THINGS BECOMING ABSENT

I made a painting of my installation because I wanted to look at the way people will react to the painting. Will they be interested in the subjects of the painting, or the medium. Whiles I was painting I received various responses. Both the medium and the subject were discussed, however majority of the time it was the medium of the piece that concerned everyone in the studio. So is that to say that painting has more value. Or is that to say that painting does not do more than reveal a subject? It is very evident that we try to dig so much meaning and understand a conceptual installation instead of just enjoying it as much as a painting. Enjoying the form an installation takes as much as the brush strokes in an area of paint. As a painter I found myself not appreciating most installations and other forms of  very conceptual art but as I studied Reiner Ruthenbeck's installation by viewing it a couple of times and reading more about it, and him, I reached a climax. I began to understand the simplicity in his work. Conceptual art does not need to be infused in some big allegory. The artist could just be interested in the shapes and form space can hold. Reiner Ruthenbeck was aware of the distance between his furniture and each distance between the chair and the ceiling. ''It was an experiment. I tipped over a single chair and photographed it. Then the housekeeper came in, saw that the chair was lying on the floor and set it upright straight away. She didn't ask why it was that way'. This lead him to muse on the ''paradox between deliberate composition and the random''. His works are intended to represent the ''harmony of ordinary objects'' through the ''quiet observations of domestic events'