Today I experimented with a rice sack which I had saved from the bin getting the best of it.
I think back to my grandfather who used to buy his groceries and carry them in his rice-tote bag. It has become a contemporary cultural symbol for me and its resonants to my childhood in India.
I wondered what I could do this print, in relevance to my painting practice. It clicked that I should try and stretch the fabric over a frame.
Fig 1: This image is the back of the canvas
I spent time unpicking an old painting stapled to a frame, so I could upcycle the frame.
I slit open the fabric, like a butterfly cut, and stapled it to the wooden frames, as taute as I would a canvas. I wasn't sure what the material the bag was made up of. It felt like cotton but slightly more stiff. I research the rice product to see if the material was natural or synthetic, but failed to uncover any information.
Fig 2: This is the front of the canvas
while stretching this canvas, a few thoughts came over me.
Firstly I thought of Ingrid and our recent conversation over the phone. She encouraged me to think about traditional painting beyond the application of paint and the cotton canvas surface. In relevance to a context, I feel accountable to, I have been experimenting conceptually with the idea of sustainability in my practice as a decolonial method.
However, it could be argued that a painting is not the most 'eco- friendly object, as it not easily bio-degradable.
This is due to the use of certain mediums, like acrylic gesso, and synthetic pigments.
Other accusations might lie in the unsustainable canvas production, paintbrush production, and the uni-dimensional, aesthetic function of the canvas (as opposed to a multi-functioning object, beneficial to all organisms).
While I am conscious of all these factors, I am still trying to work through them without surrendering.
Fig 3: A picture of me stretching the rice bag over the canvas.
This experiment with the rice bag has prooved direct correlation to sustainable measure, due to the role of upcycling.
A few things I have considered since making this painting.
In light of the permaculture principle of multi-functionality. This painting is both a sculpture and a painting. This dual role of the painting is a bit of a tongue-in-cheek way of illustrating my human, domestic pathetic attempt at home-made "sustainable art".
While one could say that this piece is stuck in representation, the work reminded me of the duality of paintings during WW2. In my recent visit to Germany, I saw paintings that were painted on both sides of the canvas. While the context was different, the means for painting on both sides in Germany was a secret way of practising 'prohibited' expression of painting on the back of the canvas, while the socially acceptable side was painted on the front of the canvas.
As a migrant, I found this idea of duality very sentimental. as most migrant's expereinces, I too have led a double life, my 'white' side was on display at social events, while my seething 'brownness' was reserved for family life. having the rice bad print on the back illustrates this dualism. furthermore, the most comical part for me was the fact that this imported rice, reserved more 'cultural' relevance to me because my family was 'well colonised' as my name suggests. this pathetic illustration of my so-called 'Indianness' is sadly true for many diasporic personas. a loss of culture, and holding onto to any sentiments that give them a sense of national familiarity.
Duality is a concept that is derived from dominant western dogma.
My recent explorations have been extending what it means to be sustianable. Must the materiality of the idea I am exploring reflect the concept? If it doesn't, is this hypocritical? And if not how might my practice forgo an aesthetic based, representation of my conceptual interests?
Comments