of continuous development

of continuous development



The speed of production has something to do with quality but how does it or more precisely what is the quality of importance?




If no external judgements are given or made is what is left after the work is completed, a trace of its production, a remnants of the original intention, The area of importance. The work must manifest itself of this a potent pertinence to its own existence.

are these things and artworks in general a quality of importance or do they point to a quality of importance.

artifice

all eyes

Now as we move on the method of communication becomes, as Philip would say doubles all the rules are at sea. What is said is not straight and true but the flow of such information creates what is formed, the focal point is all over and it is engaged.

The interest is multilayered but precise and fragile to the over prescription I am liable to do. To begin to open up expand these areas we must ask why they are interesting or what is it we should be interested in? It is sure and arcing. The visual as a method of communication and identification(flags).

The Larger the area an artist likes to define the stranger there progress through it will be, art is commercilised art has always been commercilsed for sure look at old photos of famous artists. What can be gained is a way to adapt experience to offer the ability to learn.





So how do i describe this , most things are locked up tighter than an acorn.



what is it to show a supplement to the work an idea germinated at art school of a parrellel description of work.

symbols

A search for meaning ends at the point a symbol takes on its meaning, the construction of signs from abstract forms. What is it about this point that holds such interest? Where abstraction ends and ideas start where symbols have been created to be recognised and have a shared meaning. The point between the unknown and known.

To search into the unknown one must have some kind of guide.



Using this as a starting point for a way to use shapes to create some sense of there own properties. What fascinates me with these Mandela symbols is there use of geometry to try to describe the world around them.

So taking this as a starting point using each drawing as a 'quest' to find something about the place position of when where abstraction and symbols meet. Searching for this point.

This series of works start from this serious point of engagement and is guided in its sensibility by some kind of attempt to relate a geometric logic to the work. Whilst trying to find a point of meaning for the viewer. This impossible quagmire is the very point that I am interested in and keeping these three elements active within the work is the goal.

An attempt to reach/create a symbol

Geometry as a method for investigating the nature of existence

Abstraction as a specific art historical project

Production

So the project of NON (end of things) has been leading towards a debate connection to theory, what is this 'end of things' that is talked about? If I look at the theorists who talk of this Alexandre Kojève's 'end of history' or Jacques Derrida. Is it that they are saying that the possibilities are becoming limited because to some extent we have made it, this is the best we can get, there is no further room for improvement in the social structure of society, we are indeed the end of things.

How might this be translated into or relevant to artistic practice and mine specifically? It gives and makes me re-access what is the value of the work how should it be looked at by this I am thinking of what is the art in it that people will see as the art? And the differences of production (production values) how the use of materials can lead the viewer into there relationship with the object. If it is well made and beautifully produced how this can become the value that is most easily encountered in the work, were as when this is not the case some other reading is required. Making something badly or with your eye less on the finish rather than aesthetic quality leads to another set of value judgements. The work may still be of a simple formal qualative type but these qualities can jut up against the very nature of a formal arrangement to antagonise the viewer into the need to speculate about the conditions for existence of such a work.

To tie this back to derrida there is something of the 'deconstruction' of what is the art work, I know this has been done through out the 60's and onwards, but it seems a vital part of now (or my now). A need to constantly access what it is that gives these things the qualities they have and how to judge if these qualities are valuable as art. Why is it deconstructing well mainly just because it feels like that. Much as the theorists are running out of room for creating overarching theories (ideologies) we the artist have run out of materials of newness that have not been used before. there isn’t a great bold step into the unknown it is a simple thing of spending more time with the things you know and checking them out!

quality

If the end of things is a concept, how tight does a concept have to be to make a thing. not very (this really does feel like sex and the city!).

As an initial velocity or arc of intent ends, and a period of reflection begins. What becomes apparent is many of the things of quality that are done have to be done under duress. Or is it simply my take on the intellectual life. Many do have careers without the angst, and those periods could only imbue the work with a remembered feeling for myself rather than a quality that is perceptible by the audience. How can this be gauged other than by success?