“What a large amount of extra paper for such a small print.” That was my very first reaction to this piece. Being slightly familiar with the artist’s work, I recognize the utilization of large amounts of unprinted paper surface as a clue to the mystery of deciphering the artist’s thoughts. The immediate difference between this piece and previous ones of similar paper magnitude is that this one has a clear boarder. The printed area is clearly defined and lies in contrast to the large empty area more so than its predecessors. I had very little thought (which is quite normal) on this until after I examined the image.
Instead I focus on the printed surface of the paper. Located in the bottom right hand corner of the printed area I see two figures, an old grandpa man on the left, and a grandma’ ma’ on the right. I label them so because of the build of the left figure, it reminds me of an elderly man, and what else could that be but a fishing cap on his head? The right figure’s shape reminds me of an older woman wearing a dress, as does the silhouette of the figure’s head/hair. Even if this is not correct, it’s not really important to me just yet. There’s something else that pops into my head first, that these two separate figures aren’t actually separate at all; they are both part of the same continuous line. At this point my desire to create purpose from something I know nothing about is so strong I begin to make a story about these to old love birds who have been together through their whole lives, and now I can explain the length of paper as a linear representation of a long life lived prior to the moment in time that the print captures on the right. I love subjectivity; it’s the only way to live!
Then there’s the word “rust” printed at an angle through the left figure. I find that the word supports my previous subjective thoughts. Rust, old things rust. Things that aren’t kept well or are in need of replacing often rust. Rust is found on things that are forgotten, that are pushed aside or discarded. Rust caused things to break. I notice the tail on the letter “T” in the word rust is facing the opposite way of the font faces I have seen where the t’s have tails. The way it is facing now reminds me more of a j that a t, so perhaps the t is backwards. Now maybe it has to do with being completely paranoid about everything, but when I am shown a word that stands by itself and asked to think about it I always try to rearrange the letters or read it backwards looking for a hidden message. So I realize trust and rust are just a letter away and now I’m thinking about the trust between people as a link, a chain link, and when that trust fades it’s like our link has rusted and may eventually break.
Whew,…there’s not a speck of objectivity in this post.
If ever thing I speculate is incorrect, I feel I can make a few solid claims. The first would be that the word rust is clearly negative. I cannot think of a single instance where rust is wanted or sought after. Another would be that there are two human beings being depicted in the printed area. They lack identity and have little to no personal connection with me the viewer. The last thing would be that the artist intended to make a purposeful statement with the excess of paper (in comparison to the printed area,) and that it’s not just there because they didn’t feel like tearing it down.
It’s hard to say whether this piece is working or not, because even after spending extra time looking at it, I don’t feel I am pushed to make any greater deductions about the piece than what I have already stated, which I realize may not be much. Also, the emotions stirred by this piece aren’t strong on either side of the negative positive scale. I just kind of exist with it, doubting my own thoughts about its meaning. At the same time I feel contradicted because I feel like the piece is done, that it doesn’t need anything else added to it.
I’m just not sure.
<(._.)> YODA
ReplyDeleteI feel like Josh’s critique of my piece went in two directions, one positive and one negative. On the one hand he talks about these two figures being an old couple in love and the length of paper being their history together and the word rust as a reference to their age. As he begins to talk about what rust is and does I think he starts to get closer to what my intention was. That rust is about deterioration. This piece is definitely about relationships, not necessarily romantic, and their eventual and inevitable decay.
ReplyDeleteI don’t know that I’ve fully realized why I like so much extra paper, but on one level it is simply about excess. On another I think it does refer to time. It can also be a reference to some undefined space which I think is maybe most relevant when I consider the subject of relationships. He mentioned the figures existing as a continuous line which I think is interesting to think about. I think in any kind of close relationship your self tends to collide to some degree with the other person’s self. We are relational beings and we define our world in terms of our relationships to one another and the objects around us. So I think the single line forming the two figures is about that convergence. The lack of identity in the figures could mean a number of things. It could be about the partial loss of identity that can often come with that convergence. It can also be about the ambiguity of roles people are expected to play in different types of relationships. For example, I’ve found it hard to distinguish the love for a friend from the love for a lover. I find myself experiencing the same levels of emotional intimacy but there are different expectations and boundaries that can be difficult to distinguish. I also find myself asking questions like, what roles does family play as opposed to friends? How are members of your family of origin different from your family of creation? And I think what I’ve found most disturbing in my yet brief experience with relationships is the inevitable eventual decay of those relationships. Regardless of how close a connection you feel with a person, it is sure to disappear sooner or later. This is where the word rust comes in. It’s a word I saw someone use in a piece and it has been stuck in my head. And I think Josh’s observation about the close structure of the words rust and trust is very relevant to the way I am using the word rust. To be close to someone you have to trust them on some level. But, for me in particular, the threat of the deterioration of that relationship quickly begins to erode at the trust, which ends up being terribly circular. So in an ironic sense, rust is the only thing I can trust. For me this piece is an exploration of my anxiety and confusion over and general distrust of close interpersonal relationships. Oh gee depressing