|
[question-1] :v: [question-2] :v: [question-3]
> [question-1//perspektive] eric kluitenberg defines for avant garde today the purpose to smash
the hegemonial surface/s and de(con)struct its cude output. your visuals
should reflect the complexity of surfaces and reality as much as possible.
the diagramatical aspect helps in this to combine complexity. how important
are for you surfaces and borders in your visuals? are diagramms a way
to deconstruct and/or reconstruct the established code?
>> [question-1//response]=[mark ehling:]
I think borders are very important, because they can provide an artist (or
anyone who constructs objects, images or text) with several desireable
effects. First, there's a voyeuristic aspect to frames and borders--it
invites you to spy in the same way a lit window at night invites you to spy in, and, creepy as that sounds, I've always enjoyed looking in windows. Secondly,
borders allow you to play with context--to juxtapose. I could draw a
picture, for instance, of a cow. Now I don't draw very well, so it probably
wouldn't be a very good cow. But if I were to draw another picture--say, a t-bone
steak--and place it next to the cow, I've suddenly created a narrative: a
story of life and death. And the narrative was made possible by the border,
the distinction between cow and steak. The writer Donald Barthelme talks at
length about this effect regarding a work by Robert Rauschenberg called
_Monogram_, which is a stuffed goat encircled by a Uniroyal tire. The
distinction (or the border, if you will) between "goat" and "tire"
allows for a dialogue and a commentary between the two ideas, an interplay of meaning.
And lastly, for reasons I can't really explain, I tend to draw little boxes
first, when I draw on paper: I just make all these little boxes and then I
fill them up with images. Maybe I do that because I'm afraid I won't fill up
an entire sheet--I can't say for sure. But there's something very comforting
to me when I know what size of frame I'm going to use.
Regarding your question of why I use diagrams: I think I use diagrams
because
they allow me to utilize some of their inherent magic. I know "magic"
isn't a
very accurate word, but it seems appropriate, because when I draw something
that's diagrammatic, I feel that I don the special properties of diagrams as
if by magic, which I can then exploit or deflect. For instance, diagrams are
supposed to be simple. They're supposed to help people carry out complex
tasks, like assembling a ceiling fan or dancing the salsa. Diagrams are also
authority figures: we find them in textbooks and in instruction manuals. So
when I'm drawing or writing about something that is decidedly *not*
simple--such as how humans interact with each other--diagrams can
become very
funny in their reductionism. Just think: try drawing a diagram for the task,
"How to Live a Day on Earth." That'd be a diagram I'd like to see: massive
distortions everywhere, but also a kind of weirdly compressed insight.
--- ||||||||||||||||||||| it's UP to you ||||||||||||||||||||| ---
> [question-2//perspektive] avant garde is a voyeur of the establishment and for this purpose using
the contemporary apparatus/media. your visuals are full of eyes: the
position/ing of the viewer and the aspect of eye/controll is important. what is the role of the viewer/reader in your work and where is the focus directed to?
>> [question-2//response]=[mark ehling]
It's tough for me to answer a question about viewers (or the role they play)
because I don't consider them at all when drawing or writing. That's not to
say I feel scorn or disdain or indifference toward them--I love
viewers!--but honestly I'm first and foremost trying to amuse myself, trying to make something I can stay focused on. My attention span isn't that great, I'm
afraid, and I just try to make something that I'd like to stop and look
at for a while.
--- ||||||||||||||||||||| it's UP to you ||||||||||||||||||||| ---
> [question-3//perspektive] "if it looks cool - it is cool". you summarize your working. could
your work be
seen as an assembling beauty? :-)
>> [question-3//response]=[mark ehling]
Well, I suppose "beauty" is a loaded word, and I don't know if I'd
describe my
own work as beautiful. When I think of beauty I usually think of sunsets and
naturally occuring wonders and such. In my own work, I suppose I'm
interested
a lot in iconic power--by which maybe I mean a certain compositional beauty.
I'll put it this way: when I was a child, our local newspaper would run
little
pictoral icons at the beginning of each section. The automotive page would
have a little car at the top, the sports page would have little rackets and
balls, and so forth. And my brother and I were fascinated with these icons,
and we would cut them out and paste them on these big poster boards.
And then
we did absolutely nothing with them--we just looked at them. Why did they
capture our attention so fiercely? I have no idea. But I feel we did intuit
(even then) that there was a certain *designed* beauty about them--not the
same beauty as looking over a lush river valley--but a beauty
nonetheless. And
so maybe I'm still being driven by little rackets and balls and cars and I
have no earthly idea why.
--- ||||||||||||||||||||| it's UP to you ||||||||||||||||||||| ---
| - - - - download: .rtf ( 35.71 kb) - - - - - |
|
|