It summed up a view of the world, a construct or paradigm of how things are, and brought me to thinking that although it is easy to see through that paradigm because it is of another time and with quaint language, we as humans go from one construct or paradigm to another, and all are equally constructed, and if you like, fictional.
I looked around the area and pilfered a few more materials, elastic bands and plastic bits. I decided to construct a machination - trusting that I could figure out how to make something that would work in some way. If I have a few objects that have some mechanical properties, then surely I can make some construct that will do something. I built it onto an easel there, and with a lucky find of a box with a switch, made a machine entitled "This is what the world is like"
Through makeshift pulleys and connections, when the switch is turned on and off, the other parts make various movements.
We had to write a statement for our work:
This is what the world is like
The world seems to follow systems and mechanisms. As people, we construct systems which make perfect sense, but which follow their own logic.
Components work according to their function, creating a construction which speaks a language all its own.
We live in a series of constructs whose purpose are a consensus of agreements.
This contraption does something. Its true purpose may be a model of the world, or may still to be discovered.
..........
We had also to do a little research contextualising our work in contemporary practice. There were so many conversations going on in the room, I missed the fact that we were supposed to integrate that into our statement, and of course I can see the point of doing that now. My rapid research had come up with a couple of artists who make mechanical, low tech art - Julianne Swartz and Bernie Lubell - interactive installations forms on the intersection of science and the arts - adamantly low tech. However, I was not happy to link my work or ideas to these artists anyway, and will have to continue such research, because although there are some obvious similarities in that they are low tech constructions, I feel they come from an entirely different place. My attempts at such work springs from a more philosophical or psychological point of view.
I see the point generally of linking works to other ideas - it's just not something I have explicitly done before. I have preferred to make a piece and all its ideas hermetically sealed. I think partly that is because it is sometime ill done by others - I prefer to see a work on its own terms, and to get my own first impressions, and if I am interested enough, to read more later. I resent being too led, or if a piece requires too many references to other things to get it - it makes me suspicious that there is not enough in the work itself. Also, reeling off a list of other artists names and ideas doesn't necessarily mean that your work has that much to add to the debate - eg, just because it is a piece of moving image does not mean one should automatically mention Bill Viola. Just saying!
I always enjoy a reason to be inventive, and proving to myself that one can come up with solutions within very limited time and resources. Of course, this sculptural interactive machination can be remade infinitely with available materials. There's a thought. This is "This is what the world is like" number 1.
Every time I have typed "This is what the world is like", I have initially mistyped it as "This is how the world works". an alternative title.
8th February 2012
No comments:
Post a Comment