Artists connected to MA Fine Arts and MA Performance at York St John University research and exchange information and ideas.
Monday, 9 March 2009
welcome to art and research
art and research is a blog by artists at York St John University. We aim to create new work . We hope to use this blog to share images, texts, observations, links as we proceed.
Key areas of thinking currently involved in my practice hinge around several concurrent strands.
1. Performativity within the making process and its relationship to Performance per se – are they one and the same function, do they have the same psychological root/route? Practitioners whose work has been read contextually in relation to this area include Jordan McKenzie and Andre Stitt.
2. Engagement with the work and the context of this engagement; intentionality in the making process and understandings of the meaning(s), identities and sociology of ‘audience’ in the context of (post?) post-modern art-making. Meanings of ‘Public Sphere’ and its ‘fragmentation’ as in the commentary of writers such as Simon Sheikh and Chantal Mouffe.
3. The dissemination of practice in relation to production of work in a provincial locale as opposed to an established centre in terms of the ‘art market’. The thread of this thinking emerges in (2.) above and is also viewed through the prism of discourses by critical thinkers such as Pierre Bourdieu and Jacques Ranciere. (Reference to key texts to be added later).
4. Handling/Handlability – Heidegger’s thinking on the handling of materials as a way of knowledge creation; coming to know the world through the use of materials in the process of making. The writings of Barbara Bolt – Art Beyond Representation, on this subject. My own relationship to materials and their interaction within the making process – intuitive aspects of making; exploitable opportunities for intuitive development of the work and a focus on process in its own right and not as a means to a (creative) end. The work of art being the work (as in the making) rather than the end artefact.
5. Related to intentionality and ideas of ‘audience engagement’ is a sub-text of humour and subversion of the idea of the autonomous artwork existing for an art ‘cognoscenti’ – this is an area of recent engagement and one which I hope to explore further through the making of work. Contextually this has stemmed from looking at the work of artists such as Robert Filliou and latterly Paul McCarthy.
6. Connected and related to (5.) is the subject of Degradability. For some time my practice has involved building in degradable materials to subvert and devalue the made artefact as commodity. Ideas of audience and intentionality and the placing of the work (or the very nature of the work) within the ‘art-market’, again arise here. In context this has involved research into the work of Eva Hesse and commentary on this aspect of process – the ‘fourth dimension’ by her technician, Doug Johns.
7. Memory and the making of work in series – relationships between works through the memory of process; ‘memories and intuitions’ of the ineffable or indefinable – allusions and inexplicability within the making of work. Attempting to communicate that which is not communicable nor understandable, through the process of making.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteKey areas of thinking currently involved in my practice hinge around several concurrent strands.
ReplyDelete1. Performativity within the making process and its relationship to Performance per se – are they one and the same function, do they have the same psychological root/route? Practitioners whose work has been read contextually in relation to this area include Jordan McKenzie and Andre Stitt.
2. Engagement with the work and the context of this engagement; intentionality in the making process and understandings of the meaning(s), identities and sociology of ‘audience’ in the context of (post?) post-modern art-making. Meanings of ‘Public Sphere’ and its ‘fragmentation’ as in the commentary of writers such as Simon Sheikh and Chantal Mouffe.
3. The dissemination of practice in relation to production of work in a provincial locale as opposed to an established centre in terms of the ‘art market’. The thread of this thinking emerges in (2.) above and is also viewed through the prism of discourses by critical thinkers such as Pierre Bourdieu and Jacques Ranciere. (Reference to key texts to be added later).
4. Handling/Handlability – Heidegger’s thinking on the handling of materials as a way of knowledge creation; coming to know the world through the use of materials in the process of making. The writings of Barbara Bolt – Art Beyond Representation, on this subject. My own relationship to materials and their interaction within the making process – intuitive aspects of making; exploitable opportunities for intuitive development of the work and a focus on process in its own right and not as a means to a (creative) end. The work of art being the work (as in the making) rather than the end artefact.
5. Related to intentionality and ideas of ‘audience engagement’ is a sub-text of humour and subversion of the idea of the autonomous artwork existing for an art ‘cognoscenti’ – this is an area of recent engagement and one which I hope to explore further through the making of work. Contextually this has stemmed from looking at the work of artists such as Robert Filliou and latterly Paul McCarthy.
6. Connected and related to (5.) is the subject of Degradability. For some time my practice has involved building in degradable materials to subvert and devalue the made artefact as commodity. Ideas of audience and intentionality and the placing of the work (or the very nature of the work) within the ‘art-market’, again arise here. In context this has involved research into the work of Eva Hesse and commentary on this aspect of process – the ‘fourth dimension’ by her technician, Doug Johns.
7. Memory and the making of work in series – relationships between works through the memory of process; ‘memories and intuitions’ of the ineffable or indefinable – allusions and inexplicability within the making of work. Attempting to communicate that which is not communicable nor understandable, through the process of making.