'Things that talk are often chimeras, composites of different species. the difference in species must be stressed: the composites in question don't just weld together different elements of the same kind; they straddle boundaries between kinds' (Daston, L . 2004, p.12) Things that talk; Object lessons from art and science. This object started as the spill from a cast of a buoy/fender that can be seen earlier in the blog. The spill itself became more intersting than the cast as though the overflow of the material formed its own object and through the hardening of the foam it became an appendage with this perfect fit for an arm. It gently hooks and the the smooth side of the form is then held against skin.
This overflow sat for a long time in the studio and one day my father picked it up and placed it on his arm. In that one action the form, the spill became a pallette. All the more so as my father is a painter and whilst he doesn'y hold a traditional palette when he works the action he made unified the object to at once fot his body and seemingly find an intention. As one of my research participants had discussed how a transformative experienec was like paint moving, moved and in flux, I wanted to use paint for her object. the important thing was the authenticity of the paint and action of paint rather than a represnetation of paint or a painting of paint. Her ideas of controla and lack of control were so important to the nature of not only in the object i made up in the action of making the object itself. A visable making mark, action that enabled an eleemnt of time to be held within the object. I gave my father the form and asked whether he would use it as a palette in his studio and whilst not holding it in his arm the object would be next to him as he painted and wiped his brush. He had the palette for 2 months and used it each time he painted, deciding which surface was best to wipe or mix the paint on. I never saw the obejct in that time, he told me things about the surface of the expanding foam and waht it did to the paint that was wiped there. It was part of his process, although the quiet visitor in the studio. Two days ago he rang and said 'I think it is finished, every mark is true and was made from the paintings that I did.'. He said ' I will send you a photo and bring the object back next week'. As i saw the image in an email I thought how much it had become his painting by holding the marks of the paint he had used in order to make other images. I thought it was beautiful ... but this is not a formed aesthetic it is a live imprint of an artist process on an object formed through another process for someone else who imagined a transformative process visually. This isnt what she thinks her object will be, it isnt what I thought it would be. I am percieving this object encountering in on a screen but know that to see and hold it will be fundamnetally different. My father took the photo in his studio on the floor away from all other objects, images, references and I couldn't help thinking that he had documented it as I would have. This was his decision. A singular thing, offered up ( as it was referred to by my supervisor). I feel even through the image the force of the object and now I will wait to meet it. I wonder about the paintings that he made during ths time and question if I need to know if my participant needed to know. I think it talks of the paintings that have formed already.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Kimberley FosterKimberley's practice as an artist is pedagogical, it doesn’t just reference learning, it plays with, embodies and encourages learning at its core. The objects consider ideas of collaboration and authorship, discussions about touch and encounter, and bring into active consideration issues of learning within social and participatory practices. Archives
October 2018
Categories |