Lotta Stöver

i'm working on a new installation and i am stumbling a bit about the "problem" (which is not really a problem at all, more of a chance to critically explore) of how to come to terms with a concept and how it's materializing in space (or the other way around, both probably happening at the same time...).

[1]

Feb 24 at 9:39amWeb
Show threadLotta StöverFeb 24

should the title of a work describe what is happening regarding the process/material? -- hm! very easily understandable, but maybe not, because exhibition visitors will see that anyway, so that may be redundant. -- is that a bad thing even? it may not be a bad thing, because it gives visitors the recognition -- yes, you understand what i'm trying to say. this alone can mean the world to anyone who's new to International Art English(TM)*.

* Alix Rule + David Levine: "International Art English" (2012)

see also:
https://www.moussemagazine.it/magazine/artificial-intelligence-art-english-andrew-berardini-2025/

[2]

Let’s Talk About Artificial Intelligence Art English — Mousse Magazine and Publishing

This is our Gutenberg moment. 

Mousse Magazine and Publishing
Show threadLotta StöverFeb 24

should the title of a work *complement* what one can perceive with their own body? -- i really like this approach, because of how imaginative it can get. but the problem i have is that i tend to wildly associate things that are not really relatable for too many other people. in the past i have conceptualized this approach for myself as especially open and indeterminate, but perhaps in the end i can't really avoid the fact that i WILL be imposing my own interpretation of my own work. maybe there is no way around it, and with this approach, i am just somewhat nesting it (or even hiding it ha!) in abstraction. so in turn this approach may appear somewhat inflated - or perhaps even worse: as pretentious, because of how detached it may appear from IRL, as well as what is immediately materially there. for people who are comfortable with the unknown/irrational/etc, this can be very soothing and nice and sometimes even be conciousness-expanding (talking of myself), but for people who come to an exhibition and who experience abstraction as something they have internalized as a gate-keeper, this approach is doing the absolute opposite of being inclusive, or open-ended. hm!

[3]

Show threadLotta StöverFeb 24

should the title of a work just be a serial number? -- i like how this is placing a focus on the whole and ongoing body of work and does not single out individual art works. but in turn work titles like #1 , #2 , etc. or naming-schemes like compro[v2-2385] && xHNN!5 are maybe also not the most accessible, and are also not the best conversation-starter. or thought-provoking. though they are really good at fore-shadowing if this work is a generative piece, or abstract and serial. it puts the machine first, which is the whole point for some artists.

[4]

Show threadChristian SieversFeb 24
@l0tta I’m really into serial numbers for art works (unique identifiers, actually!) but I once heard that a work of art needs a name just like a baby. Or a pet, I guess. That has sort of stuck with me. Once that naming has happened, it’s a sign that this project has crossed the invisible line from some kind of whatever in progress into an actual art work.
Show threadLotta StöverFeb 25
@Sie that's relatable for me too... putting a word/term/name onto something makes it much more accessible. maybe even stabilizes it to be recognizable as a thing and not just a process that flies by
Show threadChristian SieversFeb 25
@l0tta your initial post was about what kind of name to give, and I don’t want to hijack a thread. But I‘m really interested in how this „stabilisation“ works. how naming and then later archiving changes a work.
Show threadLotta StöverFeb 26
@Sie i feel like that moment is very interesting to me too, where an idea is not just an impulse or just a phase passing by, but it instead kind of becomes "stable" (for the lack of a better word -- because when is a practice ever really stable...) it can also get super esoteric so quickly to think about it. i'm not a fan, but i think i.e. the whole hype around rick rubin is mostly based on his ability to phrase this process somewhat relatable/desirable for people who usually don't conceptualize the process of making itself so much.
Show threadChristian SieversFeb 26
@l0tta esoteric is a good word. One has to revert to metaphors: it functions! It stands for itself. It has its own will.
I need to look up the Rick rubin hype 😃
Show threadLotta StöverFeb 26
@Sie maybe one analogy or (metaphor like you said) that could be used where a wave becomes stable is how matter is in the end often thought of as a standing wave of electromagnetic energy that is somewhat stabilized, because the chaotic propagation of the wave has happened to turn into a vortex/toroidal localized shaped. haha. idk, i don't know so much about physics. but i'm happy to come up with whatever nonsense esoteric *cough* ehmmm imaginative way to romanticize the process of making art even more :))))
Show threadChristian SieversFeb 26
@l0tta The collapse of the standing wave! That's another analogy, true. Reminds me I wanted to look up what exactly the theory behind that is. :)
Show threadLotta StöverFeb 24

so, do i have a solution? not at all, but thanks for following along with my brain dump! i hope you're as confused and engaged as me now :))))

[5]

EOL;