A long time ago, I was at art college and wrote my final thesis on, if I remember correctly, "Magic and  the object in art." or something along those lines. This, until recently, has both puzzled & embarrassed me. The thought of people reading my garbled thoughts on this matter made me cringe. Perhaps if I could access it and read it again, I would not be so appalled. Perhaps it was lucid and a valid investigatory essay into the nature of the artistic endeavour.

Having re-visited what I now appreciate as a relevant and interesting idea about the nature of making art, I can begin to formulate my thinking on the subject.

I remember that I chose several different pieces of art to discuss in relation to this matter, but I can only remember a few of them:

- Ibejii twin figures

- A super-realist nude by Ron Mueck

- Lingam stones

- Egyptian amulets


I have an inkling that I may have also chosen a figure by Giaccometti and possibly one by Elizabeth Frink.


The concerns that I was pre-occupied with were :

- Why do people make art ?

- What is this thing that is produced when a piece of art has been made ?

It has always been my instinct to return to origins when trying to work out the nature of things, so I chose the Ibejjii figures, Hindu lingam stones and Egyptian amulets since they are ancient. The super-realist work throws a spanner in the works for reasons I shall think about in depth later on.

For the purposes of this line of enquiry, I would now include Duchamp's large glass, Carl Andre's pile of bricks and something by Louise Bourgeois.

Why not more women artists ?

I'll do some more looking and reading.