-This presentation is about the theories underpinning my
work.
-The
concepts that drive my work, the dialogues I want to create.
-Post-structuralism is a response to
structuralism closely related, but not
synonymous, to post-modernism.
-It
looks at the idea that objects have no inherent meaning, with meaning defined
by the viewer or as an extension discussion of that object.
-This set of distinctions applied by the
viewer is the corner stone of binary structures.
-Sex,
gender and sexuality are seen as binaries when in reality they are more a
spectrum of being.
-I
appreciate these distinctions are necessary to discus these issues, but through
discussion I hope for the eventual dissolution of these definitions. That one
day these issues will not need to be discussed.
-Science
and art are often seen as binary, opposites.
-Science and
art actually have a long history of co-operation.
-Renaissance
artists where well schooled in anatomy, preforming dissections and recording
the figure. For this reason many of the drawings and sculptures of the time
have well defined musculature.
-Scientist
by nature were also artists, recording their findings through image.
-It
was with the advent of photography that these two separated due to the
reverence of authenticity to the photo. This in itself creates issues which I
will discuss in my next presentation.
-As such medical illustration has become somewhat of a
stagnant field.
-The
image to the right shows the work of Pauline La Riviere who worked throughout the 40’s and 50’s,
her use of colour was revolutionary at the time.
-The
image on the right shows the work of Emily Evans, a modern medical illustrator.
Through these images it’s easy to see how little has changed in the past 60
years. The composition and tone are really similar.
-Contemporary
movements such as street anatomy are giving new life to the subject.
N.B. By stagnant I do not mean un-usefull, medical illustration does it's job very well, illustrating and teaching about the human body.
- In the process of elevating an object of functionality to one of art does the object lose it's function?
- Can we create an object of art to be used functionally, to have a physical purpose or is the loss of use essential in placing an object on the artistic pedestal?
- If we design an object aesthetically as well as functionally, to raise questions and create dialogue can the object be called art? Or is it a product?
-Duchamp's "Fountain" is a good example of this. An object of use raised to the pedestal of art by removal from it's normal context and function.
- Objects placed on the artistic pedestal are often separated from the viewer and isolated from touch.
-By making more tactile art, art to be touched and communed with physically can we breakdown the boundaries between the viewer and art?
- I believe dissolution of this barrier encourages participation of the viewer, enabling them to engage with art in new ways and encouraging them to ask questions due to the shift in the way they are interacting with a piece.
- I also feel like this can mitigate some of the elitism in the art world by providing a way to interact not based solely on the need for specific language.
- Antony Gormley's "Event Horizon" is a suspended platform which moves with the motion of its passengers. When you place your ear to the platform you can hear the footsteps of others, creating a tactile, audial space.
- The self is felt with very differently in my private and professional practices.
- The professional deals with the anatomy, what physically forms us.
-This breaks us down into base components, looking at commonality to create opposition and dialogue on individuality. By doing this I hope to create a common ground with which to discuss the self.
-This analytical approach is apposed in my private practice, which is more focused on the individual, more self reflective. This deal with my experimentation into gender and sexuality as well as my experience with depression.
-You don't need to show everything to be authentic.
-What is necessity and what is desire?
-Prosthetics are necessary to regain function.
- The flex-foot prosthetic (running blades) increase efficiency and function, this is not a necessity but driven by desire.
- Increase in functionality isn't questioned, but to prioritise aesthetics can be seen as shallow or trivial.
- So why don't we put more of a priority on the aesthetics of an object that is going to become a part of someone's body? An extension of their body image?
- In these terms how does our secondary view of aesthetics effect our mental health?
- Put simply, well designed objects bring us joy.
-So why don't we prioritise the aesthetics of something so intimate?
- The extract above describes the emotional process of losing a limb, basically stating that amputees go though the normal stages of grief with acceptance not realised until they are well into rehabilitation, learning to walk (or already using) prosthetics.
- Could we look to aesthetics as a way to challenge this? Return as sense of control over their bodies?
-Giving aesthetic choice and involvement to a patient could help them reassert this control.
- Ethics are obviously a very important part of any practice.
- I have discussed the ethical implications of my work in my proposal (which is available on this blog).
- The ethics of this project will be a continuously evolving subject.
-I think most of my work comes down tot his question. The crux of my work.
-Why are we bound by definitions? Those self imposed and those externally imposed.
- These definitions are more often than not illusions we create to lend structure to reality, which is fine, but these structures also restrict us.
- Breaking down these restrictions is my focus.
