How much is actual and how much is virtual?
Tom I honestly don't know what you mean by actual and virtual (which I think is kind of funny). These are paper and glue collage with drawn elements. I did a bit of clean up in photoshop, removing the background and in one place used the cloning tool to remove an element I didn't want.
Confess! Confess! How much of this is Photoshop? No, seriously, by putting it on white like that it's hard to tell the scale or materials. The freefloating killer whale looks like it might be made of fabric, and the "beads" look like they might be wrapped candy laid on the floor and photographed from above. It's graphically strong with good content (seeing=eating/speaking, modulated through sex/flesh + whales); I'm still nagged by the physicality of art objects vs. surrendering to a digital continuum of simulated technique and uncertain source material. That's all I'm saying.
Even the most physical of works can still have uncertain sources - which gets into virtual/actual territory as well. I thought you might be wondering how much of this was done by the artist's hand vs. found/appropriated. It's a related question, but pretty distinct. Anyhow, thanks for saying nice things about my picture. I am still attached to the paper-and-and-glue-and-drawings-in-my-notebook world as well...also puttering with art physicality, but I'm not sure the 'kick' has to come from actual objects or if there is some other kind of material specificity that can achieve similar results (your method of magnifying gifs, for intstance).
When I was still painting I did fake drips. After I painted the molecule or whatever I'd re-wet and re-load the brush with the same color and push it onto the paper. I let the fluid paint travel down the paper until I was ready for it to stop and then using a paper towel rolled to a point, I'd gently arrest it in mid-drip. That way, it had a nice natural gravity-induced look to it and one could be fooled that it was the by-product of zestful spontaneous creativity. So yeah, there's nothing inherently noble or honest or good about a painted object. But to the extent virtual stuff carries the history of objectmaking with it, I'm always wondering, "How much is real and what would I think of the part that's real if I saw it?" As far as the magnified gifs, they have no materiality to me at all. They're a pure electronic construct, even though the scale change is also something I used to do (with gridded enlargements) in painting.
hm... reminds me of the nice nail in this painting, which is kind of the opposite gesture to your faux-spontaneous drip.
Sehr gut, Sally. Ausgezeichnet. Collage ist toll.
|
- sally mckay 3-09-2004 6:11 am
How much is actual and how much is virtual?
- tom moody 3-10-2004 12:00 am
Tom I honestly don't know what you mean by actual and virtual (which I think is kind of funny). These are paper and glue collage with drawn elements. I did a bit of clean up in photoshop, removing the background and in one place used the cloning tool to remove an element I didn't want.
- sally mckay 3-10-2004 1:28 am
Confess! Confess! How much of this is Photoshop? No, seriously, by putting it on white like that it's hard to tell the scale or materials. The freefloating killer whale looks like it might be made of fabric, and the "beads" look like they might be wrapped candy laid on the floor and photographed from above. It's graphically strong with good content (seeing=eating/speaking, modulated through sex/flesh + whales); I'm still nagged by the physicality of art objects vs. surrendering to a digital continuum of simulated technique and uncertain source material. That's all I'm saying.
- tom moody 3-10-2004 1:59 am
Even the most physical of works can still have uncertain sources - which gets into virtual/actual territory as well. I thought you might be wondering how much of this was done by the artist's hand vs. found/appropriated. It's a related question, but pretty distinct. Anyhow, thanks for saying nice things about my picture. I am still attached to the paper-and-and-glue-and-drawings-in-my-notebook world as well...also puttering with art physicality, but I'm not sure the 'kick' has to come from actual objects or if there is some other kind of material specificity that can achieve similar results (your method of magnifying gifs, for intstance).
- sally mckay 3-10-2004 3:07 am
When I was still painting I did fake drips. After I painted the molecule or whatever I'd re-wet and re-load the brush with the same color and push it onto the paper. I let the fluid paint travel down the paper until I was ready for it to stop and then using a paper towel rolled to a point, I'd gently arrest it in mid-drip. That way, it had a nice natural gravity-induced look to it and one could be fooled that it was the by-product of zestful spontaneous creativity. So yeah, there's nothing inherently noble or honest or good about a painted object. But to the extent virtual stuff carries the history of objectmaking with it, I'm always wondering, "How much is real and what would I think of the part that's real if I saw it?" As far as the magnified gifs, they have no materiality to me at all. They're a pure electronic construct, even though the scale change is also something I used to do (with gridded enlargements) in painting.
- tom moody 3-10-2004 3:30 am
hm... reminds me of the nice nail in this painting, which is kind of the opposite gesture to your faux-spontaneous drip.
- sally mckay 3-10-2004 3:49 am
Sehr gut, Sally. Ausgezeichnet. Collage ist toll.
- Tino (guest) 3-11-2004 3:52 am