"Michel Gondry uses inspiration from his son's art class to devise a contraption in which Bjork plays role of guinea pig."
I thought this was just an interesting way of mark-making. I'm not sure how specific the relationship is between the notes Bjork plays and the paint that is released, but the connection between music making and visual art is interesting.
What constitutes the difference between the artist's "input" and what "activates" a mark-making machine?
I define input as the artist's direct influence on the machine's function. For example, an artist dips tree branches in ink then allows the wind to direct the branches, making marks on some kind of paper or other surface. The artist's input would be setting up this machine- applying the ink and setting up the paper (distance from the tree matters- this is an artistic/intellectual choice). The activation, or the act that actually starts the mark-making process, here is the wind. We generally think of visual artists as people whose input is the direct activation of mark-making, in other words, we draw, paint, erase, etch, etc. to create marks. Why let something else in on that process? Why let something else have control over our art? For one thing, I find that I often don't feel completely in control of the pieces that I produce. When I feel in control, it is probably a tedious assignment-oriented piece that is focused on technical mastery. I find that conceptual pieces are driven by the "happy accidents" that are brought about when the artist does not plan for something/does not have total control.
I began to realize last year that my art does not have to be a total reflection of me in that it is solely a product of my marks, my intentions. Many environmental artists set up their sculptures, architecture, etc. in a natural environment so that nature becomes involved in the piece's development. Herb Parker covers his pieces in sod, which over time look more natural, as if they have grown out of the ground, then the sod dies.
No comments:
Post a Comment