Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
The Difficulty of Crossing a Field

The Difficulty of Crossing a Field

Ratings: (0)|Views: 767 |Likes:
Published by Jeffrey Mathews

More info:

Published by: Jeffrey Mathews on Apr 25, 2012
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial


Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less





The Difficulty of Crossing a Field
In connection with this subject of “mysterious disappearance” – of which every memory is stored withabundant example – it is pertinent to note the belief of Dr. Hem, of Leipzig…This distinguished scientist hasattracted some attention, “particularly,” says one writer, “among the followers of Hegel, and mathematicians who hold to the actual existence of a so called non-Euclidian space – that is to say, of space which has moredimensions than length, breadth and thickness – space in which it would be possible to tie a knot in anendless cord and to turn a rubber ball inside out without ‘ a solution of its continuity’, in other words, without breaking or cracking it.”Dr. Hem believes that in the visible world there are void places – vacua and something more – holes, as it  were, through which animate and inanimate objects may fall into the invisible world and be seen or heard nomore. The theory is something like this: Space is pervaded by luminiferous ether, which is a material thing –as much a substance as air or water, though almost infinitely more attenuated. All force, all forms of energy must be propagated in this; every process must take place in it which takes place at all. But let us suppose that cavities exist in this otherwise universal medium, as caverns [within] the earth, or cells in a Swiss cheese… Ambrose Gwinnett BierceFrom “Science to the Front” found within Present at a Hanging and Other Ghost Stories
The above passage, written by late 19
century satirist and fiction author Ambrose Bierce,is composed as a rational, yet fictional argument for a series of preceding ghost tales. Thisconcluding segment exists as a speculative foil for the emotional resonance of supernaturaldisappearances. The passage opens up two roads for the reader - one being a suspension of belief in the supernatural, the other a suspension of disbelief in the scientific. Both capturethe idea that there must be a parallel reasoned, albeit inadequate, argument for the realmof the invisible.In the work of Amy Beecher and Susan Bricker, we are presented with visual criteria establishing both presence and absence in the material and in the immaterial. In both of the artists’ work, there is a manipulation of paint, yet there exists an elusive andsupernatural component to the work that suggests a tenuous relationship with thetraditional or fundamentalist modes of abstraction and representation.In Susan Bricker’s studio, the artist made mention of her appreciation of the work of Henri Mattise, which makes for a compelling alignment in practical similarities with regardto the production of space within the picture plane. Mattise’s use of the brush stroke, whichoccasionally would act as a representative object, reinforced the tactility of the paint andcreated a rift in the suspension of illusion within the picture. In Bricker’s case paint itself constitutes forms, allowing for infinite potential for the accelerated self-referential quality of the paint. Mattise and the Post-Impressionists played an important part (along with photo-mechanical reproduction) in liberating painting from the relatively restricting confines of representing reality at a one to one ratio. By opening up paintings potential, the technicalaspects of painting, brushstrokes, color, content, became less subservient to the lens of reality and more capable of approximating the supernatural.
In Susan’s work we find objects, totems and devotional items constructed of paint andslipping in and out of recognition. There is a viscosity ratio within the production andcreation of these objects that allows for slippage, both literally and figuratively speaking.This resonates within the content by the simulation of decay, erosion and other principlesof loss including time. In one picture, an ice cream cone wrapper vacillates betweenpainterly abstraction and sticky-sweet representation, the paint acts much like meltedchocolate and ice cream smearing and staining, a gooey ghost of a day-dream treat…. Wesee all of these objects in the absence of a figure. One may read the work as melancholic,denoting the heartache and after burn of an emptied out gathering… perhaps the absenceof a human presence is meant to exalt the potency of finding the poetic in the everyday. Another may read this as a strategy towards delineation and inclusion, allowing for the viewer to populate the scene. Regardless of the perceived disappearance of figures withinthe space, we are privy to a variation of views in each scene, birds-eye, in-perspective,flattened space, each seeming to increase the abject possibilities of figure/groundrelationships. By creating a sensation of distortion, these views act as a painterly equivalent of mise en scene, heightening the privation of the view whilst augmenting the quirk of theabject voyeurism. There is a pervasive sense of the paranormal and the animate in the work that leaves one with a feeling of sinister qualities.In Amy Beecher’s work we also see the viscosity of paint acting as a figure at once frozenand crystallized, yet also captured in a state of possible transition. The document bothaccumulates and loses information as it passes through several modes of technological re-interpretation, ultimately sputtering out as ink from a printer to constitute a final frozenimage, the result of both accumulation and loss. The work speaks to both the limitationsand the possibilities of contemporary imaging, capturing information that is just as in flux asthe technology supporting its production. One might hark back to the work of LaszloMoholy-Nagy and the inventiveness of the early Bauhaus practitioners who made it theirmission to reject paint and focus on the techno-scientific possibilities that allowed for new  ways of both capturing and seeing light. In Ms. Beecher’s work there is a temporality that does not seem as much revolutionary as it is peremptory, the resulting image becomes just as slippery as the fictional passage at the beginning of this essay; offering scientific reasonfor “mysterious disappearances”, here we have a mysterious “appearance” instead. Animage that slips both into the (digital) void and back again, gaining aural ectoplasm as it returns back into the realm of the visible. Moholy-Nagy made reference to a third kind of space, one that was multidimensional (perhaps non-Euclidian) that was created whenproducing his photograms. This space/image exists in the invisible realm, both out of timeand liminal space, only to enter our world through the technology that birthed the image.The technology and the image, both inextricably linked through necessity, like somespectre that has been banished from our reality, yet still haunts us beyond the technological void.The difficulty of crossing a field here can be recognized as difficulty in transportation via imagery, something like traveling without moving. The field in this sense is that of a force,supernatural and phenomenological, an aesthetic force field. With these two artists we findthat the threshold (the ether) is the medium itself, paint. The modality is constituted by arrival and departure, absence and presence. These binary and polemical states actualize,

You're Reading a Free Preview

/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->