#0840 The art of art
My technical mess-up (the hard disk crash and subsequent temporary loss of pen pallet and canvas) led to asking again why I did not use real media to birth the images in the first place. That is an interesting question. Even if I wanted a website, why this digital constraint? I have answered that in other posts in a sketchy way… exploring the psyche in cyberspace. It is good to state it again as it is central. I have for years past thought about what has happened with the psychology of text as it has become digitalised. See my other blog: Psyberspace But images and art, not text on my mind now. The image is the stuff the psyche is made of.
I like art to exude some sort of consciousness about (a phrase I just picked up here), “the art of making art”. Art, in its important and interesting moments is partly (but not wholly) about art.
The shape of my work is becoming clearer. I am pleased with a bolder line in the concept. It is not a new line, but it is firmer today. Not having the PC helped to see why I missed it. I need to do every sketch digitally. Physical sketching is fine, but it is not in this project. It would be as if Piet Mondrian switched to landscapes.
I am on a narrow path, for all the diversity in the sketches, they have to be digital.
And what is the central line on that path?
To do digital sketches? Surprisingly no.
To make prints from those sketches? No.
I work with the relationship between the virtual & the physical. It is in the RELATIONSHIP – it is all in the relationship!
The whole 1000 are a negative, a template, they have a relationship with their children, their physical children, the prints or other objects still to be born. The children can phone home, each object has a number and name. Google that to return.
Relationship between the virtual world and the physical is the punctum, that is where I will do my obsessive sticking to the point.