An investigation into art space as art practice
R-I-O-I is a hypothetical institutional entity, subdivided by a structure of hypothetical levels, departments, wings, corridors, offices, and rooms. In theory, its structure houses at one time one artist's own —> theoretical practice, based in the exploration of Art-Space-As-Art-Practice. It is a look at the museographic institution as transformative and in-situ, at once institutional and non-institutional, transparent and opaque, a trans-museological space of display emphasizing rupture and absurdity and the unresolved. It is a framework by which to launch investigations into the structure and function and critique of an institutional space itself and the function of a collection. it can expand and contract in function at times as an activated space, a pop-up space, a toggle between virtual and physical, depending on the activity - identifying itself as imposing and grandiose, while at other times revealing itself as only one artist, or even one object. With that, it explores the evolving form of the museum. The evolving form of the object. The space between them. And the space between them and their representation.

In its present state, it houses several different institutes: the Museum of the Objectified Unwilling, the Institute of Moderate Fulfillment (or, gift shop), the Archive of the Royal Institute of Normalcy (a formal investigation of the grey areas, norms, conformity, and mediocrity), the record label Non-Records (part of Non-Productions). And its resident fellow occupies the corridor of the Royal Institute of Other Options.

R-I-O-I is a Borgesian disordering process studio. Sometimes a kunsthalle, sometimes a yard sale. Art objects live here. Cultural objects live here. Storied objects live here. Potentially meaningless objects live here. Narrative fragments live here. They all potentially live alongside text, publication, print, sound, installation, video, and performance. The Ministers warmly invite you to browse the collection. Follow the sentence.

—> info@r-i-o-i.org

The idea of the "collection" is ripe with attention, interest, and attack.
The idea of a collection of objects of some determined historical “importance” can result in an interesting tangle of problems. The structure of such a thing itself may be sometimes malleable, sometimes rigid, sometimes violent, but relentlessly slippery, just as can be the context of just a singular object in a museum.

As Taryn Simon has said, “Archives exist for me because – not for the archives themselves – but for all the gaps between the collected information.”

In becoming a flat representation of those objects, or a digitized online representation of those representations.....Can the image of an object replace the necessity of the material object itself? Can a catalog – an object which contains a collection of images – replace the necessity of the museum?

How are the objects of a museum determined to be displayed, and how does it differ from the context if displayed in a different museum space, under a different director's decisions?

Museum of the Objectified Unwilling

Solar Charging Croc, 2016

Chinese Goddess of in a Snowglobe, Plus Double Pencil Holders, 2016

Medicine or Protection Buddha in a Snowglobe with Gold Ingots, plus Thermometer and Pencil Holder, 2016

Enhanced Charging Dogbowl, 2016

Enhanced Charging Dogbowl, 2016

Royal Institute of Normalcy
Exploring the grey areas, poking at the norms, playing the averages, approaching the mediocre, ringing the bell curve....

What is a cultural norm and why does a culture seek an idea of normal?

What does normal look like? And who is Norm?

Floorplan, Normal Wing

A Corridor of Self-Congratulatory Art Diagrams

Fig. 1: Dylan As Structure

Fig. 2: Synthesis vs. Anti-Synthesis

Fig. 3: Infinity vs. Anti-Infinity

Fig. 4: Synthesis vs. Anti-Synthesis Pt 2

Fig. 5: Liminality and The Other

Fig. 6: How To Look At The Other

Fig 7: This That and The Other

Fig. 8: Object vs. Obnoxious

Fig. 9: Whatever This Is

The Failure of Flatness
Sarat Maharaj describes an “opaque stickiness” inherent to the process of translation. Modes of translation (and the gaps therein) can exist as a transference between words, an object’s dimensionality, word and image, and as an artistic practice altogether.

Flatness has been an object of discussion for much of 20th century art, throughout Modernism and painting, and also in creating a photographic image. Within that process, there is a presence of translation, and its inherent gaps and failures.

What happens when an object seeks its own flatness..?

Can it achieve such an idea, or will an object always fail any attempt to abandon its materiality and "objecthood?"

Elmo Plush Toy, 2014

Double Cheeseburger with Special Sauce, 2014

Documenta XI Catalog, minus Short Guide, 2015

KFC 6-piece Chicken Dinner, 2016

Ugg Classic, Sand, 2015

Vintage 1986 World Series Championship Cap, 2014