUCTURED
A Thesis Presented to NSCAD University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the Degree of Master of Fine Arts
by Lorraine Albert
April 2018

Thesis Committee
Karin Cope, Associate Professor (Program Advisor)
Thierry Delva, Associate Professor, Fine Arts
Steve Higgins, Professor, Fine Arts
Kim Morgan, Associate Professor, Fine Arts
Jan Peacock, Professor, Media Arts (Director, MFA Program)

  Structures and Being Structured

1-2

Entering the space, three framed 10’x10’x8’
structures are equally distributed within the
approximate 900sq gallery. The interiors
of the structures are lit from above with the
gallery’s track lighting. The walls are built from
six 2”x4”x8’ standing vertically between two
2”x4”x10’. The studs are placed at 24” on-centre.
Two pieces of 4’x10’ drywall are mounted
horizontally above one another and left open
on the other side. Two wall sections are then
stood up, fitted and held together at a three-stud
corner. These steps are repeated until the three
enclosures are complete. The framing, along
with the structures, were built in-situ.
Site specificity brings context to the work
vis-à-vis its institutional critique3, but also in its
form. The three structures were constructed to
fit the space with the intent of creating corridors
or transitional spaces. Changing the scale or
quantity of the structures would greatly impact
the work and the audience interaction with it
and each other. The site was considered when
creating the work so it may be integrated into
Gallery 2. This said, the Gallery informed the
dimensions of the work and structures (Irwin
44). Structures and Being Structured uses the
language of construction and architecture
to depict “a kind of complexity which comes
from taking an otherwise completely normal,
conventional albeit anonymous situation and
redefining it, retranslating into overlapping
and multiple readings of contributions, past
and present” (Weible 48). In this way, the
three structures bring forth past and current
experiences, challenges and efforts at
bureaucratic navigation.

1	 This title is a reference to Hans Haacke’s book Framing and Being Framed, which refers to the direction Haacke’s work was
taking in the mid-70’s with regards to the frameworks imposed by art institutions. The notion of Framing touches on the context
in which the institution commodifies the art/artist, and Being Framed refers back to the involvement and entanglement of the
artist within this institution (Hobbs 176). Structures and Being Structured suggests the limitations and boundaries the physical
structures delineate, while Being Structured comments on the complexities of art institutions and its diverse expectations.
2 	 The following text will take into account the historical context of the structures created, give a speculative account of the
viewer experiences, and provide theoretical and conceptual reasoning along with the technical methods and materials used in this
exhibition.
3	 Institutional critique of both gallery and within university settings.

3

 The structures are characterized by their raw
construction materials and appear to the viewer
as wall framing. The reference to architecture
contextualizes the structures as legitimate
form. Even though the structures are closed
and impenetrable, by leaving the walls open
and “unfinished”, they suggest there is nothing
to hide. The structures are not only intended to
guide the viewer through the gallery, but to slow
them down and let them be guided by their own
curiosity and intrigue4. This draws the viewer
into an active role within the space, interacting
with the structures. The space creates limitations
not only in a sociopolitical and economical
context, but also limits the senses: the view is
obstructed, sounds are muffled or bounce off
of numerous walls, and moving within the
space can be uncomfortable and somewhat
disorienting. In essence, this work explores how
individual-spacial relationships manifest within
this site-specific work (Smith 4).
 

Structures and Being Structured intentionally
impedes movement and free navigation
through space. The title refers to the institutional
challenges I grapple with in my art practice, but
more specifically, it addresses the obstacles I’ve
encountered over the past twenty-four months.
The first hurdle occurred during the installation
of my site-specific Untitled (wall) in the Graduate
group show in November 2016. Upon an informal
visit with the Gallery staff, I briefly explained my
intentions. I was discouraged from taking on this
project. They explained that I only had 24 hours
to set up and the work I had proposed was quite
ambitious for the limited space and time. There
was also a concern regarding cleanliness. This
was the first time I was ever discouraged from
creating a work and I felt the institution should
not dictate what work could be possible (or not).
I pressed on and submitted my proposal to the
Gallery anyway.

4	 This idea of placing agency in the viewer, to be conscious of the space, and having confidence that the audience will be
curious enough to interact with the space, was reinforced when Prof. Steve Higgins spoke about his previous installation work.
His intentions to frustrate the viewer, force prescribed views, generate conflict, and place onus on the viewer, parallel many of the
aims of my own work.

4

 The proposal:
November 3, 2016
As per your request, I am sending you all the information for my wall project in Gallery 2 for the
upcoming MFA show. This wall is 8’ x 5’, built with 2” x 4” and melamine, painted white to fit in
seamlessly with the pre-existing gallery walls. This wall would be anchored at the doorway in Gallery 2
leading to Gallery 3 (please see attached diagram). The entrance/exit would be reduced to 27” creating
a funnel.
The topic of the work is space. This allows me to choreograph movement and use space as an object. The
visitor is faced with questioning the given conditions which stimulates a better understanding of space.
The participants will meet at this juncture, interact with each other and move in response to each others
movements.
This is also an institutional critique, a study of power dynamics and authority.
Step 1- BUILD A WALL IN A GALLERY OBSTRUCTING A DOOR.
Visitors will walk by the wall taking the proposed trajectory. Some visitors will question the legitimacy,
placement, meaning, interaction with said wall. Others will walk by, unaware of the contrived
choreography.
Thank you for your time.
Best regards,
Lorraine

5

 Gallery response:
November 3, 2016
[…] From my conversation with… she seems confident in your ability to create the work. And I understand
that she went over our concerns with the installation of the work (finishing touches) in the gallery and
how dust or debris could affect the other works in the exhibition. I trust you will coordinate with your
colleagues in the exhibition to make sure that your installation does not interfere with their work and that
you will all find a solution. We also require a plan for your dismantle. If the work is going to be destroyed
and recycled we will need to contact facilities for access to the correct dumpster. It’s possible there could
be a disposal fee. If it is going to be disassembled and taken back to your studio, then there are no issues.
[…]
Whilst these concerns were warranted since
I had no precedence with the Gallery, these
questions could have been answered during
my informal meeting at the start of the semester.
The initial doubt in my ability to realize the
work made me question if my gender had
played a role in this deterrence. I cannot claim
underrepresentation of female work in recent
years – there have been numerous women who
have preceded me in the gallery – but I can
question the source of doubt in my abilities:
would a male student have been discouraged
from installing the work I proposed?5

5	 I suspect that these challenges have little to do with my gender, but it does remind me of an experience from my past.
As a child, I wanted to play in the local Baseball League with the boys. My parents supported me, but asked if I was certain of
my choice, since I would need to work twice as hard and be better than the average male player to prove my abilities. I never
questioned the validity of this fact; I simply accepted it and worked hard. Being an athletic child, I often ended up with the boys.
I would have to run faster, climb higher, and be strong. I had to be careful not to over excel; my male counterparts would resent
me if I showed them up. Ah, the fine balance between gender politics and recreation. These experiences have led me to always be
prepared to do twice the work, warranted or not.

6

 Health and Safety response:
November 4, 2016
I would have a couple concerns that are Building Code issues.
1. That the wall would reduce the passage way down to less than code requires reducing the egress
space required to meet the occupancy levels for those spaces. The main entrances of Gallery one and
two are considered egress exits for each other and Gallery three as well. Reducing this area would cut
off egress and ultimately reduce the occupancy levels for the entire gallery. It would be a violation of the
building code.
2. The wall would not be able to go up any closer than 18” to the bottom of the sprinkler height as it would
be in violation of the sprinkler code.
I am not sure if there is any way to get around the violation of codes to be able to have this in place for Art.
If the wall was able to swing easily out of the way in the event of an evacuation emergency and someone
is designated to move it out of the way if the Fire alarm went off then maybe it would be possible even
with the temporary violation of building and fire code.
 
After some brief email exchanges, I was granted
permission to install my work if I was willing
to comply with the demands from Health &
Safety. I agreed to adhere to the building and
fire codes and built the work in-situ. No further
complications occurred prior, during or post
installation6. The audience participation was the
integral part of the work, and the critique of the
institution made an effortless case for itself.
When I next proposed a site-specific installation,
in the Highlands National Park in Cape Breton,
Nova Scotia, as part of the LandMarks 2017:
Repères 2017 course7, I was informed that the
project had been approved.

6 	 I was never asked how or if the wall could be removed.
7	 A course offered by sculpture faculty at NSCAD that took part in National art initiative in collaboration
with Parks Canada other Canadian universities to create art for Canada150.

7

 The proposal:
February 21, 2017
Goal: The installation of a subtle yet memorable work with the aim of having a reflective, sobering, and
educational impact on the visitors of the Skyline in the Highlands National Park.
Process: By means of a week-long, on-site and self-directed residency during the period leading up to the
Canada 150 June celebrations, I intend on installing engraved pieces of brass on the nose of the steps of
the Skyline trail. Each individual strip will be engraved with a line from the Peace & Friendship Treaty of
1752.
Result: Trail visitors will be unaware of the work on their hike down to the lookout, but upon their return,
the reflection of the brass may catch their attention and upon closer investigation they will see the text, the
1752 Peace and Friendship Treaty. This non-intrusive intervention will lure visitors into slowing their pace
and look down with attentiveness which will echo a reflective/contemplative posture and procession. With
the text only noticeable upon their return, an emphasis is placed on the fact that there is no way to change
the past but we can and must take steps to move forward.
Duration: The on-site residency will be from June 4-11. The work will remain for the duration of the event,
being removed June 26, 2017.
Months later, when the installation of the work
was set to take place, I was informed that the
work could not be installed yet, but would be in
the following weeks.

8

 The suite of responses:
February 22, 2017
Hi Lorraine and thank you for your submission and interest in working with us. I will get our team together
to review.
May 23, 2017
Lorraine Albert was just with us to test her artwork on the Skyline canvas. Everything went really well there will be no issues concerning safety, the measurements were spot on, and we are just waiting the
final ok from our indigenous advisory committee. We are going to install the work ourselves as Lorraine
is unable to make the trip again. I can’t wait to get it installed - it’s amazing work.
September 18, 2017
We will share an update as soon as we hear something. As mentioned, we followed up and will continue
to do so. I understand you are hoping to hear an update on progress soon.
February 13, 2018
Just wanted to let you know that we met with the advisory committee and we will be moving ahead with
the installation of your project this summer. *

* The lines of communication have remained open and installation of the work has been projected to take place in May/June 2018.

9

 The intent of this work was a non-intrusive
intervention that would lure visitors into slowing
their pace and looking down with attentiveness,
a gesture that would mimic a contemplative
posture and procession up the steps. With the
text only noticeable upon their return from the
walk, an emphasis is placed on the fact that
there is no way to evade the past (the steps),
but there is hope that we may aknowledge and
overcoming the challenges before us.
Unfortunately, the previous examples would
become typical responses to my work.

Since I can remember, I have been attracted
to the social sciences, but have always had a
passion for design. It is only recently that I have
realized that these two areas are connected,
that they are complementary and fortuitously
and deeply rooted in my artistic practice.
Body + space = artistic experience + practice.
However, I have come to realize that body +
space is a loaded equation from which many
power structures derive. Intentionally or not, my
interests have led my practice into zones of the
critique of social, cultural, political, economical,
or gender issues.
Structures and Being Structured addresses the
fabricated attributes of the institution, whether
artistic or educational, by emphasizing the
limitations, inaccessibility, and frustration or
disappointment that ensues when involved
with these entities. Art institutions (Gallery/
White Cube, market, directors, to name a few)
have (self-designated) authority to grant artist
status, worth, and a platform for expression.
Likewise educational institutions grant students
the resources to be educated a particular way if
they are wealthy8 enough to attend. Both spaces
is founded in political elitism, where it is not the
people, or even the artists, who decide what is
worthy of shelter, but rather the investors, the
collectors or historically, the politicians and the
upper classes; the people within society who
have power and money. We have come a long
way since Duchamp’s Fountain and the Salon Des
Refusés, but not so far as to dismiss the power the
such institutions still hold over the artist.

8	

10

Wealth defined in financial terms as well as privilege or wealth of time.

 INSTITUTIONAL SPACE
The history of exhibition locale is inextricably intertwined with the history of Installation art on several
levels. Physical properties of the spaces—the raw, unfinished “alternative” space, or a pristine white
gallery—are enormously important in installations where the space becomes integrated into the work.
-Julie H. Reiss
The white wall’s apparent neutrality is an illusion. It stands for a community with common ideas and
assumptions.
-Brian O’Doherty
Intentionally or not, the gallery is an exclusive
space. Its exclusivity is ingrained in social the
fabric of colonial societies. Discomfort and
distance and division of social power are built
into the walls and histories of the Gallery 9. The
art community as well as the gallery, has its own
behaviour and expectations, and engages with
specific vocabularies wherein both the artist
and gallery goer is free to “explore”, “unpack”
and “investigate” themes, methods, media
and to present them or critique them in this
designated safe space10. These behaviours and
expectations facilitate exclusivity and elitism.
For although the locations for viewing art are
mostly public, the community remains exclusive
on account of its inaccessibility on the basis
of a general lack of education or exposure to
art. As art critic Brian O’Doherty explains that
art locales have “[…] never [been] designed
to accommodate the prejudices and enhance
the self-image of the upper middle classes, so
efficiently […]” (O’Doherty 76). Structures and
Being Structured complies with accessibility
standards and has the capacity to be navigated
by even a physically impaired visitor. These
characteristics can be easily adhered to and are
under my direct control; the issues that are more
challenging to address are the ones that are
not physical manifestations, but cultural, racial,
socio-economic or gendered ones. The majority

of viewers who will experience this work will be
of a specific demographic who are familiar with
the art institution in some capacity, for example
predominantly white settle identified comfortable
in gallery settings. A challenge I face that is
manifested through these White Cubes is rooted
in privilege, elitism, and accessibility. Most
artists aspire to have their art seen by the largest
number of people as possible, and my aim is
no different. To state that this installation will be
accessible11 is evidence of a utopian belief that
“public spaces” (i.e.: art galleries) are indeed
public, when in reality they are open only to a
specific demographic.
The institutional White Cube has been
characterized as a sheltered, hermetically
sealed space unaffected by external factors; it
is characterized by its “sterilized” environment
(O’Doherty 11). Structures and Being Structured
addresses this concept of decontaminated
space by keeping the structures closed and
inaccessible. The gallery uses the architectural
language of white walls and overhead lighting to
make it feel as though the space has an “access
to higher metaphysical realms […] sheltered
from the appearance of change and time”
(O’Doherty 8). This is ostensibly a space for
artistic freedom, where the artist is surrounded
by blank walls and has control of lighting while

9	 You either get art, or you don’t.
10	 A gallery is a space where works of art can be presented outside of the range of what is acceptable elsewere, provided the
work being welcomed as art due to its location and context.
11	 The argument might be to take the work into a public space (outdoors). However, this proves itself to also be problematic,
since public space is owned by an entity, and will not necessarily bring any benefits to the community it is placed in. Secondly, this
is a site-specific work that was created for Gallery 2 at the Anna Leonowens Gallery. Although there is a conceptual reasoning for
my choice of site, I continue to struggle with the concepts of art and privilege, and I remain intrigued by the idea of making art
accessible while simultaneously not infringing on marginalized communities.

11

 all external information and context is removed
(O’Doherty 7). Contrary to Robert Morris’ cubic
forms, which are characterized as matching
the gallery’s aesthetic (Kaye 27), Structures and
Being Structured offers insight into the materials
used to create the work/space. This “open”
quality echoes Michael Asher’s work when he
removed a partition wall from a Los Angeles
gallery (1974) to reveal the work taking place
on the other side (Guardian). Likewise in wall
cutouts (1968), Lawrence Weiner removes pieces
of the pristine gallery wall to unveil the structure
behind it (Kwon 14). Gordon Matta-Clark also
explores this idea of “revealing” by creating
holes in buildings and allowing the interiors to
be exposed, leaving the structures with little
to hide. Structures and Being Structured works
from such conceptual histories by putting the
raw construction materials on view, with the
objective to disenchant the viewer and remove
the institution from its pedestal.
Structures and Being Structured is intended to
prompt personal reflection and bring to question
one’s relationship with the work and the art
institution. By removing access to these inner
rooms, the power structure that is associated
with the White Cube is displaced in word. The
structures stand in for the institution, which
makes the navigation of the gallery physically
restrictive and complex, reinforcing the concepts
of exclusion, inaccessibility, and the frustration
one might encounter when grappling with set
power structures. Within such institutions,
both artist and viewer have to conform to the
systems in place. The artist responds to the
academic and artistic institution’s expectations
and requirements, and the audience adheres

to the specific institutionally12 codified
behaviours,(gallery…) as well attending to
strictures established by the work. Although
many artists have tried (Hans Haacke, Michael
Asher, Andrea Fraser, et al.), there is no way to
disassociate or to evade art as an institution; the
institution itself is fed by artistic thought, ideas,
creations, theories, capital, energies, etc. Asher
disputes the claims made by Duchamp13 when
he explains that art “exists [as art] for discourses
and practices that recognize it as art, value and
evaluate it as art, and consume it as art, whether
as object, gesture, representation, or only idea”
(Fraser 413). This belief can only be understood
within the art institution; there is no alternative
context14 that can remove art from its institution
since it has already been ingrained into its social
fabric (Fraser 413).
Structures and Being Structured directly
references Asher as he responds to the ways in
which institutional spaces or art are presented to
the visitor or viewer (Rondeau). Some of Asher’s
work is at times difficult to perceive; the presence
of art is sometimes overlooked all together
(Bears). While the quality and aesthetic may
differ from Asher’s work, the structures in Gallery
2 create a similar experience since the work may
be left unnoticed. Viewers may not be aware of
what they are seeing, but the structures will be
labelled as art, due to the context in which they
are presented; taken at face value, the structures
are “just structures”. The White Cube is used
as a tool to “legitimize work” within the artistic
milieu (Larsen 175). This places Structures and
Being Structured into its art context, and allows its
formal characteristics to be considered art due to
its location, audience, and artistic intent.

12	 Conforms to the expected social behaviour within an art gallery et al. by navigating the space at an acceptable gate,
speaking at an acceptable voice level, making an acceptable amount of eye contact, and respecting all other institutionally
imposed social cues.
13	 It’s Art If I Say So. (Weschler 192)
14	 Being site, location, permanency, materiality, or the vernacular.

12

 THE VIEWER EXPERIENCE & FRAMING ARCHITECTURE
Installation art demands the involvement of the
viewer; they are a component of the work (Bishop
102). Given that this work will be exhibited
after the submission of this paper and be based
on the visitors’ unique experiences, personal
histories and education, the following can only
be presented as speculative; this conceptual
ideation, along with the viewers’ encounter and
interaction with the structures, is the work. I can
claim my intentions and my desired outcomes
but “…the maker has limited control over the
content of his or her art. It is its reception that
ultimately determines its content…” (O’Doherty
111). The audience plays a crucial part in the
work; any concepts translated though the work
depend on the participation of an audience. The
audience not only activates the space but also
becomes a performer, contributing to a directed
improvised choreography. Although at this point,
I can at best speculate the impact Structures and
Being Structured will have on the viewer, I can
only authentically speak to and describe the
navigational spaces within the gallery; not to the
movements brought about by the defined paths
or the choreography itself.

Upon entering Gallery 2, the audience has
the choice of 3 corridors to take. If the Gallery
is busy, they will need to make their choice
somewhat hastily since there is little room to
stand idle if others wish to enter the space.
Looking left, they will perceive a short hall to
the doorway leading to Gallery 3, while looking
right, there is a similar, yet longer hall towards
the front windows. The 8-foot walls make it
difficult to discern what has materialized in the
space. In choosing to go right, the viewer walks
down the fabricated corridor where they are
faced with yet another choice: turn left or stay
true. As the audience works their way through
the space, the perceived “walls” come together
as cube-like structures. Walking to the far end
of the room, towards the windows, the viewer
will have walked by two 10’ x 10’ cubes15. The
third cube sits in Gallery 2B. The suggestion
of “paths” imposed by the structures makes
for a continuous stream of decision-making
on the part of the participant, leading to an
infinite amount of choreographic proposals,
compositions, and possibilities.

15	 Although these structures would be more accurately defined as rectangular prisms, or rectangular cuboids, I will continue
using the term “cube” since it can be referred back to the fabricated structures, rendering the terminology less convoluted.
16	 It is thus unlike the work by Graciela Carnevale who locked her unknowing audience in a white room within the gallery;
“Through an act of aggression, the work intends to provoke the viewer into awareness of the power with which violence
is enacted in everyday life. Daily we submit ourselves, passively, out of fear, or habit, or complicity, to all degrees of violence
[…].” (Carnevale 117)

13

 Whether populated by active participants or
passive viewers, the space will be in a constant
flux as a result of its performative component.
The visitor will partake in the navigation of the
gallery space, aware of it or not. Even if the
room is skipped entirely, viewers will still find
themselves within the installation, interacting
with the space, even if only for a brief moment16.
Given the limited amount of room between
each cube, a viewer may look up to get the full
scope of the structure; even by stepping away
from the cubes however, it is difficult to get a
complete view and understanding of the space.
It is only by walking the complete length of
the Gallery and taking every corridor that one
can grasp the composition of the installation.
This type of navigation and interaction with
the space is required for the completion of
the work. As viewers weave through the
installation, becoming more engaged by the
three structures, they will notice the cubes are
impenetrable17. The concealed interiors of these
structures emphasize the ideas of constraint and
limitation that occur within institutions. There
is no way to know what is inside these closed
rooms. The “potential void” within the structures
speaks to the unknown and the unattainable.
The structures replicate and instil this curiosity
towards the unknown, with the interior
having the potential of containing privileged
knowledges or spaces. The unknowable
intrigues, and the curious will seek answers.

Structures and Being Structured has similarities
to themes explored by contemporary artist
Michael Asher in the way they both “expose
[…] visitors to multisensory experiences
rather than appealing primarily to their vision”
(Peltomäki 38). The limited view compels the
participant to familiarize themselves with the
installation; this horizontal spacial experience18
will be interpreted on a spectrum, ranging from
entertaining to confrontational (Sully 42). These
readings will change the more time is spent
with the work and in the space; perhaps shifting
from curiosity to disappointment, viewers will
question their relationship with space and
the work. The corridors will have an effect on
sounds emitted within the gallery. Voices and
footsteps will be thrown, making it difficult to
decipher there points of origin. The sounds will
amplify the effect on the viewer and contribute
to a sense of discomfort and disorientation. The
physical occupation of space by the 3 structures
is meant to be overbearing and imposing. The
8-foot high walls are meant to make the visitor
feel small as they walk amidst the installation,
while simultaneously grappling with feelings
of disorientation, confusion, and discomfort19.
In Robert Morris’ Notes on Sculpture, he refers
to the loss of intimacy when larger sculptures
are created. Structures and Being Structured
proves contrary with the limitation of open

17	 If one could see inside the structures, one would find themselves in a room that they would recognize as an institutional
White Cube. However, there is no real way for the viewer to confirm this since the recognizable qualities of such spaces (finished,
clean, ideal) can only be found on the interior of the structure. The outer appearance remains unfinished. This perfection is
unattainable, leaving a feeling of exclusion.
18	 This concept is based on horizontal circulation options and characteristics that include: welcoming, interrupting,
directionality, seduction, confrontation, and persuasion (Sully 42).
19	 Spatial discomfort manifests when personal space is reduced or when confinement is imposed, similar to being backed-up
against a wall or pressured to stay in motion.

14

 areas and spacial constraints, making the once
spacious gallery a more confined place (Morris
233). This confinement creates smaller spaces
where proximity is unavoidable and reinforces
a coerced sense of intimacy and closeness with
the structure and/or other viewers. The space
between the structures is entirely navigable and
void of obstruction, but there is no place where
one can stop.
The number of visitors in the gallery at one time
will have a significant impact on the relationship
one has with the work. With a considerable
amount of people and movement, the “instinct
moutonnier”20 will take hold and impose
fluidity within the navigable corridors. This
participation will induce physiological reactions
and psychological manifestations (intentional,
rational, reactionary, known or not). When fewer
people are in the space, the visitor will have the
opportunity to stroll and become more familiar
with the installation. In this case, stepping back
or stopping completely for a few moments will
not impede another’s movement. When the
visitor is not herded through the corridors or

expected to keep up a pace, the movement
within the gallery is less reactive or contingent
on others. The navigation resembles more the
behaviour we find with a Flâneur21. From the
feeling of being overwhelmed to slowing down
the pace and having time to weave through the
work, the visitor can read the space as well as
the composition within it, and reflect upon their
relationship to the structures themselves. This
unhurried and ruminated behaviour refers back
to the concept of elitism and socioeconomic
accessibility; it is a specific class of citizen who
has time for leisure with a desire to be swallowed
up by society or by a gallery (Baudelaire 9).

20	 Herd instinct – direct translation: sheep instinct
21	 The Flâneur is described as an individual with a lot of time on his hands, and in the 19th century, the only individuals who
had time to stroll or saunter were the upper class citizens, the wealthy. These men would spend their days walking the arcades
and the streets of a busy city. This term was associated with the affluent; the common man had little time to indulge in such
extravagance (Baudelaire 9). Being a Flâneur was about wealth, power and being witness to the chaotic ballet of an urban centre.

15

 Circulation systems control the way you move around the building or facility. To a great extent, your
impressions of a particular interior environment will depend on your experience whilst moving from
place to place through the circulation system.
-Roberto Rengel
The gallery wall is used as a framing device and
this work provides a physical understanding
of walls (Kwon 18). The fabricated walls do not
differ from any other physically constructed
walls. The construction methods are similar
to those used in a home or commercial space;
a wall is usually erected to divide or to create
another space. But it is the use and context of a
space that gives it its value. We understand that
the walls built within the gallery, constructed for
the exhibition, hold less significance than the
institution in which they are viewed. Corridors
have been intentionally created to “organize the
world” (Jarzombek 753). They are in between
places for movement and passage from one room
(or space) to another. The interaction within an
arterial space is different than being in a closed
room where social hierarchy is present; it is
considered a social place where a person can
stop and have a brief conversation with another
(Jarzombek 769). This space allows for flexibility
in conversation and commitment to others. The
corridor allows for a speedy exit; for a more
lengthy “run-in” or informal meeting; a place
where most excuses for evading an interaction
are acceptable and social interactions are fluid
since corridors have no defined ownership
(Jarzombek 764).

16

The constructed corridors are intended for
movement and walking. The creation of multiple
corridors allows for pacing; Charlotte Brontë
described corridors as places for restless
souls (Jarzombek 730). Structures and Being
Structured may have similarities to Bruce
Nauman’s Anti-Illusion: Procedures/Materials,
but it differentiates itself by giving the viewer
little choice to interact and to be immersed in
the space. Nauman’s work did not take over the
entire space, nor did it offer instruction for the
viewer; it was up to the audience to engage with
the work or simply observe it. In other words,
Nauman heavily relied on alternative lighting,
video, cameras, and televisions to inspire
movement, catching the viewer’s attention, and
initiate feelings of displacement and uneasiness
(Guggenheim). Nauman’s performance corridor
works share commonalities with Structures
and Being Structured, since both have a focus
on the visitor’s movement and navigation
through space. Here there is no surveillance or
designated place for the viewer to stand still;
they may retract with their back against a wall,
obstruct the path for another viewer, or continue
to walk until they exit the exhibition space. With
few behavioural options, the psychological and

 physical effects on the viewer are fully intentional
and informed by architectural design. The
distance between any of the walls (gallery or
built) is a minimum of four feet wide and allows
for ease of movement22. The horizontal spacial
experience is designed for the spaces to appear
uniform. Weaving through the installation
gives a sense of disorientation, allowing for
repeated twists and turns, reducing the sense
of direction. These actions have a meditative
effect on the viewer if: they are alone, they are
more comfortable in the space, or they are able
to embrace the particular characteristics of their
surroundings.

Structures and Being Structured reflects
some of the attributes and characteristics
psychologically, emotionally, and physically
encountered since pursuing my graduate
studies and integration into the professional
world of art. The work does not solely depend
on knowing that this installation is a reflection of
self, or an institutional critique, or an imposed
choreography on the viewer, because there is
no “correct reading” or exclusive understanding
of the work. The focus of attention continuously
changes; at times, the built structures are
dominant, while other times, they play second to
the navigable spaces, allowing the viewer to flip
back and forth between positive and negative
space. Both aspects being equally important,
they remain interdependent where one cannot
exist without the other. The work relies on
the dichotomy of the space and structures to
be understood as one work. Neither is more
important than the other; neither is dominant
over the other. Similarly, the institution cannot
exist without the art; the art cannot exist without
the institution. Structures and Being Structured
has been created with a personal rationale and
consideration regarding the many institutions
it references. It has not been created to be
convoluted or complex, but to be interpreted
with the same intent with which it was created: to
confront or reflect upon a personal journey and
to experiment with reflection and movement. No
matter how the viewer interprets the space the
structures take or the space the structures make,
any uneasiness or unanswered questions can be
interpreted as disappointment or confrontations,
allowing for a jumping off point for further
exploration with body (movement), space
(place), and time (pace).

22	 The functionality of the corridors is designed for a single person, in one direction. The physical workings of the space are
considered in the navigation of the gallery and in regards to the use of the space being a site-specific installation.

17

 WORKS CITED
Battcock, Gregory. “Notes on Sculpture.” Minimal Art a Critical
Anthology, New York: E.P. Dutton, 1968, pp. 222–235.
Baudelaire, Charles. “Charles Baudelaire, ‘The Painter of Modern Life’ (1863).” www.writing.
upenn.edu, www.writing.upenn.edu/library/Baudelaire_Painter-of-Modern-Life_1863.pdf.
Baers, Michael. “Michael Asher (1943–2012): Parting Words and Unfinished
Work.” e-Flux Supercommunity, 15 Nov. 2012, www.e-flux.com/journal/39/60293/
michael-asher-1943-2012-parting-words-and-unfinished-work/.
Bang Larsen, Lars. “Social Aesthetic.” Participation, edited by Claire Bishop,
London:Cambridge, Mass.:Whitechapel; MIT Press, 2010, pp. 172–183.
Carnevale, Graciela “Project for the Experimental Art Series, Rosario//1968” Participation, edited
by Claire Bishop, London:Cambridge, Mass.:Whitechapel; MIT Press, 2010, pp. 117–119.
Weible, Peter. “Context Art: Towards a Social Construction of Art.” Situation, editied by Claire
Doherty, London:Cambridge, Mass.:Whitechapel; MIT Press, 2009, pp. 46–52.
Fraser, Andrea. “From the Critique of Institutions to an Institution of Critique.” Institutional
Critique: an Anthology of Artists’ Writings, MIT Press, 2011, pp. 408–417.
Higgins, Steve. “Sculpture Seminar.” Guest Artist - Steve Higgins. Guest Artist,
15 Feb. 2018, Halifax, NSCAD Port Campus, 107 Marginal Road.
Hobbs, Robert C., and Hans Haacke. “Framing and Being Framed: 7 Works, 197075.” Art Journal, vol. 36, no. 2, 1976, p. 176., doi:10.2307/776176.

18

 Jarzombek, Mark. “Corridor Spaces.” Critical Inquiry, vol. 36, no.
4, 2010, pp. 728–770., doi:10.1086/655210.
Kwon, Miwon. One Place after Another: Site-Specific Art and Locational Identity. The MIT Press, 2004.
Mann, Ted. “Bruce Nauman Performance Corridor.” Guggenheim.
org, 2018, www.guggenheim.org/artwork/3148.
O’Doherty, Brian. Inside the White Cube the Ideology of the Gallery
Space. University of California Press, 1999.
Rengel, Roberto J. Shaping Interior Space. Fairchild Books, an Imprint of Bloomsbury Publishing Inc., 2014.
Rondeau, James. “Thinking Space.” Frieze.com, 2 Mar. 2008, frieze.com/article/thinking-space.
Searle, Adrian. “Nothing to See Here: the Artist Giving Gallery Staff a Month off Work.”
The Guardian.com, Guardian News and Media, 25 Mar. 2016, www.theguardian.com/
artanddesign/2016/apr/25/nothing-to-see-here-maria-eichhorn-chisenhale-gallery.
Smith, Cathy D. “Between-Ness: Theory and Practice within the Margins of Excess.” IDEA
Journal, Queensland University of Technology, Australia, 2003, pp. 131–144.
Sully, Anthony. “Circulation Concept.” Interior Design: Conceptual
Basis, Springer International PU, 2016, pp. 37–51.
Weschler, Lawrence, et al. Seeing Is Forgetting the Name of the Thing One Sees: over Thirty
Years of Conversations with Robert Irwin. University of California Press, 2009.

19

 DOCUMENTATION

20

 21

 DOCUMENTATION

22

Photo credit: Katarina Marinic

 23

 DOCUMENTATION

24

Photo credit: Katarina Marinic

 25

 DOCUMENTATION

26

 27

  SPECIAL THANKS TO: 	
			

Brandon Auger, Devin Chambers, Connor MacKinnon,
Kim Morgan, and Julie Robert.

 *Alternative title:	 A convoluted and overly
contrived way to make a sizable donation to
Habitat for Humanity Nova Scotia.

30