1. The first challenge was the act of
getting to her. Wednesday was my first ever solo trip into NYC. I have been
with friends and family but never alone. I was hoping to get a cab outside
Grand Central and make it to her apartment by 4, however I was unable to get a
cab and had to turn to the subway. I was out of my element to say the least. I
made it to Mira’s apartment a whopping hour late and completely mortified.
2. The second challenge was meeting such
a well renowned and well-respected artist and author, especially under the
embarrassing condition of being so very late. Mira was very kind about the
lateness and took her time with me during the meeting despite this.
3. The third challenge was her very
simple yet deep question, why do you
make art, what are you trying to say? And to this simple question I had no
answer. A few faculty members brought this up during residency and I was also
unable to answer them. This question over the last few days has lead to an
identity crisis of sorts. I begin to wonder what I am doing making art when I
can only give the reason that I am driven to.
Can everyone else
answer this question about their own art?
Do people know why it is they make work and why they make work in their
particular medium? I think it would help to here what others have to say about
this.
I am also discovering
that the shapes and characters I have been working with are not unique but have
their own long history. My challenge now is to make art that is some how unique
and personal to me but not revelatory.
Its time for some serious art soul
searching . . .
Sounds like a stimulating meeting--and these are good, if challenging, questions. I suspect each of us has had a hard time answering the big "why" at different points in our development--and we may return to the "why" in the future, even after we feel wholly resolved!
ReplyDeleteIn answer to your questions:
Why I make work:
I subscribe to the idea of artist as scientist, or artist as philosopher. We enter our laboratory (studio) in order to investigate a specific problem or hypothesis. We conduct tests, run experiments and analyze raw material and in order to develop a theory (or at least, unearth ways of presenting data as conclusions or open investigations). We then present our results to the world in whatever form they take. Not unlike the philosopher, who analyzes a problem, develops a system of investigation and engages both the problem and investigation within a structural motif.
I make work, therefore, as a method of investigating a specific problem, a hypothesis, a whirl of ideas and associations. As a science-detective, I'm digging in to uncover connectivity, unexpected relationships, vetting my original, predicted outcomes and finding ways to present this new information to the viewer. The work is a kind of infographic, in a way. A process that allows me to present ideas for consideration (or entry). Sometimes the angle is more philosophical, other times it's a map of connections between disciplines.
Why I make work in my particular medium:
The body of work I came into graduate school with dealt with the emergence of matter (being) from non-matter (non-being), and made use of archaeological method and symbol. Since printmaking is about building layers, laying down the trace, or memory, of the original surface, and has a dash of unpredictability, the medium suited the concept. The viewer peels away the layers, like brushing away dust to find the hidden pottery shards. Printmaking often depicts the moment of transition between original surface and recollection, so it worked to depict an act of science and philosophy (coalescence), which is normally invisible.
For the new work, I've added photography and digital manipulation, since it's dealing with 21st century concerns about deep digital space, networking and relationships to constructed geographical (and cultural) place. In this case, printmaking alone does not serve the concept. Appropriation and digital output are necessary to bring it into the right kind of forum for analysis.
So, for me, the choice of medium is dictated by the concept. I don't just work in a medium because I feel I'm good at it, or because it's what I always do. I decide if the medium suits what I'm trying to say. If it does not, I choose another medium.