Lucky you; this post is about the making process of a piece of current work.
I’m making a new exhibition, just a simple thing, on or about mirrors. Mirrors in art, mirrors in science, mirroring etc. It’s boring and unoriginal, but I think it’s a good place to start with my exhibitioning.
I’ve only been compiling this list of works for a day now and already I’ve come across something that has disheartened me greatly. It is terrible when you find that an artist has already made a piece identical to the one you were working towards; Michael got his degree through quoting and understanding what his subject was about. If I quote I have to make it obvious and also come up with something original.
Now I’m not very good at coming up with ideas. I have very little imagination when it comes to the visual and rely on set imagery to help me. It must be two weeks ago now that I started taking pictures of myself and four action figures in the compositions of the front covers of some DVDs that were on my table.
This seemed good and fun; a system that could produce a lot of work. But today I found images on the internet by Candice Breitz of her taking film stills and re-enacting them.
I had hoped that I could do the same thing this next year with sitcoms, but I don’t know if I will be able to now. I could of course make work about not remaking sitcoms; that sounds more like me.
I’ve put a piece of her work into my mirrors exhibition for the reason that she was mirroring me in the past without knowing it.
Of yes, this Breitz woman is very attractive. Damn her.
R B Grange
29/08/2007
23/08/2007
Cottage-Industry Conceptualism
I’ve had a little think, and it turns out that I’m not really a conceptualist; I wouldn’t class my work as concept.
Granted, the art I make usually involves applying some kind of system, or formula, but I don’t think my work has the same robustness or longevity of what LeWitt named ‘Conceptual Art’ way back in 1967.
It us undeniable (and I have tried to deny it) that my work comes about through my thought. I would find it hard to draw something without thinking about it and that though, for me, would be the lasting image, not the drawing.
It is my hope is that my work does not have the baggage that so much conceptualism carries. That it may, if it wishes, reference art histories but not be steeped in them, nor rely upon knowledge I might presume the viewer to have.
I aspire for my work to be a small suggestion of an unknowable entire work. I might leave clues or make gestures towards something else but the focus of the work is its small self.
In short I now see that I work in memes, not concepts.
Dawkins created the word meme in about 1976 (needs verifying) and now all the cool kids a using it. You have memetic study, memeplexes and a whole host of other words to do with these little fellows. But I purpose a few more, and in true memetic terms the word which is able to reproduce the most will survive (my money’s on the last one):
Memeism
Mememalism
Memeist art
R B Grange
Granted, the art I make usually involves applying some kind of system, or formula, but I don’t think my work has the same robustness or longevity of what LeWitt named ‘Conceptual Art’ way back in 1967.
It us undeniable (and I have tried to deny it) that my work comes about through my thought. I would find it hard to draw something without thinking about it and that though, for me, would be the lasting image, not the drawing.
It is my hope is that my work does not have the baggage that so much conceptualism carries. That it may, if it wishes, reference art histories but not be steeped in them, nor rely upon knowledge I might presume the viewer to have.
I aspire for my work to be a small suggestion of an unknowable entire work. I might leave clues or make gestures towards something else but the focus of the work is its small self.
In short I now see that I work in memes, not concepts.
Dawkins created the word meme in about 1976 (needs verifying) and now all the cool kids a using it. You have memetic study, memeplexes and a whole host of other words to do with these little fellows. But I purpose a few more, and in true memetic terms the word which is able to reproduce the most will survive (my money’s on the last one):
Memeism
Mememalism
Memeist art
R B Grange
03/08/2007
Anthropomorphism
Oh yes, the bane of my artistic existence. People applying human qualities to objects that have none. I know that I have already gone on at length about this (in my blog and other writings) but it seems that I should address it again in light of what I read last night.
I stopped reading The God Delusion months back because it was getting a bit angsty for me and also because I don’t need to be told that atheist get a hard time whilst religious folk get a life of whatever it is they get. But now that I’ve gone back to the book I realise how fun it is, how easy it is to understand and extent of Dawkin’s genius. He, in the latest and best chapter so far (The Roots of Religion), explained away why moths fly into candle flames; something that was, until a 14 hours ago, a bizarre incomprehensible act and which now seems marvellously interesting. (I wont explain it here).
Dawkins explains that not all animals’ behaviour is beneficial to its survival. Some actions of animals are by-products of their evolutionary process. Religion could well be one for humans.
So, back to the heading, Dawkins puts forward that second-guessing a predator could have been to key to man’s survival, meaning that one can see that a leopard is able to run faster than you but it also helps to ‘know’ that the animal has an intent to kill you. I am reminded of the part in Jaws where a shark’s eyes are described. Lifeless until they bite, as though the shark is able to feel joy and relish the murderous act he is committing. With this application of intent onto things that may have none the human brain must now be predisposed to think the world around it has a consciousness – is able to think and feel as we do. Therefore the concept of a creator would easily slip into the minds of men, thinking that all things are like he. And the same goes for art.
In conclusion (a terrible phrase) I have to admit defeat. The brain makes links and sees things that are not there and it is (or maybe was) important for it to do so. Damn you natural selection, you’ve got gullible, short-sighted, second-guessing apes on your hands. Let’s hope we’ll change; which of course we will.
R B Grange
I stopped reading The God Delusion months back because it was getting a bit angsty for me and also because I don’t need to be told that atheist get a hard time whilst religious folk get a life of whatever it is they get. But now that I’ve gone back to the book I realise how fun it is, how easy it is to understand and extent of Dawkin’s genius. He, in the latest and best chapter so far (The Roots of Religion), explained away why moths fly into candle flames; something that was, until a 14 hours ago, a bizarre incomprehensible act and which now seems marvellously interesting. (I wont explain it here).
Dawkins explains that not all animals’ behaviour is beneficial to its survival. Some actions of animals are by-products of their evolutionary process. Religion could well be one for humans.
So, back to the heading, Dawkins puts forward that second-guessing a predator could have been to key to man’s survival, meaning that one can see that a leopard is able to run faster than you but it also helps to ‘know’ that the animal has an intent to kill you. I am reminded of the part in Jaws where a shark’s eyes are described. Lifeless until they bite, as though the shark is able to feel joy and relish the murderous act he is committing. With this application of intent onto things that may have none the human brain must now be predisposed to think the world around it has a consciousness – is able to think and feel as we do. Therefore the concept of a creator would easily slip into the minds of men, thinking that all things are like he. And the same goes for art.
In conclusion (a terrible phrase) I have to admit defeat. The brain makes links and sees things that are not there and it is (or maybe was) important for it to do so. Damn you natural selection, you’ve got gullible, short-sighted, second-guessing apes on your hands. Let’s hope we’ll change; which of course we will.
R B Grange
01/08/2007
Quentin Thomas
I wish to wish a happy birthday to Quentin Thomas, he is 63 today.
For those of you who don't know who this man is, join the club. I only know him as a name, or maybe even less than that. He is a part of the grammar of going to the cinemas.
I like concepts of grammar when it comes to entertainment. The little black and white lines that appear at the top right of the screen when there is going to be an ad-break, the credits and presenters' banter. All these strange little things that have become the norm and that noboby really notices outside those in the industry.
I have started some work on set visual dimensions within film and television, these elements of grammar are 'easy to see', maybe it could be an idea to go for obscurer and less noticable things next.
That was a boring post, sorry about that.
R B Grange
For those of you who don't know who this man is, join the club. I only know him as a name, or maybe even less than that. He is a part of the grammar of going to the cinemas.
I like concepts of grammar when it comes to entertainment. The little black and white lines that appear at the top right of the screen when there is going to be an ad-break, the credits and presenters' banter. All these strange little things that have become the norm and that noboby really notices outside those in the industry.
I have started some work on set visual dimensions within film and television, these elements of grammar are 'easy to see', maybe it could be an idea to go for obscurer and less noticable things next.
That was a boring post, sorry about that.
R B Grange
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
