Part 1:
I have been interested in the current eco-crisis which is largely an effect of capitalist systems and how my practice might best activate understandings and alternative thinkings/ explorations instead of merely playing a passive critic role.
Biodynamic gardening and permaculture principles operate within a dualistic role of philosophical thought whilst also providing methods for gardening sustainably.
I understand that neither my subject matter nor the methods I operate to hold these ideals. I have been wrestling with the method of my practice specifically painting. As neither my subject nor methods fit within a purist permaculture system, painting, although it dips into ecosophies, feels like a cheap knock off practice.
My love for the medium of paint and the way it operates has led me to discover colour, composition, manipulation of figurations, drawing, representation, unlike any other medium I have used. Yet I feel this sense of guilt using the traditionally eurocentric material. While I know the counter-argument that legitimises my dilemma, which is that paint is a medium likened to another medium, as long as my intentions are in the "right" place, I needn't fret.
So then, what are my intentions?
Shouldn't the materiality of the method be considered towards the intention?
This precisely is the crux of my dilemma.
My intention when painting is not to "illustrate" an alternative system, nor is it illustrating "nature". My subject matter is a conglomeration of experiences, vision scapes, reoccurring motifs, re-representions of archival photographs. I intend to create "compost heaps" within the field of a barren canvas field.
I understand that there is no way I can tackle climate change, capitalism, colonialism and any other "toxic" systems through my paintings. Nor can it be expected of me. Painting is one of many creative outlets and it remains a product I create that aside from visual stimulation serves no other "functional" purpose.
That being said, using the process of permacultural, biodynamic and regenerative thinking, I intend to implement certain aspects of their methodology to gauge deeper understandings within painting too.
Part 2:
I am a painter, but I feel like by labelling myself this convienient "role" I have segregated my "studio practice" as a world away from my domestic life.
Don't get me wrong, I enjoy painting more than any other discpline, but I am trying to understand how much I could integrate within my studio as "practice".
I think by compartmentalising "everyday" art within my studio practice, painting might even perpetuate a clinical mentality as I voyeuristically gaze into my own every day.
How might I maintain privacy and yet activate personal narratives within my pratice whilst maintaining an un-voyeuristic gaze within my own life?
In terms of privacy, I think the "solution" could be the fiction aspect about my painting practice. By this I mean, fiction is produced through representations. The fact that I am re-representing a photograph, in combination with memory, which in comparison to "witness'" experiences, can seem twisted. In this way could it be said that my "chaotic" bias of my experience works to privatise my experiences because the viewer will never fully gauge the truth of my position. Through context, through words, Language may be able to draw out a distinct connections to an audience but through the bubbles of our own perspective, we may never fully see each other as we "truly" want to be seen.
Comments