30th of October 2017 – Tutorial with Jonathan Kearney
Jonathan (JK) and I (RW) had a really fine conversation during the first tutorial. We discussed my work, the diagram in depth, the potential outcome of my work, the nature of the found objects, why I want to read and the challenges of the typed skype sessions. Sincerely happy to report the following snapshot.
JK: I like the way you distorted this image of the diagram to show “it will be messy”. Shall we discuss your diagram?
RW: Core is the object and the projection on the object. I came across this fine term of Gilles DeLeuze: any-space-whatever. That might be the thing I am on. And the moving object and its representation is interesting. Slit-scanning is maybe the reciproke of the scanner. Found objects offer a lot of try-out possibilities.
Final outcome could be: to build an installation in which spectators with found objects engage, creating an experience of physicality, composition, textures, in a loop of this kind of an “art making machine” that produces a new kind of any-space-whatever…
I see two flatbed scanners as construction, as mixing two images as (surrogate for) 3D… what happens with timing between two scanners might be interesting too.
JK: The found object – it is a loaded term, it has lots of depth – what is your consideration about that?
RW: It is not about a personal thing, it has nothing to do with memory, I am interested in the object itself, it can be any-thing. I asked myself if this could be emotional enough? I think the emotion comes from the interaction with the object, there will be the connection and the attachment by picking an attractive thing from my found-objects stack.
JK: So, it is as removed as possible. The objects become almost a tool or a play object, preselected by you. RW: indeed.
JK: 2 scanners is an interesting idea, uncertain element in it, light moves across something. Moving 3d object translated into 2 dimensions by scanner and projected back to the stationary object.
RW: Yes, the moving image on static object or static image on moving object, and I question also the manipulation in-between the scanner and the beamer. More scans show several stages of the same thing and could be shown as dissolves.
JK: Quote from Tom Hill (in Karen Atkinson, ‘Gathering Voices’, 1996): Sometimes I use another language to try to look at what I do. It’s interesting because First Nations’ languages are not object-oriented. They’re verb oriented. They’re always doing something so even when you end up with a product, the product has to do something.
The object has a name defined by its use. Thinking in verbs could be an interesting context.
RW: [So, the moving and the projected perhaps?]
JK: Why are you reading? Is it because of theoretical context or is it to understand what you are doing now?
RW: I have some doubts about theoretical critical thinking, thus I have the urge to read a lot. I need more confidence in that field and would like to find the potential area where I can drive my practice further. ‘How can I push this thinking further in my making?’ is my master question.
JK: How do you describe yourself in your master in 2 sentences?
RW: I am a visual artist, who works with video installations, and especially with projections in which viewers become more (than) spectators. I do not want to leave the viewer with for example mere confusion, or poetics, esthetics, I am more interested in the conceptual part of the art than in the work of art itself.
[And maybe the found objects can even connect the co-makers with the generated thoughts when they experienced my, or better our, work. Thinking in verbs: the object becomes connector.]
JK: About your blog, in the way you write I feel an openness, it is really good. When you do more than describing, just go a little deeper, that is where you will benefit. You have a very clear sense of what you are doing. The blog is functioning well for you. And your ideas and experiments are flowing very well.
RW: Thank you so much!
Next steps to be done:
→ Read more of my reading list with particular questions in mind, like f.i. I used the term ‘in-between space’ and the projection immaterial materiality. Is this the any-space-whatever of DeLeuze?
→ Make with some found objects some more experiments with the scanner.
→ How would this double scanner be working? Think about a technical set-up to be made.
→ Consider thinking in verbs as a useful context. What could that mean for me in this practice?