To the interview-
Paddy asked- "Why is using technology to bring together original and appropriated imagery so engaging?"
There was a resident at the Bemis last year named Bob Koons who did just this. He begins by appropriating romantic, representational landscape painting sources and scans them as digital files, manipulating them into abstract images. (Bleeding the colors and tweaking them to unnatural hues). Koons then meticulously copies these images by hand back into the analog format of a painting.
In Bob's words- “The resulting object weaves back and forth between a natural and artificial presentation of landscape and between abstraction and representation." But they do more than that. They take the work of Constable, Turner, Freidrich and point at the inherent "falsness" of their images, in my mind neatly showing that there is no "natural" representation of a landscape. He could just do this anyway without the digital file, but the file acts as the language that "translates" how the work is seen. A rather neat metaphor to illustrate the notion of a historical horizon, as well as the idea that all painting is inherently abstract. You can see examples on the Sandy Carlson Gallery website.
How does this relate to the interview? I think it is a good example of how the "cross-pollination" of media can bring about new ways to illustrate ideas in a subtle manner. I also like the idea that wedding appropriated and original imagery through technology is like watching TV in Asia, or having your friend explain "Eraserhead". It adds that extra layer of distance between you and the source allowing the message to be that little bit more uncertain.
Just my thoughts. Really good interview so far, I'm looking forward to the conclusion.
|
Paddy asked- "Why is using technology to bring together original and appropriated imagery so engaging?"
There was a resident at the Bemis last year named Bob Koons who did just this. He begins by appropriating romantic, representational landscape painting sources and scans them as digital files, manipulating them into abstract images. (Bleeding the colors and tweaking them to unnatural hues). Koons then meticulously copies these images by hand back into the analog format of a painting.
In Bob's words- “The resulting object weaves back and forth between a natural and artificial presentation of landscape and between abstraction and representation." But they do more than that. They take the work of Constable, Turner, Freidrich and point at the inherent "falsness" of their images, in my mind neatly showing that there is no "natural" representation of a landscape. He could just do this anyway without the digital file, but the file acts as the language that "translates" how the work is seen. A rather neat metaphor to illustrate the notion of a historical horizon, as well as the idea that all painting is inherently abstract. You can see examples on the Sandy Carlson Gallery website.
How does this relate to the interview? I think it is a good example of how the "cross-pollination" of media can bring about new ways to illustrate ideas in a subtle manner. I also like the idea that wedding appropriated and original imagery through technology is like watching TV in Asia, or having your friend explain "Eraserhead". It adds that extra layer of distance between you and the source allowing the message to be that little bit more uncertain.
Just my thoughts. Really good interview so far, I'm looking forward to the conclusion.
- Robert Huffmann 6-14-2006 12:46 am