/ic/ - Artwork/Critique

>>2430464
>>2431191
(Cont.)
Of course, a lot of artists work with more specific items, like a plant having cultural/historical meaning, or molecular structures and how they can set discourse for some other structure (in society, in cosmology...) connecting otherwise very separate subjects. This requires more reading to fully get, and to be honest, I'm not really bothered if the art isn't also aesthetically pleasing.

Then again, as I said, I work with aesthetics, I look for balance, I consider the palette of an assembly of appropriated objects. And I do this as a painter. I consider the process of building an installation as drawing in 3D, and I often link the subject matter and content to my paintings. In reversal, I use my paintings as props in my installations as well. My exhibitions are merely collections of various objects connected to thematic subject matter. The immediate experience is how they behave in the room, if you will, what sort of mood they summon, how they make you move around in front of them, and the vantage point for what they make you think about.

These are suggestions, and only that. Each person viewing the work will have different readings if it, that's not something I as an artist wish to control, I merely create the opportunity and flavour it with the ideas and character I wish to communicate. And it so happens to be that I'm drawn to the alien, incomprehensible and curious, so whether you are learned or uninitiated, it won't matter - as long as you're there for a visual (and motor-sensory, phenomenological) experience, first and foremost, and an intellectual one secondary. The relational element occurs when more than one person is looking at the same thing, and the two of them start having a conversation, because not only are they discovering different things about the work, they are also learning about each other, and how each other think. In this sense, it doesn't matter what the work is, so much as what the work does.