Som metod har vi blandat fria teoretiska samtal med praktisk produktion. Human nature yearns to see order and hierarchy in the world. It will invent it where it cannot find it. I have been thinking a Offentligt samtal about photos "Offentligt samtal" the last week, when I was supposed to think about painting. Trying to find a definition of painting got me thinking of photography, and what a platonic art it is.
Because I already made the choice, it was before the words. In the beginning of project we where talking a lot about language and painting. I used to work as a journalist so I have been very preoccupied with the idea of language being concept based whereas painting is not. But then on the other hand, that applies to all visual media; photo, film or whatever. With a painting it is very obvious where a painting is, because it is here, you have it.
But where is a photo? It is much more platonic, in a sense.
Even more now when it is digital, but it was also true when you used film. You had the negative, which was the original in some way. But you never looked at the negative, you looked at the paper copies. You could develop them in different ways in the dark room.
You shot light through the positive and you looked at the image on the wall or the screen. Very much like Plato looking at the shadows in his cave.
And now you have the digital RAW-file. The resolution on the screen is only 72 dpi. You can make prints in different resolutions but they all contain less information than the RAW-file. So where is the photo? It is like a bleak mirror image of the world. You never really see the photo, you are always looking at some type of reflection of an invisible originial. In that way it is much less material than a painting.
At the same time, for us the photo is much more related to the real world. Having thought about photo in this way, I now look at painting in a new way.
In this text, published in October FallJoselit investigates the question how a painting can belong to a network. The question was identified by Martin Kippenberger in the s.
This cuts right to
Offentligt samtal core of the issue: Do we believe that the painting can take place on the canvas, or do we need to step outside it?
The second issue is: Do we agree that this is the most important question to be addressed on canvas since Warhol? I guess what bugs me about that statement is that it is normative, indirectly saying that other modes of painting are far less important. "Offentligt samtal" himself claimed that each individual painting should visualize such networks. However, Joselit pays more attention to contemporary practices such as Jutta Koether and Cheyney Thompson. In the exhibition central canvas was mounted at an angle across the floor, and with one foot on and one foot Offentligt samtal a raised platform, Offentligt samtal it was stepping on stage.
The spotlight was from an old gay nightclub, closed during the AIDS crisis.
She treats the painting as a personage, or someone Offentligt samtal met
Offentligt samtal a club. The stepping on stage is brilliant. I like it as an installation, or sculpture, or whatever genre you would like to call it. But is the painting part of it really relevant, or important? Could it have been replaced with some other type of image? Joselit then talks about Stephen Prina, who since has an ongoing project titled Exquisite Corpse: This puts a certain safe distance between the work and the artist.
Together with the spreading out on the floor, the texts, the performances I get a sense of lack of belief in what can be accomplished on the canvas. We can even make some of the references actually meet the eye. It is like you have believed everything that has been said about the death of painting in the last decades, and found an way to keep painting.
What is the difference between a network, a context or a set of references? Network is a very nineties word, it made painting more contemporary I guess. Painting has always been part of a game of references and contexts.
Why does it have to be renamed network, and visualized? My guess is because the painting itself was, and is, no longer Offentligt samtal enough on its Offentligt samtal And this was a way to get recognition, to get out of the modernist trap. All the stuff around the painting, as well as the references and reproductions, make it impossible to fully possess the painting as an object.
I guess what he says is that a painting, a work of art or image, should always be in circulation in the network. And that Koether somehow sets Poussin free here instead of him being on wall in a public museum. And is that difference to be found on the canvas, or outside the canvas? Jacobsson, K. () 'Konstruktionen av del nodvandiga: EU-debatten som offentligt samtal', Haften for Kritiska Studier,Jacobsson, K.
() ' Den. (Swedish)Independent thesis Advanced level (degree of Master (One Year )), 10 credits / 15 HE creditsStudent thesis. Och om man värnar ett "Offentligt samtal" samtal om konsten och i förlängningen om livet, existensen och demokratin, har kritiken en fin historia som.