Monday, April 13, 2009
huh. "moving pictures".
on may 6, 1895, auguste and louis lumiere demonstrated the first movie projector, the cinematographe, in paris, france. it projected its images out onto a screen, unlike thomas edison's kinetograph, which was a peep show that the viewer looked into, and it weighed only 20 pounds compared to edison's half-ton invention. the first film they showed was workers leaving the lumiere factory. the movie opened with a concierge unlocking the gates, showed people walking through, and ended with the concierge closing the gates again. they made more than 2,000 films like this, without plots or characters, and thought of them just as moving pictures, and despite the thousands of people who lined up at their viewings every night, the lumieres thought that movies would be a passing fad and auguste went off to school to become a medical scientist, and louis went back to working on still photographs.
o, covetous rapture!
this easter weekend i acquired, through the sleuthing of my good friend daniel, 2 books i have been coveting for more than a decade.
the first, which is the fourth iteration of the book, is tom phillips' a humument. for those of you unfamiliar with the project (this edition of the book simply captures the project at a certain point in time - here's more information) it began in the mid-60s when mr. phillips, inspired by william burroughs' "cut-up" writing technique, bought an obscure victorian novel (w. h. mallock's a human document, from 1892) and began to alter it by drawing, painting and collaging the pages of the book and pulling out new narratives (even poetry). the first edition appeared in 1980 (the second edition was published in 1987 and the third in 1998). the fourth edition (the one i just received) was published in 2005 - almost half of the 1980 edition has been replaced/ revamped.
it is generally considered one of the prime exemplars of artists books, particularly the stream that involves altering and editing a text without altering a book's physical structure. and 40 years later, it seems that the project remains inexhaustible.
the other item is the 1971 compact edition of the oxford english dictionary. reproduced micrographically, it contains the entire 13-volume edition of the 1933 OED. it comes with a magnifying glass so you can read the text (it is reproduced micrographically, you know). at one time (i believe it was in the mid-90s), a newer edition had been made available to new members if you joined the book-of-the-month club, which i didn't do, and thereby missed my opportunity for a truly literary steal since the compact OED will usually run over $300. ouch.
according to the encyclopaedia brittanica online: The dictionary is a corrected and updated revision of A New English Dictionary on Historical Principles (NED), which was published in 10 volumes from February 1, 1884, to April 19, 1928, and which was designed to provide an inventory of words in use in English since the mid-12th century (and in some cases even earlier). In 1933 the New English Dictionary was reissued in 12 volumes (together with a 1-volume supplement) as The Oxford English Dictionary. Both the NED and OED were published by the Clarendon Press of Oxford.
Arranged mostly in order of historical occurrence, the definitions in the OED are illustrated with about 2,400,000 dated quotations from English-language literature and records. The aim of the dictionary (as stated in the 1933 edition) is “to present in alphabetical series the words that have formed the English vocabulary from the time of the earliest records down to the present day, with all the relevant facts concerning their form, sense-history, and etymology.”
The publication of the dictionary was first suggested to the Philological Society (London) in 1857, and the collection of materials began soon thereafter. Editorial work began in 1879 with the appointment of James Murray, who was at that time president of the Philological Society, as editor in chief. Murray, during his term as editor, was responsible for approximately half of the dictionary, including the letters a through d, h through k, o, p, and t. Succeeding editors included Henry Bradley, William Alexander Craigie, and C.T. Onions.
yum.
the first, which is the fourth iteration of the book, is tom phillips' a humument. for those of you unfamiliar with the project (this edition of the book simply captures the project at a certain point in time - here's more information) it began in the mid-60s when mr. phillips, inspired by william burroughs' "cut-up" writing technique, bought an obscure victorian novel (w. h. mallock's a human document, from 1892) and began to alter it by drawing, painting and collaging the pages of the book and pulling out new narratives (even poetry). the first edition appeared in 1980 (the second edition was published in 1987 and the third in 1998). the fourth edition (the one i just received) was published in 2005 - almost half of the 1980 edition has been replaced/ revamped.
it is generally considered one of the prime exemplars of artists books, particularly the stream that involves altering and editing a text without altering a book's physical structure. and 40 years later, it seems that the project remains inexhaustible.
the other item is the 1971 compact edition of the oxford english dictionary. reproduced micrographically, it contains the entire 13-volume edition of the 1933 OED. it comes with a magnifying glass so you can read the text (it is reproduced micrographically, you know). at one time (i believe it was in the mid-90s), a newer edition had been made available to new members if you joined the book-of-the-month club, which i didn't do, and thereby missed my opportunity for a truly literary steal since the compact OED will usually run over $300. ouch.
according to the encyclopaedia brittanica online: The dictionary is a corrected and updated revision of A New English Dictionary on Historical Principles (NED), which was published in 10 volumes from February 1, 1884, to April 19, 1928, and which was designed to provide an inventory of words in use in English since the mid-12th century (and in some cases even earlier). In 1933 the New English Dictionary was reissued in 12 volumes (together with a 1-volume supplement) as The Oxford English Dictionary. Both the NED and OED were published by the Clarendon Press of Oxford.
Arranged mostly in order of historical occurrence, the definitions in the OED are illustrated with about 2,400,000 dated quotations from English-language literature and records. The aim of the dictionary (as stated in the 1933 edition) is “to present in alphabetical series the words that have formed the English vocabulary from the time of the earliest records down to the present day, with all the relevant facts concerning their form, sense-history, and etymology.”
The publication of the dictionary was first suggested to the Philological Society (London) in 1857, and the collection of materials began soon thereafter. Editorial work began in 1879 with the appointment of James Murray, who was at that time president of the Philological Society, as editor in chief. Murray, during his term as editor, was responsible for approximately half of the dictionary, including the letters a through d, h through k, o, p, and t. Succeeding editors included Henry Bradley, William Alexander Craigie, and C.T. Onions.
yum.
Monday, March 16, 2009
my new installation: redux
i am gratified at the number of responses i have had to my inviatation to collaborate with me on my next installation. i have had responses from around canada, the united states and even australia! there have been a number of questions that i didn't address in my initial request so i'm going to try and address these additional questions here:
when is the exhibition?
the exhibition is still 6-8 months away, but i know i will need time to achieve the kind of visual critical mass i'm hoping for.
how will you acknowledge the artists?
it will be somewhat generic -- for instance, i won't be attached name tags to every piece contributed by other artists. i will acknowledge them in my statement, and i will document the individual pieces for my own files, which means that the information will be available upon request (or be on the 'blog). remember however, the installation is about the tension/ relationship between the individual and the communal.
what will the space look like?
currently, the exhibition is intended for a space that is quite 'lo-fi' -- cement floors, drywall and rough timbers and metal posts. my intention is to have a wall of ojo de dios, with a grouping of the figures assembled in the space to create a [symbolic] relationship between the two. that grouping is dependent on the pieces i receive and generate, and how many.
how many pieces do you want?
ojo de dios: literally, and truly, hundreds. a thousand if possible.
figures: 100 minimum. depending on responses, and what i also generate, that number may change. but 100 is the current goal.
what size do you want the pieces?
ojo de dios: i would like them to be fairly consistent (i.e. the popsicle stick template) but i am more than willing to allow for variations. then again, i don't really have a choice, do i?
figures: i'm thinking "actual size" - roughly 4" high by 3" wide - but if participants feel particularly moved to make a shift in scale, i'm absolutely in support of that. after all, it's about the response to the figure and the emotional [symbolic] responses they elicit.
again, feel free to respond with scale and material changes.
what will happen to the exhibition afterwards? and, will you return the work?
to be honest, i hadn't hadn't even thought about returning the work -- i suppose i could, but i would prefer that the pieces remain as part of the piece. however, it may be several years before that happens, as i would like to exhibit the installation in several settings (i have a "3 times and you're out" rule for installations).
when is the exhibition?
the exhibition is still 6-8 months away, but i know i will need time to achieve the kind of visual critical mass i'm hoping for.
how will you acknowledge the artists?
it will be somewhat generic -- for instance, i won't be attached name tags to every piece contributed by other artists. i will acknowledge them in my statement, and i will document the individual pieces for my own files, which means that the information will be available upon request (or be on the 'blog). remember however, the installation is about the tension/ relationship between the individual and the communal.
what will the space look like?
currently, the exhibition is intended for a space that is quite 'lo-fi' -- cement floors, drywall and rough timbers and metal posts. my intention is to have a wall of ojo de dios, with a grouping of the figures assembled in the space to create a [symbolic] relationship between the two. that grouping is dependent on the pieces i receive and generate, and how many.
how many pieces do you want?
ojo de dios: literally, and truly, hundreds. a thousand if possible.
figures: 100 minimum. depending on responses, and what i also generate, that number may change. but 100 is the current goal.
what size do you want the pieces?
ojo de dios: i would like them to be fairly consistent (i.e. the popsicle stick template) but i am more than willing to allow for variations. then again, i don't really have a choice, do i?
figures: i'm thinking "actual size" - roughly 4" high by 3" wide - but if participants feel particularly moved to make a shift in scale, i'm absolutely in support of that. after all, it's about the response to the figure and the emotional [symbolic] responses they elicit.
again, feel free to respond with scale and material changes.
what will happen to the exhibition afterwards? and, will you return the work?
to be honest, i hadn't hadn't even thought about returning the work -- i suppose i could, but i would prefer that the pieces remain as part of the piece. however, it may be several years before that happens, as i would like to exhibit the installation in several settings (i have a "3 times and you're out" rule for installations).
some other notes:
part of my [ongoing] project is about 'erasing' the individual (or perhaps, ego) - much of my work is about hiding "the hand", the autographic signature. the art really isn't about me (mostly), it's about the viewer (and their engagement). i want the pieces to be about the ideas and content, not about how well so-and-so can draw, paint, whatever. hence the templates and frameworks -- they allow individual engagement, and even expression, but without making it about 'performance'.
how the exhibition came about is that i was invited to exhibit based on recipes for kneeling, a previous installation involving lightbooks. i just thought i'd change things up a bit...play with lighting a little but still engage the space and the viewer. i love accumulation, and this seemed to be a great opportunity to work more collaboratively, with more excess, and with 'warmer' materials. and do a little drawing. i've been engaged with other collaborative projects, but collecting a series of pieces using templates is different than working together on the same piece (which becomes much more about the psychology of collaboration, perhaps even more than the process). there are still issues about the [individual artist's] work disappearing into the larger piece, but it seems easier for people to handle (though i find both ways of working interesting).
i'd like to explore the whole notion of collaboration further. any thoughts?
Sunday, March 8, 2009
consider contributing to my next installation
i am working towards a new installation, which will involve 2 main elements:
1. a wall of "God's eyes" or ojo de dios (the small yarn crosses that are also symbolic "eyes") - which means hundreds, if not thousands, of them. you can get more information about how to make them here and here and here.
2. 100 [small] drawings on paper. these drawings will be based on a figure template i've created that i would like you to interact with. you can draw on it, paint it, collage it, translate it into other media (such as photography, ceramics or wood, video, etc.) as long as you send me the original or an image/ copy of it for my research files. the point isn't how artistic you are but how you engage with the image symbolically. if you could title it or name it (or include a quote, song lyrics, or some sort of literary reference) that would be helpful as well. i would like to acknowledge your contribution to the installation as well, so don't forget to include your name when you submit any pieces.
if you are interested in contributing and participating, simply leave a comment here and i will send you the PDFs of the figure (and the ojo de dios if you want). make as many or as few as you wish. pax.
Friday, March 6, 2009
edward says, check it:
...i'm on twitter. why? you may ask. well, i often send out various missives and discoveries to friends and acquaintances referring them to interesting websites or articles about art, artists, design, film, faith, books...a friend suggested that, rather than inundating people with one-line emails, i use twitter. so i'm going to give it a shot. it's simply one more way to get things out there.
fyi: my twitter ID is etechne
fyi: my twitter ID is etechne
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)