amie dicke
michael landy
bas jan ader
gert jan kocken
robert smithson, on entropy
Wednesday, 27 October 2010
Wednesday, 20 October 2010
smart & stupid
Creation & Destruction =
Apollonian & Dionysian
Good & Bad
Smart & Stupid
Order & Chaos
Civilisation & Barbarism
Love & Hate
Compassion & Aggression
Beauty & Ugliness
Thursday, 7 October 2010
first three destructions
Three small surfaces for paintings (linen on stretchers) from about 30 x 50 cm are mutilated with sandpaper, with a cutter and with an awl. The action, or performance of destroying itself is filmed. Soon, within two weeks, the editing will be done and the film will be shown here.
Tuesday, 5 October 2010
Monday, 4 October 2010
white & black
Painting a white sheet of paper with Ivory Black watercolour paint is adding paint which changes the white surface into spotty black. Can it be seen as a destruction of the original white? Or is it a change of a white surface into a black surface? It is difficult to see it as a destructive act, it is transformation in stead of destruction. Because there is no violence or aggression in painting the white surface black?
surface research plan 2010 - 2011 # 6
The “creation & destruction” research at the Rietveld Academie
How to make the “creation & destruction” artistic research meaningful for students?
I will start by giving a short lecture on the new research project for the coordinators. With their help and in consultation with the departmental teachers I would like to find a small number of students who may be interested in the research question. I hope to find these students by presenting my research subject and the possible research questions to the interested departments. The students who want to participate will not be expected to function as research assistants. The idea is for them to set up an Artistic Research of their own based on the same subject and with a few specific research questions. Holding regular meetings in which experiences or developments are presented to the research group can lead to the exchange of ideas, materials, concepts, new research questions and relevant literature. It might develop into a collaboration of researchers each studying a different section. Each one is researching a part of the complete picture to be formed later.
How to make the “creation & destruction” artistic research meaningful for students?
I will start by giving a short lecture on the new research project for the coordinators. With their help and in consultation with the departmental teachers I would like to find a small number of students who may be interested in the research question. I hope to find these students by presenting my research subject and the possible research questions to the interested departments. The students who want to participate will not be expected to function as research assistants. The idea is for them to set up an Artistic Research of their own based on the same subject and with a few specific research questions. Holding regular meetings in which experiences or developments are presented to the research group can lead to the exchange of ideas, materials, concepts, new research questions and relevant literature. It might develop into a collaboration of researchers each studying a different section. Each one is researching a part of the complete picture to be formed later.
Friday, 24 September 2010
surface research plan 2010 - 2011 # 5
Research questions:
The destruction of the plain paper is the creation of another, new surface to draw on, how far can the destruction be taken while maintaining a surface which can be ‘refined’ into a drawing?
Is inflicting acts of destruction on plain paper/linen not iconoclasm? Is the destruction of figurative drawings iconoclasm? Can the phenomenon of iconoclasm be executed again and how?
Can the mutilation, and ultimately the destruction, of personally drawn figurative images be carried out with different motives? Motivated by iconoclasm, motivated by fetishism?
Does the destruction of the drawing change its symbolical, financial or emotional value? The patina of destruction?
Creating = destroying? Destroying = creating?
Can you make drawings with the frenzy, vitality, aggression and negativity inherent to (total) destruction rather than with the deliberate, investigative, presuming, expectant and positive inventiveness inherent to creating?
Destruction on surfaces is two dimensional, what is the difference in destructing three dimensional objects?
The destruction of the plain paper is the creation of another, new surface to draw on, how far can the destruction be taken while maintaining a surface which can be ‘refined’ into a drawing?
Is inflicting acts of destruction on plain paper/linen not iconoclasm? Is the destruction of figurative drawings iconoclasm? Can the phenomenon of iconoclasm be executed again and how?
Can the mutilation, and ultimately the destruction, of personally drawn figurative images be carried out with different motives? Motivated by iconoclasm, motivated by fetishism?
Does the destruction of the drawing change its symbolical, financial or emotional value? The patina of destruction?
Creating = destroying? Destroying = creating?
Can you make drawings with the frenzy, vitality, aggression and negativity inherent to (total) destruction rather than with the deliberate, investigative, presuming, expectant and positive inventiveness inherent to creating?
Destruction on surfaces is two dimensional, what is the difference in destructing three dimensional objects?
Thursday, 23 September 2010
surface research plan 2010 - 2011 # 4
How will I research this?
For the practical realisation of the “creation & destruction” research I would like to follow a methodical research line in a laboratory. I will work with sheets of 300 grams Arches watercolour paper and with mounted linen with more or less the same dimensions of 30 x 40 cm. Using a long tables where I can place several of these duos, I will apply the different stages and methods of destruction on each original, empty monochrome white paper and linen surface. The destruction can be done using rough sandpaper or an awl, by carving and scraping with a cutter or by working the paper and linen with an ordinary hammer or lump hammer, a stone or a stick. Or by piercing the paper and linen with arrows shot from a bow, with bullets from a gun, pellets from a shotgun … Or by simply tearing it…
For the practical realisation of the “creation & destruction” research I would like to follow a methodical research line in a laboratory. I will work with sheets of 300 grams Arches watercolour paper and with mounted linen with more or less the same dimensions of 30 x 40 cm. Using a long tables where I can place several of these duos, I will apply the different stages and methods of destruction on each original, empty monochrome white paper and linen surface. The destruction can be done using rough sandpaper or an awl, by carving and scraping with a cutter or by working the paper and linen with an ordinary hammer or lump hammer, a stone or a stick. Or by piercing the paper and linen with arrows shot from a bow, with bullets from a gun, pellets from a shotgun … Or by simply tearing it…
Wednesday, 22 September 2010
surface research plan 2010 - 2011 # 3
Why do I wish to research this?
Because the stages of development in creating are linked to a strong feeling, an intuitive conviction that says that in order to make you must dare to break.
At an early stage in my visual work, I wanted to perforate the linen or paper surface so that through the surface the other side, the back, the dead side of the surface, the opposite of the sublime was involved and made palpable. This made it necessary to open the closed and smooth front surface by an act of destruction. I did this by using hollow punches, sandpaper, an awl or a sharp knife. It is obvious that creating something means destroying the former, earlier state of the art work. We experience creating as a positive act, it means adding, changing, transforming into a final work that is a success or a failure. Creating, making, producing is progress, it is a positive path of change, adding and evolution. We do not see it as a digressive course of damaging, mutilating and the destruction of the various interim stages of development of an art work.
I do not wish to show the destructive annihilation – this would be a construction – but I wish to execute the destructive action on a surface myself. So that I can see and experience whether the apparent contradiction “creation and destruction” is a contradiction.
Because the stages of development in creating are linked to a strong feeling, an intuitive conviction that says that in order to make you must dare to break.
At an early stage in my visual work, I wanted to perforate the linen or paper surface so that through the surface the other side, the back, the dead side of the surface, the opposite of the sublime was involved and made palpable. This made it necessary to open the closed and smooth front surface by an act of destruction. I did this by using hollow punches, sandpaper, an awl or a sharp knife. It is obvious that creating something means destroying the former, earlier state of the art work. We experience creating as a positive act, it means adding, changing, transforming into a final work that is a success or a failure. Creating, making, producing is progress, it is a positive path of change, adding and evolution. We do not see it as a digressive course of damaging, mutilating and the destruction of the various interim stages of development of an art work.
I do not wish to show the destructive annihilation – this would be a construction – but I wish to execute the destructive action on a surface myself. So that I can see and experience whether the apparent contradiction “creation and destruction” is a contradiction.
Tuesday, 21 September 2010
surface research plan 2010 - 2011 # 2
What is the objective?
Could the art of destruction ultimately result in the destruction of art? To overcome the act of creating appears most radical and at first glance certainly not something to strive for. However, proposing this as the ultimate consequence clarifies the aim of the study.
This leads to a critical evaluation of my art production and to the fundamental questioning of the reasons that underlie this urge and immediacy for wanting to create.
Could the art of destruction ultimately result in the destruction of art? To overcome the act of creating appears most radical and at first glance certainly not something to strive for. However, proposing this as the ultimate consequence clarifies the aim of the study.
This leads to a critical evaluation of my art production and to the fundamental questioning of the reasons that underlie this urge and immediacy for wanting to create.
surface research plan 2010 - 2011 # 1
What do I want to research?
What meaning do the regressive act of destruction, annihilation and breaking have in the progressive process of creating, constructing and making?
By including destructive acts in the process of creating I would like to study whether the contradiction of “creation and destruction” in reality represents one and the same principle.
Is the desire to destroy one of the conditions needed to create something as yet unknown?
What meaning do the regressive act of destruction, annihilation and breaking have in the progressive process of creating, constructing and making?
By including destructive acts in the process of creating I would like to study whether the contradiction of “creation and destruction” in reality represents one and the same principle.
Is the desire to destroy one of the conditions needed to create something as yet unknown?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
