Wednesday, March 20, 2013

Brian


When I was studying philosophy, one of the reoccurring questions was the essence of human nature: what distinguishes human from any other beings. The answer that appeals to me the most is our ability to imagine. I like to think that the most important trait that differentiates human from others is that we can imagine being something other than ourselves. We imagined flying like birds, and we invented airplanes, and no other being that I know of is capable of imagination to such extent. So then my question is, can humans actually become something else. Can we as a human race become something other than what we are? So far in history some may argue that it is not our nature, but our tools, that evolved. Can we change? Can we do to ourselves, what we did to wolves to create dogs?
While my curiosity seems like a philosophical question, I found the field of philosophy to be unfitting for my pursuit. Immanuel Kant argued that our ability to reason was the essence of human; therefore, lying could never be justified since it disables men’s ability to reason. J.S.S. Smart argued that a man was only responsible for the predictable result of his action. However, is it really possible to live without lying? In the age of internet and overflow of information, can “I didn’t know that would happen,” really be an excuse? There are theorists working in the field of philosophy who deals with these questions, but not in the manner that scratched my itch. On the other hand, I found a satisfying answer in Diane Arbus, who photographed people we normally don’t look straight at but through the edge of our eyes. She photographed her subjects at the center of a square frame with straight lighting. Thinking of photographic gaze as a gesture rich of ethical statement excited me. Also James Turrell, who made me question my bodily perception by creating gestural space with illusionary awe. Thus I turned to art making as my ideal quest.
My most recent project is a starting point of my inquiry and it consists of two elements. First part is a photographic documentation of my applying wet clay to my body, wearing it for the duration it takes to dry, and documenting the remains. My aim is to create an awkward and painful situation for myself to emphasize the diminishing meaning of bodily presence in contemporary society. We live in a world of virtual reality; our existences depend on facebooks and twitters. As long as I have access to an internet device, my not being able to move my elbow or knee is meaningless. My identity exists in hallow.
Second part is my psychological response to the first part. After photographing my body as a negative space, I felt an urge to create something that reinforced my bodily presence. Thus I made a human scale triangular pyramid out of clay. I wanted to make an object that contained the trace of my labor and it was only fitting that the process resembled a primitive method of object making. I wanted the pyramid to be a perfect tetrahedron, which I also knew was impossible via hand making. However, the sculpture exploded in the kiln, and when I was making another pyramid, I found that my idea of perfection became the nonexistent first sculpture. Therefore, not through labor and care but through destruction, the first model reached perfection.

3 comments:

  1. The sentence "Can we do to ourselves what we did to wolves to create dogs" neatly sums up some of your philosophical questions. Maybe even asking can we do to ourselves what we did to steel to make airplanes (or something like that) would be appropriate. If you shorten the statement, questions like that are useful to get to the heart of the philosophy without having to describe when you were in philosophy class, especially if philosophy doesn't satisfy you. I wonder if there is a way to emphasize bodily presence without literally casting your body or representing your body's measurements. I think it's fine to not have the answers, but in explaining how the attempt to reinforce your body actually destroyed itself, you will find some answers there.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Maybe try to focus on your thoughts/what you've learned rather than referring to so many people. If your work is so based on philosophical thought, then why was philosophy not the right field for you? It seems like you still work with it, just in a representational way. So maybe rather than dismissing the field entirely, you can talk about how you’re attempting to work through visual representations of these philosophical thoughts. Also, I think you would be interested in the artist Stelarc and his thoughts on the human body becoming obsolete, if you haven't heard of him already (just throwing that out there!).

    ReplyDelete
  3. brian, can you bring this into class for us to edit together? on paper? i'm having trouble in this context but i think i can help in person with this much more effectively, thanks! maybe over lunch?

    ReplyDelete