I would like to suggest that the gap between pen and ground / gesture
and mark is also a state of groundlessness in all drawing practice.
The gap between intention and result is a perpetual occurrence in all
attempts to express a concept in the concrete form of drawing. It's
one of the reasons we keep on trying to do it... Mark's work seems
to be revealing this problem in an interesting mix of the virtual and
the real.
Karen
>Mark
>
>Thanks, that is much clearer. I now not only understanbd
>but am intruiged.
>
>Can I ask this: does the gap between gesture and mark
>frustrate? (I presume, perhaps in error, that the
>machine acts in discord to an artist's intent).
>
>Another question: can "groundlessness" be turned to artistic
>advantage?
>
>I will resist asking further questions - though I have many.
>
>Finally, it turns out groundlessness has analogy in other
>disciplines (there is nothing new under the sun, one recalls).
>
>best - and thanks again
>Peter
>
>> Peter,
>>
>> Sorry if my explanation is less than clear. Let me try
>> again.
>>
>> The idea (in plainer English) is that the majority of
>> tradtional drawing media more or less involve direct
>> contact between pen and ground. In software this is
>> not the case, as we have to rely on computer
>> algorithms to interpret our gestures. As a programmer
>> and artist, I indentify this as a gap: the distance
>> between a gesture and the resulting authographic mark.
>> The frameworks I have developed make use of a variety
>> of technological apparatus and software processes to
>> move drawing about in order to do things with it that
>> you couldn't ordinarily do without assistance. While
>> drawing is being shoved about in this way, I refer to
>> it as being groundless, it's just information, and it
>> is only when reproductive processes become involved
>> that it is made into a static object again;
>> intersemiosis.
>>
>> So really, it's about peeling drawing from one kind of
>> surface, doing something with it (groundless), and
>> then applying it to another.
>>
>> Is this making it any clearer, because as you say it
>> ought to have a simple explanation.
>>
>>
> > Mark.
|