Puzzles Aimed to Puzzle

For the past few months I have been engaged in an art project involving forty blank puzzles I purchased at a local craft store. I used a black permanent marker to hand-draw a stylized image of a jig-saw on each one, thus making them literal "jigsaw" puzzles. While the project may initially seem to be a bit of a ‘one-liner’, there is a certainly more depth to the work than just that. While obviously quite simple, the project touches on the history of the jigsaw puzzle by referencing its beginnings as a mere educational tool, while still commenting on its modern status as a popular pastime. The project also attempts to address how the jigsaw puzzle has become an accepted medium for displaying images and illustrations often deemed "art".

I wrote my contact information on the back of the puzzles, and then proceeded to break the pieces up and place them in envelopes that I sealed and labeled only with the words "Open Me". I then spent the past few months scattering the envelopes around various locations for people to find. My goal was to evoke a response to the work, while at the same time trying to introduce the general public to the concept of self-installed art. The works were placed in an assortment of settings, including local pubs, coffee shops, restaurants, music venues, along the street, and even in well-respected art galleries (two puzzles were actually installed at the Mackenzie Art Gallery).

Unfortunately, I have yet to receive any feedback on the work, though there is no doubt the puzzles have been ‘found’. I figure either the individuals that discovered them were unable put the puzzle together, simply didn’t want to take the time to respond, were perhaps intimidate by the project, or just didn’t understand the project at all (or care, for that matter). While I am a bit discouraged by the lack of response, I do feel somewhat accomplished in that I did manage to install two of the works in the Mackenzie Art Gallery, which does beg some interesting questions: How does self-installation, particularly in a reputable gallery, impact the concept of "curator"? Also, can the location of an artwork alter the way the work is perceived? For example, does placing a work of art in a gallery give the work any more credibility than if it were placed in a pub? (I was hoping responses would vary depending on where the puzzles were found). What do people generally consider "art"? And, when it comes to art, what is behind a name? That is, if someone recognized the name on the back of the puzzle, would they have responded differently than if the name was unknown to them (I’m assuming most people didn’t recognize my name when they found my contact information, and had the name been someone more locally famous like, say, Joe Fafard, would the response have been any different)?

That said, I think that despite the project’s obvious failures in some areas, the work was successful in at least being able to raise some questions about art, while also drawing attention to the history and nature of the medium it was presented in – the jigsaw puzzle. The jigsaw puzzle got its name because it was first made of wood and the pieces literally had to be cut with a jig-saw. The first jigsaw puzzle was actually used as a teaching device and was presented as a map with all the countries being the interlocking pieces. Students could memorize the names and locations of the countries by placing the pieces in their proper arrangement. The popularity of the jigsaw puzzle as a tool for education quickly increased, and it soon spilled over from the schools into people’s homes. Crafters began applying the technique in a more creative and entrepreneurial capacity, thus allowing the more modern and leisurely form of the jigsaw puzzle to emerge. Of course over the years, for cost efficiencies, wood was eventually replaced with cardboard, and the pieces were cut instead with a hydraulic press. The basic premise of the jigsaw puzzle, however, remains the same today: to put the pieces together to form a bigger picture.

If you would like to know greater details about the jigsaw puzzle’s past, I recommend reading the online Wikipedia articles "Puzzle", "Jigsaw Puzzle" and also this article here.

Since most of my work is shrouded in mystery, secrecy and the unknown, I also felt this project was an appropriate reflection of me. I have been described by some as a puzzle myself, and felt a project that embraced that quality would be something worth exploring. It certainly was for me, and after reading this, I hope it was for you too!

"All Art is Quite Useless"

I suppose, perhaps, the quote I have referenced at the top of my blog might deserve some sort of an explanation; partly because it appears to contradict my profession as an artist, but mostly because the statement is so frequently misunderstood, and usually leads to the disdain and dissatisfaction of those who read it (though such thinking really ought to be corrected). "What do you mean art is useless?" some might say, "but art has so much meaning: it elevates our awareness of things, questions everything, contextualizes and re-contextualizes ideas, sharpens our appreciation for beauty, thought, and skill, it can define cultures, and is able to capture the essence and spirit of the time in which it’s made".

Yes, it is absolutely true that art is loaded with meaning, but that doesn’t silence the fact that art is still altogether useless. Just because something holds "meaning", doesn’t necessarily mean that it’s "useful". When constructing his argument that "all art is quite useless", Oscar Wilde suggests that when a piece of art beckons an array of criticism (it doesn’t matter if the criticism is good or bad), the work is established as "new, complex, and vital". He is not, however, denying it has meaning or value. "Vital", which generally means essential, crucial, or fundamental, is a far cry from saying that something (in this particular case, art) is totally worthless. While a great many people would insist the words "worthless" and "useless" are synonymous, it becomes fairly evident upon further investigation that the two terms are not the same at all. For example, a single piece of paper at a paper factory may have an infinite number of uses even though its actual worth would be deemed rather insignificant. Conversely, most people would consider a broken clock to be quite useless. However, if the clock is an antique or a collectible, it will definitely be viewed with some measure of worth. In a similar sense, art, while certainly useless, should never be deemed worthless.

Art cannot be "used", it just "is". It's not like a furnace which is used to heat a house, nor is it like a refrigerator that functions primarily to chill food. Art is much more subjective and open to criticism than such things, and while it serves a multitude of purposes, it can never truly be worthy of being called "useful". It provides nothing absolute, or concrete, and so can never be accepted as an entirely credible source of knowledge. Art is a visual philosophy that cultivates thinking and builds on ideas, but never establishes anything completely unto itself.

Oscar Wilde was widely recognized as a strong patron of the arts and he placed great value on the fruits of creativity –The Picture of Dorian Gray, from which the quotation being discussed is drawn, was a book full of his philosophical contemplations about art, many of them focusing on art’s insatiable need to be admired. He states: "We can forgive a man for making a useful thing as long as he does not admire it. The only excuse for making a useless thing is that one admires it intensely". Hence, art is not "used", according to Wilde, it's "admired". It's placed on display simply to be observed by an audience, and, subsequently, to be exposed to scrutiny and criticism. Since Wilde felt that art is made solely to be displayed and admired, he concludes his line of reasoning with the infamous (though appropriate ) statement, "All art is quite useless".

Now, I'm not saying Oscar Wilde was necessarily right in what he said, but I do think it's important for people to know that he wasn't simply discarding the notion that art is a valuable function in society. He makes a strong argument and establishes it quite logically. He likely omits "craft" as art though, which I'm not entirely convinced is fair, but am willing to accept for the sake of following his thought process on the subject. The reason why I include the quote at the top of my blog is to merely draw attention to the controversy that undeniably exists in art.