1. How a work grows in time
There is a history of the physical and a history of the ethereal. Physical histories exist as artifact, while ethereal histories exist as memory. Every work has a history that is specific unto itself. Can memory be translated to artifact?
2. An architecture of objects/characters
Rather than thinking of a work as one unbreakable whole, thinking of a work as a backdrop for distinct architectural "characters". There is the space and then the objects that define/occupy the space. Many figures occupying one ground. Many actors gathered on one stage. My interest lies in the space between these characters, the space between the gesture.
For next class:
I am very interested in the 30 remaining Egyptian obelisks throughout the world. They have existed since the beginning of our recorded history. I see them as Time's index. They have been uprooted and moved (some several times) since they were quarried some 3500 - 4000 years ago. I would like to, within one drawing, show their locations and movement throughout time.
Obelisk being moved to london in a specialized steel container...
Obelisk being re-erected
4 comments:
pick up george kubler's 'the shape of time'
brian,
I like your idea of many figures, one ground, and I was thinking about how that idea applies to how a work grows in time. Traditionally, architecture has been meant to resist (though ultimately not immune to) the forces of time, with immovable permanence. I also think back to the lenghty discussions we had over the summer about the "Profanation of the Host" painting. There is a sort of declaration of permanence when committing an idea to canvas. So after that first declaration of permanence, how does a piece of art or architecture begin to change over time, or is it the perception of the viewer that changes? It recently occurred to me that during our discussion of the space between the characters in the painting, our interpretations of that moment are probably quite different than those of someone looking at the painting three or four hundred years ago. In the moment, i like the idea of many figures, one ground, but as the work grows in time could it also be one figure, many grounds. We should talk more about this sometime. Also, could you post some images from the "profanation of the host." In a way, maybe it is the obelisks that become the measure of many grounds.
the obelisk pictures are wild...I think there is something in the seemingly ridiculous effort it takes to move them
brian...
you may want to be looking at hedjuk...
mask of medusa and vladivostock...
Post a Comment