Gaignard Pierre wrote me in October because he had read the blog of the Session 19 of the School Store, and our research on "tactics fiction ". Thus was born an epistolary debate on our common interests and work in particular. Here is a condensed, which can be found in his portfolio is .
jepreparelaprochaine.blend (for gallery) , 2009 3D animation full HD, 1920x1080 px, 1min36sec.
This means that one hand there is the 3D image as a projection of your idea, and secondly its actual, "real." Yet this reality is only a pretext. Why then realize your idea?
It's very simple, so I do not try to achieve it, I do take the measure of the gap between the thing that I thought and one I made. In fact, whenever I meet a lot of difficulty (there is no gravity in 3D software) and I never keep the objects made. These "problems" construct a narrative of these projects. They are embedded in the stories I tell, they are almost the subjects of work.
depuisquej'aidécoupéunevoitureen3, onm'enaproposé6 , 2010, digital printing paper, epson lustré.145x109cm.
The probability either. Cycle of exhibitions "The rigor is not a sure bet." NSPP gallery in St-Etienne (42).
How do you see from this narrative?
I think it fits in the artifact. It is a very special time. A time that takes time. Conversely photo, video, the record is long and the approximate distribution is (and partial, but like other mediums you tell me). There is only one thing, stripped of any superfluous a fluid story. The narration may be effective for reporting project, because it comes straight to the point.
Is not this a form of failure that interest you? The permanent difference between what you want and what happens, the imaginary and real, the impossible and the possible ...
I also believe that failure is not a given set aside but this is not a goal. Panamarenko always "good" failed because he believed that one day the machines would fly. It would not be mastered if such failure ... Failure is not the end of the project for me, it is one step. The poetry of work (and that's what I'm looking for me) is perhaps the solutions found to fit the work of his thought to his existence.
I've always been fascinated by the retrospective exhibitions and what I prefer, what are the sketchbooks. The difference between a thought piece and its realization. Do you think these "objects" preparatory a priori, may be artifacts as well as documents indicating an event?
Absolutely. A document is deemed to have evidential value. Now it seems they are often fallible. They are often considered as evidence, but we must emphasize the part of fiction they can convey! Photography Leap into the Void (published in Sunday's diary one day, 1960) seems to offer a paradigmatic example. The image is included which may amount to a stealth action: a man jumps from a window, without convening viewer, gesture worth for himself. But we all know that this is indeed a photomontage. However, the party is not faked the jump. Indeed, in its action, Klein was due to the ground by a canvas held by twelve judoka. It is this only "precaution" was deleted from the final picture by replacing it with an image of the street before jumping. Klein has really jumped, experiencing and immersing himself in intangible qualities of emptiness. But it did not crash on the sidewalk, as might suggest mounting. This is a representation without denotation, however, performs an act that gives it an existence artistic implements, but as it did not happen.
Me comes to mind a beautiful image of Levy "The tree is virtually contained in the seed." The thing is another potential time it calls for future achievement but it is defined this as something latent that will not happen.
In your pictures, it goes something like this. The 3D image refers to a possible reality, it "performs." The viewer imagines the tree, the link with transcription in the real. But what it will really be like that?
course not! It's almost an equation. The tree will grow Levy certainly, but its growth will be affected by many factors. Light, soil quality is first. The construction of a bar than a building or furniture change in shape.
Does your work is not located exactly between the idea and its realization?
I think so.
Finally, what are various methods / artifacts to translate the same idea. But why is that? For example, why do you decide to cut a car? I wonder if eventually you do not choose things that you would particularly restrictive to have a singularly important gap with its realization, even if you do not want "master failure".
0 comments:
Post a Comment