'Practice Description' by Micheál O'Connell: Inkjet-type Print, on A4 paper: 190mm x 275mm

One copy (of six @ £8.50 each) kindly installed by Bob & Roberta Smith
in the Resonance FM pavilion at the Frieze Art Fair on 10th October 2007

Commentary by Huw Bartlet:

This writer has been concious of the Frieze art fair since 2005. That year, he felt compelled to visit for 'career development' reasons. It was important then, to recognise an actual presence of an art world, or, as is more specifically the case with Frieze, the commercial gallery led marketplace. "The artist in the marketplace as a viewer" perhaps or maybe inspired by the Baudelairian conception of the Flaneur - observing, but not taking part. The many and the few, referring to artworks themselves and the crowds of people that visit Frieze. To observe, and one presumes, to enjoy the presence of the contemporary art market.

In 2006, this writer did not attend Frieze. He did not feel oblidged to observe the market, resulting from, for better or worse, a heavily sceptical world view, inspired by musings upon the relationship between commodity exchange and the artwork.

The marketplace, including the objects of exchange became a theoretical consideration as opposed to the year before when the concerns were actual and to some extent experiential - whether that carries 'meaning' or not.

So, to the issue of Frieze 2007, and specifically the intended reasons for visiting. A piece of work had been recommended. And above anything else, this work was to be viewed. A record, or photograph of the piece was seen beforehand, but, contrary to the usual, the photograph did not show the 'entire' quality of the piece. It was essential that the piece was seen installed in situ, in the art fair itself.

Unfortunately, it is on this essential point that this writer 'failed'. For he was unable to even visit Frieze 2007, let alone see the reason for visiting. Ergo, this 'review' exists somewhere between a vacuum and a photograph. "I have not read what the artist had written, but I know he has written something." The intention of this writing then has changed. Frieze is over and the piece has been taken down. Catalogued.

The interesting point is that, I can only now see the photograph of the piece, unless another opportunity arises to see the actual piece again. "This writer has missed the boat, but can see the smoke in the distance." This piece is now an historical piece. It has been exhibited and I have not fully 'experienced' the piece. I can understand the photograph but that is the limit of my knowledge of this piece. Which begs the questions - "Is incomplete knowledge enough? Moreover, what is incomplete knowledge?"

Well, this writer is aware that his response will always be incomplete. It is from this position that the whole nature of experience of art, whether it be a record of a piece or the actual piece itself.

And more specifically, and perhaps something which requires further thought -

"When looking at art in situ, as it is meant to be seen one experiences the physical life of a thing. In witnessing a record, we experience art in its death"

Sincere apologies are due to myself and the artist in question, for this is perhaps a conceptual review of a conceptual piece which may be of incomplete relevance, but it is language just the same .

'Practice Description' 2 of 4 (average punter has a gander)

'Practice Description' 3 of 4 (average punter takes a closer butchers)