Practice is research, context and then the production of the art object.
*I still see this as a possibility although it is no longer my reality. I am now visualising my practice as driven by several persistent themes, made physical through the longer-form works, such as novels and ﬁlms. Into this core, continually feeds research and inﬂuences,reﬂection on the core work itself, shorter-form work such as paintings and essays.This longer-form and shorter-form idea is not particularly practical in creating work, but upon analysis seems to hold well to the actual work created.The aforementioned research>context>production seems to sequential. The distinction between form attempts to identify key works. This
could also be seen simply as time.
This is a choice. The amount of knowledge that exists and the accessibility of much of itmeans that it would never be possible to fully understand the context of anything, thereforeone could disregard it all to begin with.
*The work after all is itself subject to endless interpretations by whomever encounters it. I think I was concerned about the ethics of creating a work. The responsibility of the artist!
Research. By this I mean the acquiring of a knowledge of as much of the history of art aspossible, with speciﬁc reference to the work of artists/theorists/etc. that provide the mostclarity on where exactly it is that you are. And also more broadly, the development of theartist themselves, their history, their prism, their experience.
*artists/theorists/etc. is obviously trying to avoid the role of the consumer/audience/ executive producer/funding body/etc. This is obviously a very important area to understand, not only to provide a real contextualisation of the art history in question but also the role of artists in a contemporary setting.*this also fails to deﬁne research outside of a history of art, and I think that was due to a concern with the idea of contextualisation.
(for it will always result in a work that accesses it
s subject through the prism of it
s why this notion of the artist/author/auteur persists. The birth of the reader did not mean the death of the author. It probably just meant a more competitive arena.
To create art a structure must be created from the research.
*Bah! This is nice and illustrative. But almost irrelevant. The research, whatever you choose this to be, and probably a great deal of what you don
t(!) will form it
s constellations just ﬁne without any conscious act of creation. However, through evaluation it is possible to create some semblance of this structure and trace meanings.
A great pile of connections, thoughts, past.As an artist this structure is inevitably formed and the art object will present itself. By this Imean an idea about a physical object.
*Without this it
s hardly fair to be called an artist. Physical object could probably be changed to Derrida
for clearer understanding.
The art object is the resulting thing that an artist will present as such.