Before I can really develop
this panpsychic aesthetic, I must commit an autopsy to my own
practice: committing it to a distance, recalling how it came about and the
connection of others and myself to it after completion.
To do this I have to
differentiate between separate strands of my work, casting aside its
intermingled nature and commit a semantic brutality on it.
But
before I make the first incision the cadavers must be displayed.
.
(Fig. 1)
(Fig. 2)
(Fig. 3)
(Fig. 4)
(Fig. 5)
(Fig. 6)
First Incision
Abstract: Having no reference to material objects
or specific examples; not concrete. Derives from latin abstractus meaning;
withdrawn from worldly interests.
In these selection of
drawings at least, I do not refer to any particular figure but rather what the
first mark suggests, then building upon the previous
suggestions until its finished, and I know it to be finished when all
the space on the page is used.
Often the resulting form
resembles biological form (Though Fig 1 and perhaps Fig 2 do not fit into this
category) this is probably due to instinctual drawing style that has divvied
constant copying of biological forms, but sometimes its due to a conscious
desire to have some kind of effectual relationship with the form, by this I
mean that I wish to produce a psychic resonance within myself
(often it is a sense of disgust, curiosity and wonder
something akin to rummaging through leaf litter or garbage – fig 5
and Fig 4 especially).
There is also an attempt to
avoid closure, by that I mean forms that never seem complete on the
page: wherever it is a form that seems in the midst of mutation (fig
5,4 and 3) or simply runs of the page and becomes bigger than the frame (fig 4
and 6).
Another urge of mine is to
find interconnectedness with the marks, by this I mean I want the marks to have
an effect on one another (displacing or weaving into each other etc.), have a
relationship that is hierarchical (bigger forms are less affected by other
forms) or a process of animation.
Second Incision
Analytical:
Dividing into elemental parts or basic principles
I often do not have a clear
image to what the finished piece will look like; I tend to set myself
principles that I (mostly) follow. For example with ‘fig. 1’ I decided to
start from three points on the page doing five lines then moving to the next
point, I also used 5 different coloured pens doing 5 different lines with each
in a random order of preference. Though the unused space from the original
points was something I decided during the process, due to that I found the
composition more dynamic.
Apart from fig. 3 - which
was essentially a doodle that developed principles, rather a play with
pre-mediated principles – all my more abstracted work is derived from this
process.
Paradoxically from someone
who’s obsessed with pattern I despise repetition in a sense I don’t like
anything that produce a sense of non-consciousness or non-dynamic
behaviour. How I justify this apparent contradiction to myself, is to think
about discovering a great riff while playing instrument; there is some element
that makes it what it is, but playing the same riff exactly the same over and
over again often causes boredom or distance from its original effect, so
variations that do not remove itself from the element brings renewed interest
while remain with the original element.
To sum up; constants without
play are 'dull' to me.
Third Incision
Witness: One who can give a firsthand account of
something seen, heard, or experienced
Post completion I find my
peers the main observation without hinting (at least with Fig 5, 6 and 3) is to
point out figures from within the page for example 'that looks like
two birds mating' or 'that looks like dolphin'; it therefore seems that
something in these drawings invite completion from the reader.
Second
most common comment is a reference to the sense of the drawing being
microcosm (often people reference bacteria under the microscope),
which is probably applicable to all the drawings on show.
