References

I think I'm just beginning to get what the MA is about, and why everyone is always banging on about references, and relating work to other work and artists. Positioning artwork, indicating where one is coming from, what ideas are being developed or expounded.

Of course artists would much rather work was taken at face value, but sometimes artists also want more from their audiences that audiences are willing to give.

Walking in the street the other day, I thought I recognised someone from several years ago, who had been an art student with me. She had an interesting practice, where she had a friend in a different art school occasionally swapped places to continue each other's work. That is an interesting concept, challenging all sorts of art ideas concerning authorship and so on. But such practice is only really fascinating to the artist themself - while it may be of some interest to the viewer, what other people really want to see is what you produce, less how it was produced.

Some parts of art and art practice are definitely for background.

I also remember a previous tutor at university who insisted that when he looked at a new piece of work, he read all about it and what the artist had to say before commenting upon it. I dislike this approach - unless all the essay or script side is part of the work, I believe it should be a choice whether or not to read the background - what is to be said should really all be in the work.

Professional interests aside, issues of teaching or study or assessing, or even interest, we are talking about visual art here, and I reserve the right of the viewer to misinterpret, have a personal impression, like or dislike a piece because of related or unrelated memories. An art piece is not just what it is, or what the artist says it is, it is also very much in the eye of the beholder.

I see the point of what I summarise as references - of the background, the research and process - not just of doing it, but of showing it and having it available, especially in certain conditions, such as an MA.

I have before not wanted to reveal too much, because by mentioning other artists, I fear too closely associating my ideas with their's, as if I have not come up with my own ideas myself. By revealing process, I feel I take away some of the intended magic and ambiguity. By citing specific scientific theories, I fear that I am directing the viewer to read or interpret my work only through those filters. I have had all sorts of reasons to keep my research and thinking secretive. I see through a little gap in that thinking. I now see there may well be ways to widen what I am explicit about without losing the integrity of that. I can give more references, more directions, more ways in, more possible interpretations - and not explain everything away.

The areas of reference I wish to integrate more into my MA, as well as contemporary practice and practitioners, include previous artists and art movements, science, literature, film and classical music. These are areas of influence I draw from, but do not always mention. I also wish to draw more explicitly upon my own archive, which again is how I work but tend to keep more secretive - that's also a question of digital organisation.

And now some more pictures, free of explanation, references or context. 

28th April 2012