Fieldwork

‘Fieldwork’ as Artistic Practice

I have been exploring the possibilities of art in public spaces and places from a belief that art should be actively engaged with society.

In developing my practice, I found the conventional practices of site-specific art, art in community and public art highly problematic. They seemed to exist in many instances without consideration for the particularity of a region, the people from the region or the relationship between the two. They seemed to be presented like museum pieces rather than works for the people living in the region

.
Therefore, I wanted to find a way to produce works and projects for a region and the people in the region. In order to produce such work, I needed to build closer relationships with the people in the region. As I researched various methods and developed my own practice, I found fieldwork was a very effective method to get to know a region and its local people’s way of life. In particular, the fieldwork approach used by anthropologists became the model for my fieldwork. Unlike commonplace social surveys in the form of questionnaires and the like, this approach provides in-depth information and gives a better understanding of the region through field investigations.

From ‘Fieldwork’ to ‘Museum’

Against the above background, my art projects have involved collaboration with local residents during fieldwork and production. In their final presentation form, many of my works employ the methodology of ‘museums’ and the ‘captions’ used in museums. The incorporation of such methodologies in my work transforms each of the remembered incidents collected in my interviews into important and cherished events for those involved in the project and for the audience.

For example, I conduct a series of interviews with local residents, asking about their lives and their relationships with the place. I present the results of these interviews in the form of a ‘museum’ (e.g. the Grizedale Museum, Moya Museum, Daikanyama Museum and Tappie Museum). I also get local residents to recount stories about memorable experiences that happened in the area. I create ‘captions’ (plaques) containing these stories and install them at the places where they actually happened (e.g. at My Place in Antalya; also in Grizedale, Moya, Muritz National Park and Le Vent des Forêts). By touring around these museums and captions, visitors can trace the lives of particular individuals in the area. Such life stories articulate the relationships among the region’s people and places, the characteristics and histories of its towns, and so forth.

Sites for Communication

As we have seen so far, fieldwork is an essential part of my project. In the concluding
56part of this essay I would like to compare the use of fieldwork methodology in anthropological practice and in my own.

Anthropologists begin fieldwork with individuals and generalise the results into ethnography or essays, so as to articulate the similarities and differences with other cultures. By contrast, though I also begin fieldwork for my art projects with individuals, I return the results back to the individuals. In my practice, therefore, the positionings of individuals in a region are articulated, and the relationships between the region and its individuals are elucidated. The results of my fieldwork research are presented in the region itself, in an attempt to have it produce feedback effects on communication among the local residents. I consult with the local residents concerning the final form of the presentation, so as to tailor it to the form most appropriate for the region. Hence, my work is not what is termed ‘community art’, despite its involvement of the surrounding community. I try to construct personal relationships with all of the participants in my projects by learning their names, habits, personal histories and connections with the region.

My practice aims to explore the possibilities of art by re-examining the issue of one-to-one communication—not mass communication—beyond the bounds of conventional art practice. As this catalogue will show, although I often use ‘museum’ or ‘captions’ as vehicles to facilitate my projects, my practice is not a so-called ‘institutional critique’. I offer my ‘museums’ and plaques to regions and their people as sites for communication.

In my projects, the relationships between people and their region are re-discovered through individual perspectives, and represented in a manner which the local people can easily understand. This encourages them to build more intimate relationships with their region.

I hope that such projects can create organic places where people can connect with each other and exchange all sorts of ideas. I believe that art has the potential to create such places and opportunities for interpersonal communication.

*) This essay is based on my paper ‘Art of One-to-One Communication: Case Study on Tatsuo Inagaki’s ‘Museum’ Projects’ , originally presented at Fieldworks: Dialogues between art and anthropology, an international symposium on art and anthropology held at Tate Modern in London from 26th to 28th September 2003. With ‘fieldwork’ as keyword, this symposium had artists and anthropologists from various countries discuss shared problems in research and the possibility of collaboration between the two disciplines. It also featured reports and examination of approaches from each field. My practice was presented there as an effective example of fieldwork.

Appendix: Project Process

My projects to date have basically been conducted according to the process set forth below:

1

2

3

4

5

6

2004

2003

Artist-in-Residence

Grants

Papers and Essays

Lectures and Workshops

Bibliography