Log in

Editor's Picks

q._grahamii_beatrice.jpg
Who was Quercus grahamii named in honor of?
Roderick Cameron | Dec 17, 2024
Quercus rubra in autumn
The Tree of the Year Association in Germany selected a non-...
Website Editor | Dec 16, 2024
Image from Enarrationes
A 16th century commentary on the medicinal property of oaks...
Website Editor | Dec 16, 2024

Plant Focus

Quercus magnosquamata acorn
A  little-known species from the northern Zagros forests of Iran

Michael Craig-Martin's "An Oak Tree"

An Oak Tree by Michael Craig-Martin is arguably the most significant depiction of an oak in 20th century art. Created in 1973, it was greeted with surprise—and even scorn—on its first showing, but the work is now widely regarded as a turning point in the development of conceptual art. It’s not your typical depiction of an oak, and you will find it difficult to find leaves or acorns, let alone identify the species. The piece is installed in two units: an installation of a glass of water on a glass shelf on metal brackets 2.53 m above the ground, and a text mounted on the wall. When first exhibited, the text was given as a handout (it is reproduced at the bottom of this page).

An Oak Tree by Michael Craig Martin
An Oak Tree by Michael-Craig Martin - Source: www.michaelcraigmartin.co.uk

The work was featured in a retrospective exhibition of the work of Michael Craig-Martin at the Royal Academy of Arts in London (September 21–December 10, 2024). For the occasion, the Royal Academy published a short video in which the artist describes the work.

The debate regarding the species depicted has so far been inconclusive. Given the artist’s Irish nationality, and assuming a native oak was chosen as the subject of the artwork, many are inclined to believe it is Q. petraea or Q. robur. Some, even, have been bold enough to suggest Q. ×rosacea, the hybrid between the two. Others have pointed out that given that the artist grew up in the US and attended the Yale School of Art, the range of possible species is much wider. The most controversial proposal, which has received scant support, states that An Oak Tree depicts simultaneously every species, hybrid, and cultivar of Quercus. Perhaps IOS members would like to contribute an opinion as a comment below?

The text that accompanies An Oak Tree

Q. To begin with, could you describe this work?

A. Yes, of course. What I’ve done is change a glass of water into a full-grown oak tree without altering the accidents of the glass of water.

Q. The accidents?

A. Yes. The colour, feel, weight, size …

Q. Do you mean that the glass of water is a symbol of an oak tree?

A. No. It’s not a symbol. I’ve changed the physical substance of the glass of water into that of an oak tree.

Q. It looks like a glass of water.

A. Of course it does. I didn’t change its appearance. But it’s not a glass of water, it’s an oak tree.

Q. Can you prove what you’ve claimed to have done?

A. Well, yes and no. I claim to have maintained the physical form of the glass of water and, as you can see, I have. However, as one normally looks for evidence of physical change in terms of altered form, no such proof exists.

Q. Haven’t you simply called this glass of water an oak tree?

A. Absolutely not. It is not a glass of water anymore. I have changed its actual substance. It would no longer be accurate to call it a glass of water. One could call it anything one wished but that would not alter the fact that it is an oak tree.

Q. Isn’t this just a case of the emperor’s new clothes?

A. No. With the emperor’s new clothes people claimed to see something that wasn’t there because they felt they should. I would be very surprised if anyone told me they saw an oak tree.

Q. Was it difficult to effect the change?

A. No effort at all. But it took me years of work before I realised I could do it.

Q. When precisely did the glass of water become an oak tree?

A. When I put the water in the glass.

Q. Does this happen every time you fill a glass with water?

A. No, of course not. Only when I intend to change it into an oak tree.

Q. Then intention causes the change?

A. I would say it precipitates the change.

Q. You don’t know how you do it?

A. It contradicts what I feel I know about cause and effect.

Q. It seems to me that you are claiming to have worked a miracle. Isn’t that the case?

A. I’m flattered that you think so.

Q. But aren’t you the only person who can do something like this?

A. How could I know?

Q. Could you teach others to do it?

A. No, it’s not something one can teach.

Q. Do you consider that changing the glass of water into an oak tree constitutes an art work?

A. Yes.

Q. What precisely is the art work? The glass of water?

A. There is no glass of water anymore.

Q. The process of change?

A. There is no process involved in the change.

Q. The oak tree?

A. Yes. The oak tree.

Q. But the oak tree only exists in the mind.

A. No. The actual oak tree is physically present but in the form of the glass of water. As the glass of water was a particular glass of water, the oak tree is also a particular oak tree. To conceive the category ‘oak tree’ or to picture a particular oak tree is not to understand and experience what appears to be a glass of water as an oak tree. Just as it is imperceivable, it is also inconceivable.

Q. Did the particular oak tree exist somewhere else before it took the form of a glass of water?

A. No. This particular oak tree did not exist previously. I should also point out that it does not and will not ever have any other form than that of a glass of water.

Q. How long will it continue to be an oak tree?

A. Until I change it