Title of the work: How to Show, Lab for Research and Art, Berlin, 2014 in collaboration with EGFK and SECOND HOME PROJECTS
If you want to read more about the exhibition you can find it here:
During my residency in Berlin I made an experiment looking for different (than by text) ways of documenting my artistic research practice. Most of my interest in AR is connected with: Aesthetics of digital technologies in Painting. Painting has often been declared dead since the 1960s and still refuses to die. Media technologies have now become integrated into everyday live. ”Painted surface is no longer the analogue of a visual experience of nature but of operational processes”1, „the shift from nature to culture”. 2 Dealing with the medium of painting in context of the digital technology, I call for the need for a material contact during the process of the interaction with it.
Overview of the exposition with participants
1. Untitled, 200 x 150 cm, acrylic on canvas, 2014 details 2. Untitled, dimensions variable, acrylic on phone, 2014
3. Untitled, 195 x 150 cm, acrylic on canvas, 2014 details 4. Untitled, 30 x 20 cm, a part of sony ericsson body of mobile phone, black frame, 2014 detail 5. Untitled, 100 x 100 cm, acrylic on canvas, 2014 details 6. Untitled, variable dimensions, ladder, pipe, tape, acrylic on pipe and paper, 2014 detail detail detail 7. Untitled, A4 of 15 sheets of paper with one sheet with a hole, 2014 detail
8. Untitled, 20 x 100 cm, acrylic on canvas and black tape, 2014 9. Untitled, two tvs with lullaby songs, 2014
In very short brief my main goal is combining ways of documenting of research inquiry based in practice in tune with some ideas proposed by Robin Nelson and Suzanne Briet but with emphasis on sharing, respectful, sympathetic, useful process of communication of the knowledge and emphasis on building relations towards communities of people not always associated with the ‚academy’. To reduce distance between academic and non-academic groups. The core of my experiment will be to build close relation between the ways of sharing knowledge and receiving it. I would like to examine how in context of a materiality, the institution of the ‚academy’ and ‚other communities’ make a documentation of my artistic practice. After creating a painting in context of aesthetic of digital technology I would like to make an open call (through the web of the gallery or other social media) and with people which responded to open call try to interpret/(to document) according to their interest, the piece of painting which I had created in a for of material artefact. I would like to show the interpretation/the document as a form of the material object closest to interest of the viewers/recivers. There will be no one typical for exhibition procedure with interaction with once done finished objects instead of that the exhibition will be build day after day in tune with people responses and their material interpretations of knowledge led down in my AR practice. What seems to me interesting in thoughts of Robin Nelson written in text: Practice as Research in the Arts: Principles, Protocols, Pedagogies, Resistances3 are the, additional ways of articulating and evidencing the research inquiry” , and the need for ,,a resonance between complementary writing and the praxis itself”4. According to the author ,,it is possible to make a significant distinction between documentation (by way of translation) of a practice and documentation of a research inquiry based in practice. 5
From Suzanne Briet I have borrowed the idea that ,,any concrete or symbolic indication, preserved or recorded, for reconstructing or for proving a phenomenon, whether physical or mental” can be a document. Briet argued for the documentation to take up the call of material necessity rather than be put into the service any one culture; that is, „documentation marks the importance of particular, more ‚localized’ or specialized cultures in terms of their material needs, their specialized vocabularies, and the techniques and technologies needed to provide documentary services to these groups.”6 „One of Briet’s most important insights was that individual documents may be interpreted in different ways by different people wishing to put them to different uses for different purposes. This variability of interpretation is characteristic of documents even at the level of individual words, and the different decisions made by different translators at the word level can have significant consequences.”7 In her work Qu’est-ce que la documentation? She writes about „an unlimited horizon of physical forms and aesthetic formats for documents and an unlimited horizon of techniques and technologies (and of ‚documentary agencies’ employing these) in the service of multitudes of particular cultures.”8
In the context of the ‚academy’ when complementary writing is very popular way of evidencing the research inquiry I am very interested in the Briet’s idea in which the document would be specified for particular groups of receivers and the fact that she talks about materiality. I wish that art itself could be an evidence of the research inquiry and the way of documenting it could be an art too.
1 Finch, Mick. (1998). ,,New Technology, New Paiting.” Contemporary Visual Art Magazine, (N°17). 2 Ibid. 3 Nelson, Robin. (2003). ,,Practice as Research in the Arts: Principles, Protocols, Pedagogies, Resistances.” Palgrave Macmillan. 4 Ibid. p. 11 5 Ibid. p .6 6 Day, Ronald. (2006). ,,A Necessity of Our Time’: Documentation as ‚Cultural Technique in What Is Documentation?.” In What is Documentation?: English Translation of the Classic French Text. R. E. Day, L. Martinet & H. G. B. Anghelescu, Trans.; ed., R.E. Day and L. Martinet. Lanham, MD: Scarecrow, p. 62. Questionnaires: