Gerard Williams Interviewed by Emily Musgrave
Gerard William’s work often invites the audience to re-exam-
ine aspects of their own preconceptions, whether culturally or experientially founded. Sometimes the work therefore plays, in various ways, with socially and historically grounded concerns such as taste, value and redundancy.The artwork often sets out to pursue concerns arising from the relationship of opposites: inside and outside, private and public, made and found, real and pretend, finished and unfinished, well made and ‘badly’ made. Questions are often asked about aspects of the position, reception and role of the artwork relative to context. Throughout his entire body of work Williams has used found objects including things that are both from and of ordinary contemporary life. His trademark meticulousness and attention to detail perhaps emerge most noticeably when timber and fabric are involved. Textiles as repositories of personal and cultural histories, freighted as they can be with values and associations, have long been a fascination and cornerstone to his practice. Over the last three decades Williams’ work has been widely exhibited including appearances at international institutions and public galleries as well as artist run spaces. He has also worked with a number of commercial galleries in the UK and abroad, including at the start of his career with both Anthony d’Offay and Maureen Paley in London. His work has been acquired by and is held in the collections of a number of foundations, private and public collections including: The Arts Council of England Collection; The Contemporary Art Society, London; Leeds City Art Gallery; Fondazione Sandretto Re Rebaudengo, Turin; Castello di Rivara, Contemporary Art Centre Turin; and The Progressive Art Collection, Cleveland, Ohio, USA (which owns three of his embedded window works). Currently Gerard works with two itinerant galleries: Handel Street Projects, London and Parkers Box, New York City.
GW: It's a tuft of black hair, which is bound on the end with string. And a tooth, which has been buried so it's kind of earth marked. So the, the tuft of hair- they're both from dogs. EM: Right okay. GW: So the tuft of hair is the end of the tail of my dog just before I buried him... the last dog that I had. And the tooth, the tooth that I found at the bottom of the grave that I dug for him. So, when I got to the level that I was going to bury him which was incredibly deep, there were the remains of another dog which was incredible that I should have picked the same spot. I think, I'm pretty sure it was a dog. It's never been proven, but anyway there's a canine tooth at the bottom of this whole. EM: Would you consider that serendipity? GW: Yeah, absolutely yeah, yeah. EM: Why? GW: Well it couldn't be anything other than serendipitous, could it really? EM: Well for some people it could be quite disturbing? GW: No yeah, I found it quite disturbing. In a sense it confirmed my decision about digging the hole there in a weird way. And the idea of this other dog going in where a dog had
been before which was just really weird, actually. EM: Do you know of- I mean how old is the bit of land, the house that you buried him in? GW: The house was 19th century. EM: Do you have any idea of how old that tooth is? GW: Absolutely no idea whatsoever, no. EM: There's something quite Victorian about keeping a lock of hair. GW: Yeah there is. EM: But this is, in the context of a dog rather than...I mean it's definitely still a loved one, but obviously the act of keeping locks of hair was totally different. GW: It is that, isn't it? Hairs funny stuff though isn't it? It can be beautiful and it can be really abject. And then the association with death is another layer on top of that isn't it? EM: So how long ago did you bury the dog? GW: I’m not absolutely sure actually. It was probably ‘98 or ‘99. Quite a long time ago. EM: And you’ve kept these objects from that time?
GW: Yeah absolutely, yeah. EM: So do they provoke any emotions? GW: It’s definitely like a keepsake. It’s sort of the only thing I have of that dog really, physically of him because if an animal dies you don’t normally keep anything, do you? EM: What was so special about the dog that you wanted to keep something? GW: Well he was the only dog I'd had that was properly my dog at that point. I think he was 10 or 11 years old so I'd had him for quite a long time. And he was a special dog. His name was Wegman and I called him Wegman because of William Wegman the American artist who called his dog Man Ray. He made his fame with a dog called Man Ray, so I thought if he can call his dog Man Ray after a famous artist, I'll call my dog Wegman after this guy who works with dogs. And William Wegman did actually get to know of my dog. He met him once sort of interestingly on a balcony overlooking the Mall, it was a bit like Buckingham Palace. The dog was invited to a dinner after the opening of a William Wegman show at the ICA in London. So he was the only dog at the dinner, and a lot of the work in the exhibition focused on dogs so that was a bit special. And when William Wegman found out that I’d had to have him (the dog) put down he wrote a really nice letter to me about it. EM: So why did you want to include these objects rather than that letter?
GW: They’re much more directly associated with the dog. EM: Okay. GW: With the animal. I suppose that letter and the story are really a backstory to them. EM: So, you were saying them making sense together... If one was to disappear and you only had the other, how would that feel? Would it change the association or..? GW: I suppose the two objects together start to tell the story don't they? I mean they wouldn't tell a story to anybody else unless you had a bit of a script, would they? But they sort of connect directly to those two dogs. So I 'spose if I was gonna' lose one I'd lose the tooth, cause it's not my dog and keep the little tuft of hair. EM: What would happen, how would you feel if they both went missing? GW: I'd be pretty upset actually, yeah. But you know, for anybody else they'd sort of be... you know if someone was rummaging through my rubbish and found that, they'd probably just throw it in the bin. EM: Is that what you think will happen when you pass away? GW: I don’t know actually, I’ve no idea I’ve not thought that far ahead.
EM: How does it make you feel to think about that? GW: Well I spose, I have got so much junk I’m gonna’ have to deal with it myself before I go or somebody else will have to get a skip when I do really. And a lot of the stuff has stories behind it but it’s not stuff that would be meaningful to anybody else. So yeah, there’s a projection of self through the work isn’t there? But behind that or alongside it there’s bound to be somebody else or something else going on. It may be when I’m gone and then they become worthless? EM: And how does that make you feel? GW: I don’t know, probably it’s not an issue because it’s my memory isn’t it? It’s my associations. They’re not going to mean as much to anybody else really. EM: Is there anyone close to you that knows about these objects? GW: A few people, yeah. Not that I've tried to keep them private or anything, but it's not the sort of thing - they've lived in a cabinet for years with a load of other crap and unless you rummage through it and try to find out by asking questions a lot of it would be obscure really. EM: How do you feel about them (the objects) not being in your possession for a week (during the exhibition)? GW: I think, in a sense, it’s quite interesting to have them do
something - to be active, to be out there and be what they are somehow. So, they become animated, active, doing a job for a little while. EM: A purpose? GW: Yeah. EM: How would you feel about them representing you as an artist? These objects... GW: I ‘spose they begin to tell- I was trying to find something that perhaps wasn’t an art object or associated with art. I’ve got lots of crap that is associated with art/art practice. And in a sense this operates on both levels, it’s not associated with art and the art world but at the same time it is and you don’t necessarily need to understand the art world to understand the objects, so they function on both levels. So yes, I think you know, that does say something specific about me actually, doesn’t it? EM: Have they ever had any influence on your art practice? GW: I don't think so, no. EM: And yet they're objects that you obviously value... I mean does your personal life and your art practice overlap? GW: I suppose so I mean, in terms of influence and overlap of personal life they- I was introduced to William Wegman’s
work by Stuart Morgan who was teaching me at the time and it was like his first teaching job, and he just got right into contemporary art practice. And he literally, well he said he stole some William Wegman videos. Cause he spent a lot of time in New York and he’d bring things back from New York to use in his teaching sessions and that was the first time I encountered William Wegman working with his dog, so there’s that personal connection as well which goes back to Stuart, who was a personal friend and that particular period of time when William Wegman was, I suppose he was becoming known and his work was less commercial... much more kind of, I ‘spose performance based rather than product based. EM: So is your practice all encompassing? GW: No, I don’t think so. I think it probably affords windows into approaches or attitudes or positions or contemplations about various bits of life, but you know, I spose maybe the work are like little windows that allow you to peak into various aspects of what I’m interested in or what I’ve been involved with or... so on and so forth. EM: Hypothetically, if there was a fire in your house and everyone had gotten out and you didn’t have to worry about them, what would be the objects or object you would grab? If you had chance to maybe get one? GW: I’ve no idea actually. I don’t know, not sure. It might an art work, more likely it’ll be an artwork I spose. But which one...?
EM: But not the (objects)...? GW: No I don’t think it would be that. I mean, as I say, there’s so much crap in my house I’m not sure that would show up on the radar. It wouldn’t be on the forefront of my mind I don’t think. I’m not sure what I’d take. EM: But you value these objects enough to put them in an exhibition? GW: Yeah. EM: But not to save in a fire? GW: It wouldn’t be the first thing I’d save. If I had a bit of time maybe I would. But, I don’t think it’d be the first thing I’d think of and save. EM: Nothing jumps out to you? GW: Not really, no. Why do you think that is? GW: It’d probably be an artwork, you know. EM: Yeah. GW: I think it may be a piece of work that I’d made a long time ago.
EM: Oh, so one of your own? GW: One of my own, yeah. Something that I’ve still got that’s representative of its time. And that might what I’d go for. Cause they’re kind of irreplaceable things, aren’t they? Well, those (the objects) would be as well. EM: So, if someone was to do a book on you, biographical, of your art practice and these objects were on the cover - would that be okay? GW: I don’t think it’d make sense really, to be honest. EM: Okay. GW: I’m working on a publication a bit like that now, started working on one... so... I can kind of frame that quite clearly and I don’t think, they wouldn’t be on the cover no. The value is primarily about the association with that dog, it’s not an art practice related thing. Or, it doesn’t afford the right kind of, or useful window into who I am relative to my practice I don’t think, anyway. EM: Have you any idea what is going to go on your book? GW: No, at this point. I’m working with a designer who’s probably going to come up with some ideas but we’ve only really got up to the point of looking through mountains of images. He’s started to have a picture of what the possibilities might be I ‘spose.
EM: Has there been any moments in your life, or objects or associations, histories that have influenced your art practice? GW: There must be, yeah. I can’t think of any earth shattering ones though really. I think though, probably the biggest influence of the development of my art practice was really kind of getting my foot in the door in the contemporary art world in London in the 1980's, working in galleries and with artists and curators and with... people who became really significant and important and I think I learned a huge amount from that. That was probably the biggest influence on my art practice. So, you know, working on exhibitions, working in particular galleries, working for particular curators and then moving that sort of sphere myself with my own work. EM: Have you moved house since you found these objects? GW: Yeah, just once. And you've managed to keep them? GW: Yeah. EM: So is it something that you were very conscious of packing? Did you think 'I don't want to lose these or damage them'? GW: Yeah probably, I don't remember packing them but there's a particular cabinet which is a repository of all sorts of odds and ends and it’s in there so they must have got packed
up with that I ‘spose, unless... maybe I filled that cabinet when I came up here. I can’t remember to be honest. I’m not sure. And the cabinet itself was left to me by my grandmother, I’m not sure whether... Yeah I did have it at the last house, I did. So it was probably in there at the last house. EM: Have you got any objects that belong to other people that you hold a lot of value over? GW: There’s that chair, that big piece of chair that I think I’vementioned. That's the only one I can think of that jumps to mind and it might be because it’s been spoken about recently, that slice of chair that was part of an artwork by a Polish artist that was given to Stuart Morgan, and then somehow it got into my hands as part of the artwork...I think because it had been shown at a gallery that I worked at. And it never got back to him, because it never had a proper place to live and yet he had stuff stored and everything got burnt at one point cause the storage got burnt down so it was like, I dunno, it was a bit of a lost object. And then he died, so...I don't know. I've tried to get it back to the artist but he's not replied. So that's one example. EM: Does this (the objects) play a part in any spirituality? Or do you believe in spirituality, does it play a part in perhaps a personal philosophy. GW: Blimey that’s a big question. I think you'd have to define spirituality. In relation to these objects?
EM: Yeah, how do you define it? GW: I think it depends what you’re talking really. In relation specifically to these objects? EM: Yeah, let’s go for these objects. GW: That idea of the keepsake, I think combined with the fact that the grave had that tooth at the bottom of it, there’s something a bit extraordinary about that, isn’t there? That I suppose. if you want to use the word spirituality there’s something happening there isn’t there really? EM: Yeah. Do you believe these play any part in materialism? Do you think you need these objects? Would the memories still exist? GW: Yeah, sure. EM: Is the memory and the object itself, are they on an equal level? Do you need both? GW: No I don't think you need both, but it's kind of like a touchstone isn't it I spose. It's something that is a direct connection to the memory. That physical connect, I mean. So I spose in that sense it's about that physical connection to that dog and to that story of digging the grave and finding the tooth, the remains of the dog.
EM: Do you have any opinions on materialism? GW: Materialism as in ownership of things? EM: Yeah owning things, cause this could be seen as a form of materialism. GW: Yeah. I spose I tend to associate... materialism for me is more as a... in terms of the way you’re using it perhaps is much more about owning things that have some sort of status attached to them. That tends to be as it’s used as a term I think, isn’t it? And these don’t really hold those sort of values, do they? So I’m not sure... Its stuff isn’t it and I have far too much stuff, I know that. So it forms part of that stuff, but most of that stuff is not materialistically gathered or doesn’t have value that is about some sort of personal, materialistic structure or something, in the sense that I’m understanding the term. I feel like I need to look it up in a dictionary. EM: Do you feel like maybe, you are chronicling your life through object? Is that something you do? Do these things show a pattern in terms of their age that shows a trajectory of your life? GW: I spose incidentally maybe, but I don’t think it’s- it’s not consciously chronicling either. It’s just hanging onto stuff that’s got some sort of associations or...
EM: Could you define it as an archive of your life? GW: I don’t think it’s organised enough to be an archive. I feel like an archive has to have some taxonomy to it. EM: Not necessarily in the museological sense, in the sense of collecting. GW: Yeah. EM: Are these objects as important as your artworks in terms of the status in your house? GW: I spose it depends what the artwork is but if I had to make a choice between one or the other then I’d have to weigh up the value of the artwork with the value of that. EM: In a monetary sense? GW: No, no, it’s not worth money just in terms of its importance to me really I spose. So yeah I can imagine what’s in there might actually boil down to being worth more than some of the things I’ve made. EM: Does your body of work- you know I was talking about this trajectory... GW: I suppose, I can make another artwork can’t I? But I can’t those objects back.
EM: You can recreate the artwork, and the feeling? GW: Not necessarily recreating it, it might just be making another- something else that fills a hole or fills a space. Whereas if that stuff went I couldn’t fill the space, except with something fake or equivalent could I? A new artwork wouldn’t be that, it’d be a new artwork. EM: Can you pinpoint events in your life with those artworks? Can you look at that and think ‘That was that year, this happened, I was feeling like this’? GW: Maybe not feelings, but yeah, there’s definitely... I mean I can probably say that with confidence because of the fact that I had to trawl through all this material in order to work towards producing this book. So actually I’ve gone through transparencies, you know, photographs on film and VHS tapes and mini DVs, you know stuff from the past that covers 30 years and so recently I’ve trawled back through that, you know, digitising the digital stuff so bringing it into this century but only- notthat far into this century. There’s a really strong history to that which is associated with place and time and people and events and I spose there was a period of time when I was travelling and exhibiting a lot. So you know, over that period of time I don’t know. Maybe 120 exhibitions and quite a lot of them are all over Europe. So it’s not as if I was staying at home working in a studio, I was going to places and making work.
EM: And going back over that work, does it provoke feeling? Emotion? GW: Yeah. EM: Good or bad? GW: Both really I spose. Cause there are situations where works got lost and I know I feel like dealers have ripped me off. You know, they’ve disappeared with work. Or people who’ve collected haven’t paid for it. And it gets all tied up with the politics of the gallery and whoever’s sold it and so on. So there’s that negative aspect of it, yeah. But there’s also- it’s outweighed by the positive side of it. EM: How so? GW: Because so much more has happened that is exciting and fun and that pushed the practice actually. EM: Do you have a favourite artwork because of the associations you have while making it? GW: I don’t know whether a favourite one, but there are ones that stand out from... particular bodies of work that are strongly associated with places or time or people and
so on, that you know, are significant for those reasons I spose.
extraordinaryobjects.co.uk