EDIT
A different version. Might be clearer.
I make flat, still, rectangular images – paintings and photographs. They are not generated from a singular idea, nor unfolded as a linear development. Each one comes from a different question. Each one represents a rupture in normality. My work is my own Wunderkammer.
The two-dimensional form holds significance in my work. Just as we understand the world via abstraction, a still image as the most abstract visual form collapses the four-dimensional space-time onto a picture plane. In doing so it creates a dilemma: despite the intention of making sense, imagery generates ambiguity – the problem of representation.
This problem, encountered by many artists and thinkers, is exactly what I desire. We are in a time of great uncertainty, in economical-political structure, in science, in faith, in our future. I feel the need to reflect these doubts in my work. Ambiguity slows down minds, delays actions. Thus the problem of representation is conceived as a battleground between progression and self-reflection, a mark that rejects clarity.
My subject matters cover a wide range of topics, from scientific problems to personal experience. I aim for a representation of life in its every aspect. However, by transforming it into banal images and displaying them together my work becomes a neutral ground stripped of life’s specificity.
Old version:
What does it mean to make a flat, still image contained in a rectangle or a square, right now? In a time when art forms reach ever closer to real life experience, why turn toward the most reduced, abstract ones, i.e. painting and photography? They collapse experience, thoughts, emotions and knowledge onto a two dimensional surface, creating ambiguity rather than clarity, generality rather than specificity. What is the use of them?
Art
is the opium of people. I believe we are in a time of great uncertainty, of
doubt, in the economics, the political pictures, science, in our fate – a time
for reflection. The flat surface is the perfect ground for this reflection. By
potentially negating any specific meaning, the image of a painting or
photograph can become an empty slate, tabula rasa, for anybody to project onto.
The entire meaning of negativity is enclosed in this exchange between the
viewer and the image, this projection. For this momentary pause slows down
thoughts and actions, inducing much needed confusion. The desire of knowing and
doing is halted.
I
put various kinds of images and surfaces together to create a set. The
individual pieces can be banal, transgressing or opaque in its subjects. They
are drawn from life experience, scientific formulas and philosophical texts, or
generated from painting and photographic processes. I aim to negate the
specific meaning of each piece in the set as a whole, thus generating a void
for the viewer to step into, to be lost within.
i love your question at the beginning. strong start! i wonder if opium is the right word...can you suggest synonyms or phrases that might help be more descriptive/revealing? the entire meaning of negativity phrase is confusing. it seems like what you're saying is viewers complete the work, we learn about ourselves as we project ourselves onto static/ambiguous signifiers? what is a set? last, how can you posit getting lost as generative as opposed to banal?
ReplyDeleteOpium is definitely not the right word. I rephrased the statement in the newer version and hopefully made things clearer.
DeleteBeginning with a series of questions is a very intriguing way to lead the viewer in. I don't really understand why you feel there is "much needed confusion" to be inflicted on the viewer though. Do you want to confuse them, or invoke thought in them? Maybe "contemplation" would be a better word choice than "confusion".
ReplyDeleteThanks! I cleaned the statement up a lot (I hope) in the newer version. I do however still like the beginning with questions. Maybe a final version will combine both?
DeleteReally liking this. The problem of an artist statement to me seems that it attempts to congeal every strand of thought the artist has into an easy and short, highly digestible text. This is often contrary to the complexity of ideas an artist's oeuvre actually generates. Your statement does well to not reduce your work into something too simple, especially in a practice that relishes in abundance. "The two dimensional form hold significance in my work". I would maybe edit this statement a bit. You're stating a strong belief when the rest of this statement seems to say that you are either without univocal beliefs or do not wish to overtly express them. I believe I see what you're saying, that this particular form is an underlying theme of sorts in your work. But how can you state that in a way that holds with the explanation of ambiguity expressed elsewhere?
ReplyDeleteThanks for the comment! I see what you mean on that sentence. I was saying that a flat image is the best way to show the problem of representation. It's the one limitation of my choice to enhance ambiguity. I'll edit again soon.
DeleteI like the start of the old version... but i am wondering what if you instead questioning in a statement .... address the same questions not in question forms but write how you think about your inquiries...which is why i like you tried in the first paragraph of the new version.
ReplyDeleteyour talking about the economical-political structure,science faith, future, the meaning of the negativity.... they are so broad terms that i am not understanding the specificity of one idea or thing or a pattern that your interested in it that connects all of this for you.