What Is TeXTcriture?  It is a word I invented by marrying TeXT, or TXT with Ecriture, and in a Lewis Carroll-esque fashion, assume the role of Alice, Adam/Alex that I am, in an effort to detract from gender having anything to do with writing, or its value.  But in this case, I do defer quite often to the fairer of the two.

On process

2 and 3D  |  Form &/or Function

 

Narrative is what provokes the process of my works in both 2 and 3 dimensions.  I am not obcessed with process, though it has become a popular trend to exploit the process itself so as to draw patrons' attention to tool marks, or allowing the welds in metal fabrication to remain visible, for instance.  I venture away from being concerned with these elements of any design's coming into being or value.  This is easily accomplished, and can be an evocative surface characteristic, but it must marry well with the narrative which gives order to the chaos of abstraction.  In other words, meaningful words back the design.  Everything begins and ends with Logos -- the process for discovering the words of the narrative, and for delivering the words to patrons concerns me deeply.  The material(s) and the narrative are closely linked from beginning to end in my works, which keeps me from creating what for me, are mere arbitrary objects divorced from precisely where all meaning is found -- not in the object -- but that which it is predicated upon.  Consider then the works of Michelangelo. His masterwork, Pieta, for instance, would be meaningless without an origin.  In and of itself, it is a woman holding a corpse.  Beyond its form, its function is bound to what it references -- namely, the Word -- Logos.  But there are many books with many words, all of which are merely a trace of what they could all mean when retold in the form of an artist's interpretation -- my works defer to Logos and logos -- and that is the difference between their being meaningful and meaningless...dead, or alive.

 

REFLEXIVITY - or, the teleology of function as form 

 

begin with any word and imagine what it looks like, then take the image the word elicits and exploit it.   the word that you chose was "exploit".  now all that is  left for you to do is to exploit, exploit.  exploit's corresponding and imagined image was that of a mirror.  you could not merely look at the mirror without seeing your own image in it.  the image of yourself being exploited made you wonder why the image of a mirror came to mind when you thought of the word "exploit". suddenly, you run from the mirror of your mind to the dictionary to relearn the word exploit.  you come to realize that there are two working definitions - 1. the verb:  to make full use of and derive benefit from (a resource). 2. a bold or daring feat.  after you discover the definition of the word, you return to the image of the mirror to discover that the image within it has not changed, rather, that what is within the image of the mirror (yourself) has changed. boldly, you looked more deeply than before due to what you discovered in the word - the word within, its meaning and even how to exploit it. you paused to consider the word while staring at the mirror.  imagined upon your face, you noticed a flaw, and you were unwilling to dare to consider it to be a nuance.  you exploited the mirror, and bettered yourself - within, and without. you exploited, exploit by exploring yourself. everything begins with the word, and such are its ends in and of itself.

 

on process || 
some expansions - marital licenses, certificates of divorce and the death certificate
 

As pertaining to the philosophy/ies of aesthetics, my aim is to divorce the artifact from its arbitrary status of being “intrinsically beautiful,” which is to say – its standing alone, considerably autonomous, segregated from content other than its formal attributes, pointing to the autonomy of the artist as its origin – avoiding the production of the fetish-object.  More specific to my intention, is to reify concepts born of various fields of fact and theory (which I deem the substrates of aesthetics) through the process of uniting the image of the object with the subject(s), which give forms their “actual-beauty:” purposed to affect change.  Without such a function, formal characteristics that are only visually appealing seem arbitrary, with only one lasting effect – to bind the patron to its presence.  Therefore, I sense that it is not such an objects’ attributes which are beheld, but rather, it is the beholder who is beheld, ensnared, captivated, enchained by the enshrined.  It follows then that the work I seek to produce has a simultaneous beginning and end in mind:  the marriage of form with concept. 

 

Its intended aesthetic:  art that arrives through narratives authored by others’ insights which predate the works, and myself (the latecomer artist), that is tailored to the notion that their ideas are critical, and motivated by a sense that concepts closeted by a culture of "commoditization" deserve to become visible by appropriating their critical substance, in an effort to inform a “global village” whose will has been championed by entertainment media, party propaganda, cable-ready-made-jo(urinal)ism and thus, affect necessary social and political change.

 

Such a marriage is not, nor has it been without challenges. It will remain challenging for artists, as the history of ideas, and art, have only recently (with respect to the timeline this dual history is predicated upon) begun to, through deconstruction, sense that the remaining narrative for artworks’ coming into being dwells in the truth of our often never minded social conditions.  In this sense, an “aesthetically pleasing” object is one that reports on culture, but does not imitate it, as its beauty is authored in its semiotic capacity to reveal significant facts about the modern, delimited human will.   That is, to reveal that which is particularly ugly (content typically regarded as beautiful) to the world.  Again, such a work may stand alone, but not as a ‘thing-in-itself.’  Aesthetically speaking, it makes ethics its content, and therefore, takes the infirm human conscience into consideration, and stands alone like humans who stand for something.  Such an object’s beauty is its Nietzschean loneliness – its content ignored – its use value abhorred.

THE FOLLOWING PAGE IS UNDER EDIT AND WILL RETURN SOON

 

in pursuit of process - reference now available @ page titeld "WHOSE STYLE" ------- for the uninitiated, genius is a rich, heavily debated topic in visual art culture

several seasons of shaping stuff

 

How did anything come to be?  Bang!  A flash of Genius?  Yes, a flash of Genius indeed -- and this has everything to do with etymology -- and this has everything to do with what to pursue... fall, winter, spring and summer.  

 

ADDENDUM...

 

The commentary on "genius" - whatever that is - should be followed by deferring to my treatise "On Style" found below.  Much the same way one might approach the origin of something (again, whatever that is), he should be cautious as pertaining to the modern laboratory dialectic as to what constitutes one being deemed a "genius" ---- whatever that is.

 

the political process

A Brief Discussion and Justification of Political Imagery and the Creative Processes for its Arrival

 

Recently, political commentary has become a component -- and I stress "component" -- of my process.  This is little more than a product of age; when I was 25 I considered what was happening globally, or politically, but glibly:  I refrained from commentary because those passions can often be offensive.  Time has passed, 12 years in fact, and commentary seems to be a fair, even healthy component of my own, or any artist's portfolio.  The "ugly", as a social property, less a visual thing (which seems subjective and relative), stands side-by-side, vis-a-vis, with what is beautiful/helpful in peoples' lives. For this reason alone do I comment from a critical stance, making the political blatent, or obvious, yet not so as to slander one's character, but rather, to draw attention to the particulars of political ideology, or events that surround the character in focus in the imagery.  Some artists, not including myself, have gone much further than mere commentary, which can be problematic, but is often warranted when lives are at stake -- their passions can be both praiseworthy, and shameful.  Let the art speak, I say, and keep it there.  There is room for commentary, but to use modern-speak on the matter, one might say, "Love the player, but hate the game."  I stand on that platform creatively, largely apolitical as a man, but with a sense of my civic, and my creative responsibility to patrons to add to culture by taking (at a bare minimum) necessary risks if for no other reason than to provide a mode for rethinking cult of personality driven support of what may well be persona non grata politicians, leaders -- powers that be -- speaking "truth" thereto without conflict, scandal, or hate.  Turning now the readers' eyes to history, consider the propaganda of Daumier. Consider, rather, the influence of Jacques-Louis David, and his seminal masterwork, "The Death of Marat," which according to Albert Boime (1987) was "a moving testimony to what can be achieved when an artist's political convictions are directly manifested in his work".  While I am not involved in revolution, per se, the unwillingness of artists to risk offending the status quo could well be considered an act of collusion.  To take the risk, as an act well beyond artists using therir civil liberties justifiably -- the freedom of speech, or the freedom of expression -- to shrink back from reticence due to fear -- a fear championed by acts of creative commentary useful for furthering the liberties of others, while risking the worst result for himself:  appreciated as an artist only after his death.  Therefore, for every observation that I, or any artist makes, which leads to his or her seminal works' coming into being, which is their coming into the critical purview of patrons, his process for creating this or that, painting or sculpture, is neither above, nor below the law of the land... nor is it transcendental -- nor is he. But like it or not, he is, along with his art, forever cast like a shadow over the land and its laws into the political process of democracy's evolution from infancy to maturity.  Having aged, having observed history and its ugly truths, the beautiful must shine in its midst to alter the political process, lest art be damned for turning a blind artist-eye to reality.  However, as I said, this has only become a component of my process, having sensed that the formulation of any work of art is incapable of being transcendent of the ubiquity of the past, present, or future reality that we are all involved in the political process.  Like it or not, art is political, and none can apologize for this.  Like it or not, it is silence that can be an act that demands an apology. 

It is a difficult assertion to make on my part that my politically driven works do not stem solely from the position of party-specific interests or leanings.  Of the Right, of the Left, and of Center I do not stand divided over what political predilections I stand firm on as pertaining to aspects of the three, and as of yet, have had little time to commit to what may appear as fault finding with only one of the three.  As I wrote earlier, it is recently that political commentary has become a component of my creative process.  With that in mind, be on notice that I bring forth to bear witness to my own misunderstanding of much of what takes place in the political spectrum, that is, as politics pertains to government(s), and governments' front men and women (all washed celebrity).  I should consider the notion, and, provided that time presents more Left, Right and Center celebrity leadership, I will find the impetus to draw forth imagery that takes aim at all sides, parties, persuasions and cults of personality.