Galina Manikova (galina@online.no)
Tue, 05 Jan 1999 20:26:19 +0100
Jeffrey,
thank you for your reply, this was really interesting to me. As opposed to
the technical discussion on the list, this is a seldom pearl.
It is particularly interesting to me, as I work with similar approach to
photographic images myself: I bother about the surface, the frame,
exhibiting space, context and content. There is not much talk about these
matters on the list.
>I
>>recreate the architecture of a building or space. Not unlike cubism, I
>>can reassemble components of a particular architecture in each panel of
>>a screen with enhanced interpretation from the folding and adjacent
>>panels.
>>
Yes, like creating a new perspective in that manner ? An illusion of a new
space showing a picture of the old one ?
This is strikingly similar to what I work with ! Are you coming to Santa Fe
? I will show my slides there.
>The axis of a fold is chosen very deliberately as it is a most
>>critical element of the image.
>>
Flat against three-dimensional ?
>>So I started looking for something to photograph in which movement
>>around a selected axis could be important to the space.
Illusion ? Recreating a space ?
>>For a lot of this work I photograph the space and not the objects.
>A little history: I have been interested in the interrelationships of
>culture and environmental space. One will and does have an influence on
>the other. This approach can be said to incorporate elements of
>proximics and Feng Shui. Feng Shui being the eastern (Asian) study of
>spaces, placement of objects, and relationships and proximics being a
>western (European and American) counterpart.
>
This is difficult for me to relate to, as I reject pure cultures, whether
eastern or European/American. I can guess, that you are talking about
traditions and generalising, while I would be more busy with an original
acceptionally untraditional approach.
>Also, since you ask why, I must add that there is a certain additional
>quality with a folding screen in that the photograph in this way may now
>serve as a utilitarian object. This can be similar to a piece of
>pottery. It is interesting that aside from serving as a work of art (or
>when the owner just gets tired of art), the work can be used for some
>other purpose.
>
Here is the dog buried.
Once there was an art critic who has written a long article about one of my
exhibitions, trying to understand, whether what I do is art or craft,
utilitarian object or not. Not enough that I am using photographic images, I
am also a potter by education. How can I dare to call it art ?
I found that totally uninteresting and irrelevant. A picture on the wall may
be an utilitarian object just as a pot in the kitchen. And pottery can be
pure art. In some way utilitarian objects are looked down at, art is still
considered to be a higher level.
To begin with, photography used to be a reproduction media, not art.
So be careful, watch it ! You might be placed among the lower class. The
world has been fighting long enough to bring photography into a fine art
field.
I am more busy with that thing about dimensions and the illusion of space.
Are you acquainted with the work of a Spanish sculptor Cristina Iglesias ?
She is rather well-known and has a few big catalogues/books. Look it up !
You might find it interesting. She has used photography in her work, by the
way. Another interesting Spanish artist with the same kind of approach to
photographic images is Dario Villalba. He has photographed people, but
created spaces.
There are a lot of well-known artists using photography in their work, most
of them do not know anything about the craft. I wish it were possible to
combine both. Unfortunately it is still ahead its time, nobody understands
what I am talking about.
Regards,
Galina.
Galina Manikova,
"The alternative alternative", Oslo.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Sat Nov 06 1999 - 10:06:40