Following a tutorial with artist Kimberley Foster back in February I decided to consolidate some of my thinking.
- Language of practice
- When the work humms
- Scan vs. Print (the difference)
- Diagrammatic process
- Mapping (visual)
- Research orientated
- Objects/works as outputs or by products of research
- Venn diagrams
- Diagram as more complicated than the theory/item that it explains but created as a means/device for understanding the theory
- Live stream
- Flow chart – idea that can go forward but can’t always go back (irrevocable moments in process)
- Hypothetical structure – accepting the unknown/chance output
- Role of instruction and rules within process/work generation
– Context in which situate the work
– Lens use to frame the work
– Presence of the haptic
– Negation of the mechanical in favour of the haptic
– Data transposition
– What is the difference between the employment of the haptic over the mechanical (within the print process consider how technology could transform the process, e.g. laser cutter to prepare etching plate_ consider the use of a live data stream within laser cutter)
– Is the sound output the work or is it the process? Or both? What is the work?
– How much do you want the viewer/spectator to know? What do they need to know? How does not knowing/knowing change the work?
Ok, so we covered a lot of ground and the tutorial was really useful as I was beginning to really get to what it is was about printmaking that made me tick. A key trigger point in the discussion was what is the difference between a print and a scan?
This led me to think not just about the differences between printing and scanning but about the similarities and what happens if the two are overlayed. To use a Deleuzian term, what happens if the scan and print are deterritorialised?
So Deleuze’s discussion of the Rhizome became an intriguing model of thought on which to frame my print practice and this is where I’m going to pause because with Deleuze comes the need to think so here I am, thinking…please wait.