Successfully removed.
Sorry, an error occurred.
|
stevekoll uploaded a new video
(6 months ago)
Searching and researching is a daily occupation for many people. Since the human mind evolved into a minimal form of intellect, people have been se...
more
Searching and researching is a daily occupation for many people. Since the human mind evolved into a minimal form of intellect, people have been searching for the meaning of things, why events happen or how. Sciences are evolving and continue to answer more and more questions, and at the same time arise more questions. As satisfying as answers to questions may be as the end point of a search, one should never have to find the final truth; the all encompassing truth that does not generate more questions. That final truth should be the unreachable goal of everyone in live. It is good to learn new things every now and then, gain new insights, getting to know yourself better. But you should never arrive at that deadly end point, that outer limit of the world, behind which only a vast emptiness lies.
Art is research and every art work is an experiment that should lead to an answer to a sometimes undefined question. The answer should obviously be truthful and should not be the result of a directive work method. On the contrary: the work method should leave some space for random events, coincidences that characteristically determine the final outcome; that are a necessary planned part of the experiment, but that dont play a planned part with a predetermined effect. Coincidence should be allowed to add value to the experiment. I avoid to use the word interfere on purpose, since it implies altering a planned course. Coincidence indeed alters the course of events, but since the origin, sequence and outcome of the events are not planned, it does not interfere.
Afraid of ever encountering a horror vacui and obsessed with surfaces, I tend to start working on a painting by contemplating how I can cover that blank canvas in paint in such a way that it becomes a meticulous experiment that researches the influence of coincidence on my conscious actions and how a painterly action interacts with chaos and de- and recreates it. It results in a cross over between directed painterly expression and Brownian motion.
The painting is created for the experiments sake, not for the sake of esthetic admiration. The esthetics of research merely add to the wider acceptance of the experiment and as such the painting can fulfil two purposes, but the purpose of a research experiment should always prevail. As the artwork is a research experiment the modus operandi is an important co-creator of the final outcome and not only a means to an end. It should be possible afterwards to read the experiment and deduct from that reading how it was performed. Meta-researching the painting is thus the foremost post-creative action that the interactor is expected to perform.
In the exhibition Portraits of a Painting each experiment is documented by a series of photographs that not only illustrate the observation of coincidental interaction, but also allow to detect the working method of the painter. The eye should never let go.
Researching coincidence through a painterly action is a very pragmatic deed. Marthe Wéry (1930-2005), a Belgian artist put it like this: I think that I am a pragmatic. I can only understand things after I have done them myself. That is not theoretic at all. [] I am not abstract, but very specific. I can only share her opinion.
less
|
|
