Practice based research and W.I.T.C.H.
Thinking about W.I.T.C.H from the 60's and how I'd interpret it..
What
Is
This
Corporeal
Human?
This is essentially my investigation into a label obsessed with the body -its relationship to nature, its perceived(?)binary properties - our inability to separate body from person, and the bodies' ability(?) to reproduce - assigned to a human. This acronym raises questions about the relationship we have with the body- our potential bias in assuming the western witch was /is female. To investigate the word witch alongside our relationship to the body -to me- brings forward questions about nature and our social attitude to motherhood and the maternal. And which human am I talking about? who do we assign this label to? Historically and currently...?
Played around with the idea of a postcard to get an audience involved in a. discussion - do I put the reasoning for the acronym on the back or explain this in an intro to my practice and let them write their response?
Practice based research:
I've also been thinking about the scale of my paintings in terms of what it does to them if I scale them up - deterred a little by the idea of - a bigger painting appeals to art investors and white cubes.. This isn't my intention with my work. I'm looking at something intimate - photos that you can hold in your hand- translated so that they present the same scene with a different focus. Jeremy Hastings presentation of his photographs in hand held slide viewers demonstrates a relationship with art that we're able to hold, access, and engage with. Why should I feel I need to blow up these paintings ? Would it be more impactful to present them as you would a scattering of photographs -to look at and between, one image in a selection of images...I have some small off cuts of canvas that are gesso'd in the centre - I'm going to try to paint them as 'samples' small studies, like practice paintings that will allow me to build on the way I'm painting but also build into something.
Comments
Post a Comment