February 11, 2008
I have been trying to find a poam, or something that really inspires me and something that I am interested in, and something that I can't get out of my mind is the sidewalk art of Julian Beever. This link shows an example of one of his poams. At first I thought that the framing of this came from the actual physical endings of the painting. But since he has may pieces of art, which can be found here, the one thing that I noticed between them is that they are not all shapes with a boundary. Let me rephrase: although each one has an 'end' to the drawing, this is not the consistent frame for all of these. The frame, as I see it, is the point of view. Its hard to imagine since these artworks are only available to been seen from one perspective, many of them obviously only appear in the way that the author has intended from one point of view.
Posted by ndjames at February 11, 2008 06:38 PM
The illusion of volume, the actuality of volume (as perceived) is stunning. Beever's "special distortion" is oh-so-fork which is a tool whose purpose, at least in part, is to distort in special ways, to loosen frameworks in place so that they become eligible for reconfiguration, perhaps eventually to return (pass through again) a form of the framework loosened.
"Distortion" is a good term for its reminder that perception is a take on some aspects of existence that have become exposed in a way that enables very limited human perception.
Human visual perception is a distortion of the electromagnetic spectrum in that the visible components of light have become the commonly accepted/used definition of light though this usage distorts light into being something visible when most of the electromagnetic spectrum is not visible to humans (without devices designed to access the infra and ultra, the gamma, the x, the radio wavelengths we cannot see, but that could be visible within visual systems able to process these wavelengths as something seen. Other terrestrial animals have other visible ranges, so what human eyes can see is not all that can be seen by eyes.
Beever's distortion is able to draw upon visual behavior and visual expectation and visual possibility to enable the seeing of situations the eye can accept as real, dimensionality supplied by the eye and brain, and housed there as opposed to within the nonexistent solidity/density of the art.
His art becomes locales. The invitation to enter, that the art is a structure which can be entered is intense --the density of thought seems tangible, objectified --rooms in the art, the necessity of entry and exploration --features that may be part of most art, yet perhaps so embedded (apparently) as to seem buried, inaccessible, but Beever exposes these features,
and the eye willingly enters the art.
That a form of deception is involved may also be quite useful and revelatory in a reminder that meaning is construct rather than inherent. And as something built, can be built differently; many styles of building are possible, any of which can lead to some form of structure.
I agree with you that the frame is point of view. And what the view is, what the point is is determined by the location of the viewer and how fixed the point is, the view is, the viewer is --some points may not be examined, points that could greatly alter perceptions based on other point, and perhaps "accurate" for that point in the moment of viewing according to the circumstances of the viewer in that moment of viewing.
Whatever conclusions are reached, no matter how well documented, may not apply to all possible points of view
and may not apply to the situation that gave rise to the conclusion if the conditions of the points of view shift (which is likely in dynamic systems).
Thanks for the nod to Beever --very useful.
Posted by: thyliasm at March 11, 2008 02:14 AMLogin to leave a comment. Create a new account.