| |
statement prepared by John Adair
APROPOS ANTIPODE
“with regard too a direct or exact opposite”
22.2
To be fashionably contemporary I might suggest an explanatory title to name the
eventuating work…“Function of the Corner Void” or “the unbearable consequence of
objects in the face of images”. This would clearly explain, at least my thoughts on,
what is being visually dialogued through this project. If corners can be a kind of
void for perceptual possibilities then this corner provides a very interesting
challenge to any who choose to embrace it. In Gary and I’s case it has allowed us
the added opportunity to meet again, and yet for the first time, to aesthetically
collaborate.
This collaboration might be viewed as a clash between a “sculptor” and a “painter”.
But lets please refrain from such archaic hubristic terms, as they don’t really
describe the function these two artists intend. I dare say, Gary rarely ‘sculpts’ now
days and I rarely* ‘paint’. But my abiding interest does remain in 2-dimensional
image divulgement and his in 3-dimensional object arrangement; and I think we
would both agree that the mediums and manner enlisted by either of us differ
constantly and are more subject to the site or idea than to our supposed craft.
*actually I use paint often but that to the point is entirely irrelevant
Moreover, isn’t the enacting of a visual work too better explain an idea or a
perception? One then supposes that this might be more clearly read without the
support of a narrative. Why…because the reason you make something without
words is to explain something you could not otherwise explain.
The relationship Gary and I have, has pretty much formed on this notion of ‘object
maker & picture maker’, that is to say we met at art school where these things are
vaguely qualified. Consequently, we are overly conscious of our respective positions
in how/when we communicate. I can now see this work as somewhat emblematic of
this relationship…an extended play between image and object…this too is now
critically heightened by the use of the internet. As we now live on opposing sides of
the globe, there is an awareness of our selves in space communicating with the
other via a 2-dimensional screen image. We are familiar with each other in real life
but haven’t communicated that way for a couple years now. So it is not without
thought that the work would not only be seen in situ but perhaps by many more
others, as an image, a documented memory. It is a work that arguably aims to
demonstrate the object presence of the corner in the face of 2d viewing.
From what I could see, as I could only view pictures, Gary’s initial work highlights
the heightened points of the 3 objects that surround the corner, with black. The
object of the linear plumbing hung free of the surface is painted black. The staircase
protrusion on the other hand is not painted black, is this because it is still viably an
extension of the wall surface, thus questioning its objectivity? Gary’s resolve
appears to me to be to highlight only the three protruding edges of the questionable
object, in the same manner or thickness of the pipes. This appears to be affirmed
by the I-beam highlights, the ends being of similar thickness. What I see is that
Gary has highlighted the 3 key forms that make up this most peculiar gallery space.
I am not so sure that any of the prior twenty-one corner interventions at Factory 49
have caused these 3 objects, collectively, to stand clear as significant intrusions to
this buildings corner. His pointed avoidance of the surface (ceiling and walls)
intrigued me. Much of the Factory 49 wall work in the past has dealt with spatial
issues more critically as imagists might perceive them dealing with the surface as
an object or the object as surface. Gary seems more interested in the objects
themselves…the pipes, the staircase protrusion, the I-beam…which in turn when I
recognised this, allowed me room to intervene.
My intervention is a simple proposition that conversely utilizes an imagist approach;
that of my premised placement of a 2 dimensional monochrome over the 3 primary
architected surfaces of the corner walls and ceiling.
An underlying dot and a particular colour has a multifarious meaning for me. More
crucially, in the end it is a singular mark/image that clearly rests on the surface,
albeit somewhat aggressively obfuscated by the aforementioned objects. Not only
those that Gary has highlighted but the raised flush of naked brick also interfere
with the prime surface. Making this particular mark/image/dot very difficult to view
or interpret.
A collision of physical and visual events is one way of seeing this…
Assemblage is another…
Yet for me it is as a marriage of opposites…image with object, un-solicited DIY
modernity with un-solicited architectural heritage, re-pat with immigrant, here with
there, formless with form, circle with square, 2d with 3d…image and object become
a metaphor for ‘colour and space’. Subjectifying the tyrannies that distance and
difference often trigger into an objectivized form.
If you care to look a bit deeper, and you are familiar/know Gary’s or my work
independently you may also notice a gravitation on both sides to our arguable more
emotive long standing formal interests…Gary’s perennial dealing with larger than life
quasi cubic form and the conversely similar, form-less sky space interest of mine.
The accidental accent of the work, and impetus on the viewer, is to look up.
Something we are probably both happy with for entirely different reasons…and
perhaps not so different.
As far as the building is concerned nothing formally has changed, its object
functions have not been affected. It is just colour, its absence and its determined
perimeters that cause us to read an already fixed juxtaposition of form in a new or
revealing way. As far as I am concerned it is all 2d. As my part of the work was
developed far beyond the site behind/in front of a screen. I will never see the work
in 3d and as far as the building is concerned I am two dimensional…Gary on the
other hand will not only see it he has made it, because, he is three dimensional.
If Gary’s commitment to the object is made clearer by my image, then my
commitment to the image is clearer for Gary’s object articulation.
The building of course remains unchanged and proud in its demonstrative attempt
to maintain site construction corner issues…the question for me is…did we manage
to arrest and bring clarity to these randomly evident forms.
Conversely, ‘apropos antipode’ to Australia’s relatively brief post colonial
architectural heritage, I could just title it ‘Tudor Void’.
+air October 2012
... for PDF of the content in this section (click)
|
