Thinking about audiences and how 2D work can be presented. It seems to me there are a couple of central issues. The first is whether or not you want to separate the work from the rest of the world or present it as being contiguous with it. The thorny problem of the frame then arises. The frame by its very nature separates the work off from everything else, but perhaps for a variety of purposes. Historical frames tend to be highly decorative and can be almost as elaborate as the work they enclose. Here issues of ownership, wealth, power, prestige etc come to the fore or in the case of early religious images an attempt to give honorific value by virtue of gilding, exquisite inlay, and offering up craft skills to God etc. In this case of course the image is separated from the world so that it can be meditated upon. This duality of ownership and possession versus providing a frame for meditation seems to have permeated the use of frames all the way through to Modernism. If you look at the way German Expressionist paintings of the early 20th century are framed, they are usually framed in simple thick black stained wood. This heightens the intensity of the colour and the weight yet simplicity of the frame echoes an aesthetic of simple 'peasant' furniture. The Thyssen-Bornemisza Gallery in Madrid has a wonderful room of Nolde, Kirchner and others of the 'Blue Rider' group. The frame here is part of the 'meditation' on meaning, an extension of the expression of the painting. Modernism's fascination with purity of course also drives forward a change in the nature of the frame and it becomes plainer, stripped back and abstract. However the ownership issue doesn’t go away. Most of the paintings of this period could only be bought by the rich. Therefore some were reframed on purchase, or by dealers wanting to ensure that the buyers were getting what they wanted, which wasn’t just something to meditate upon, but was also a possession. This desire drove framers to invent a whole range of blended framing such as simple frames which were gold leafed to look old and of course expensive. The other issue which would take a long time to unpick is the difference between the domestic and gallery settings.
Later in the century the drive to get away from framing was partly a reaction to the 'ownership' issue and partly to present work as if it had a 'reality' that was in a direct engagement with the physical world. Paper being paper, physical stuff with edges and texture etc which would disappear behind glass. As sculpture came away from the plinth, 2D work started to escape the frame. The problem is however how to do this. This is where the world of fixings and fittings comes in and their languages of course are again deeply fascinating.

I was doing some work with Sue a couple of years ago where the local audience for a text piece was going to be tested out. We did a whole series of quick collages. Like the one above. I never know in these situations if anyone recognises these things as art, or whether they need to. Perhaps they are just interventions into the fabric.

The best site specific art installation in town at the moment is 'Chorus' by United Visual Artists. A very neat piece that recognises that its main audience will be opera lovers and it responds beautifully to the architecture. A must see. Go to the Grand theatre and ask the men in black who hang around the dorrway. One of them will take you to it. Great music by Mira Calix to go with it.

The central issue would seem to be one of communication. In communication theory Lasswell's maxim states: “Who says what to whom in what channel with what effect" The interesting issue here is that we are dealing with physical objects and not words, so how do objects communicate?

An other issue is context. Where are these communications taking place? The image above is on a wall in Chapeltown Leeds, or was, it has been removed by the council. It's first audience was I presume the people of the area. I live in Chapeltown and I have obviously responded to this by recording it. Am I though the wrong audience? Have I by posting the image created a new audience that now no longer has any contact with the initial communication. This being an ideal illustration of the 'death of the author' we could say this is a type of bicolage, literally I'm tinkering with the concept, playing with what is available.