This is the beginning of day three, soon we will go to visit the studio of Laura Deakin and Mari Ishikawa.
In the past two days we have spoken with David Bielander, Peter Bauhuis, Helen Britton and Yutaka Minegeishi. Big names for two days. We have also seen numerous exhibitions, but while viewing pieces the ideas bubbling up from the artists' talks have been rolling around in my head, often colouring the work I have seen.
Here are some discussion points/ideas that came up in conversation. I certainly may have misunderstood the artists and in no way claim to be documenting their talks with accuracy or particular insight. But here's what I reckon went down:
Bielander...
experience of wearing jewellery makes it jewellery, the way the snake moves. using an object defines the parameters of his work so he can play (a bit like the way Bauhuis speaks of using parameters in his work). he also talked about how long it takes to find your own practice/how long it took for him. His new series with silver and cardboard is something he says he could only make because he was originally trained as a goldsmith. Bielander pointed out that his process always begins from the idea, then he searches for a material that solves the problem, that can realise his idea, this directly contrasts the work of his studio-mate Minegeishi who's pieces are made by working the material, by following the lines he finds within it with his carving tools.
Bauhuis...
also wants to carefully define the parameters of his work so that the 'accidents/uncontrolled effects of his surfaces' are within a specific space that he can identify. He finds the vessel and interior/exterior intruiging, thats why he's still working with it, he says it is about space and three dimensions, that if he wasn't interested in that he would be a two dimensional artist: drawings or painting. He is currently engaging with the idea of a mathematical equation projected into a two dimensional imagining of a three dimensional space/object/phenomenon.
Britton...
Aesthetic experience vs historical research and curation within the work, (here there is a link to Minegeishi's collecting vs reductive process). Britton claimed not to be an 'artist' with 'concepts', that her work is not about transmission of ideas, she does not need to transmit her inspiration or reasoning, that is her own. (This is similar to the making philosophy of emerging jeweller Pedro Sequeira who I spoke to in the following days at an exhibition in the centre of Munich, He did not want to talk about his reasons for making, just his process of making, he didn't want to talk about 'feelings', he thought too many jewellers talk about that at the moment in the scene, he wants to talk about making, material choice, in doing so, his repetition of gesture becomes the content.)
Minegeishi...
Is using materials that are ancient and (therefore?) precious. He used to think that form followed function - this is when he produced his wrapped rings held in possition through the tension of their making, now he follows the forms within the materials, Karin pointed out this is an interesting riff on traditional stone sculptors' process of 'revealing' the artwork by chipping away the stone.
He spoke of about his practice being one of reducing to the simplest forms. He says his practice has become more and more simple, although it also produces a lot of waste. He cited a balance between his collecting of small things, and his reductive practice. he spoke of the collecting as a process of research, that he learns from the things he collects, and from other non-jewellery experiences like visiting art galleries, however he reinforced that this is non-conscious visual research. This may be similar to the way Britton researches and then makes, although her process seems far more consciously linked to her output.
In the past two days we have spoken with David Bielander, Peter Bauhuis, Helen Britton and Yutaka Minegeishi. Big names for two days. We have also seen numerous exhibitions, but while viewing pieces the ideas bubbling up from the artists' talks have been rolling around in my head, often colouring the work I have seen.
Here are some discussion points/ideas that came up in conversation. I certainly may have misunderstood the artists and in no way claim to be documenting their talks with accuracy or particular insight. But here's what I reckon went down:
Bielander...
experience of wearing jewellery makes it jewellery, the way the snake moves. using an object defines the parameters of his work so he can play (a bit like the way Bauhuis speaks of using parameters in his work). he also talked about how long it takes to find your own practice/how long it took for him. His new series with silver and cardboard is something he says he could only make because he was originally trained as a goldsmith. Bielander pointed out that his process always begins from the idea, then he searches for a material that solves the problem, that can realise his idea, this directly contrasts the work of his studio-mate Minegeishi who's pieces are made by working the material, by following the lines he finds within it with his carving tools.
Bauhuis...
also wants to carefully define the parameters of his work so that the 'accidents/uncontrolled effects of his surfaces' are within a specific space that he can identify. He finds the vessel and interior/exterior intruiging, thats why he's still working with it, he says it is about space and three dimensions, that if he wasn't interested in that he would be a two dimensional artist: drawings or painting. He is currently engaging with the idea of a mathematical equation projected into a two dimensional imagining of a three dimensional space/object/phenomenon.
Britton...
Aesthetic experience vs historical research and curation within the work, (here there is a link to Minegeishi's collecting vs reductive process). Britton claimed not to be an 'artist' with 'concepts', that her work is not about transmission of ideas, she does not need to transmit her inspiration or reasoning, that is her own. (This is similar to the making philosophy of emerging jeweller Pedro Sequeira who I spoke to in the following days at an exhibition in the centre of Munich, He did not want to talk about his reasons for making, just his process of making, he didn't want to talk about 'feelings', he thought too many jewellers talk about that at the moment in the scene, he wants to talk about making, material choice, in doing so, his repetition of gesture becomes the content.)
Minegeishi...
Is using materials that are ancient and (therefore?) precious. He used to think that form followed function - this is when he produced his wrapped rings held in possition through the tension of their making, now he follows the forms within the materials, Karin pointed out this is an interesting riff on traditional stone sculptors' process of 'revealing' the artwork by chipping away the stone.
He spoke of about his practice being one of reducing to the simplest forms. He says his practice has become more and more simple, although it also produces a lot of waste. He cited a balance between his collecting of small things, and his reductive practice. he spoke of the collecting as a process of research, that he learns from the things he collects, and from other non-jewellery experiences like visiting art galleries, however he reinforced that this is non-conscious visual research. This may be similar to the way Britton researches and then makes, although her process seems far more consciously linked to her output.
No comments:
Post a Comment