CASE STUDY
Context
1. Brief outline of the artist’s practice:
Mark making has been part of my practice in recent years. From cutting a rubber block and printing it thousands of time on papers or walls I moved to cutting the final surface (panels or walls) with gouges. All works made on wall were site-specific and ephemeral.
I am currently concerned with finding a way of synthesizing the duality generated by site-specific works, to produce work which involves a site-specific element and a broader element, but whose elements are integral – there is no longer an ‘original’ and a ‘copy’, or a ‘site-specific’ version and a ‘documentary’ version. All are parts of the work in its entirety – yet they are never seen together, only ‘apprehended’ through various processes: fragments, text, image, prints, publication, artist’ book, etc.
In this way the work can become bigger than one specific place and can incorporate several spaces simultaneously. Having moved from the paper to the wall, the work can now move from one space to several – linking several spaces into one.
2. Brief explanation of working process:
Decisions about size, colour and technique are made beforehand and determined by the circumstance of the work. Many other implications are related to the site-specific works and obviously vary from site to site.
Once the size is determined, the divisions within the space are established. Then the colours are subjectively selected. The technique of marking the surface is selected. The work is always very time-consuming (printing, carving or even in front of the computer)
The work is planned to unfold through prints, editions, books, etc.
3. Relationship of digital technology to other processes/technologies.
The work has become a blend of drawing, painting, printing, and currently laser cutting. Passing from one technology to another the image undergoes transformations. Each technology leaves traces of its facture adding layers of memory of its the process to the final work. The pencil on paper has a direct response to the gesture of the hand. The scanned image is transformed in vectors. The laser cutter cuts, as it was programmed, leaving each line with the same intensity.
Digital technology makes it possible to record all the transformations which an image undergoes, however these transformations are not always visible. Undesirable states can be totally erased. This is something that traditional technologies (lithography, etching, etc) do not permit so well. An etched “wrong” line can be burnished, but some of its traces will always remain in the plate.
4. Indication of how you regard the surface in terms of importance.
As stated above, surface is a major concern in these current works. Not just because of what I add to the surface but mainly through what I remove from it. This removal leaves marks that are deep incisions in the surface.
Specific issues to the new piece of work
1. At what point in the development of the work is the size of the image fixed?
This particular image is a study for the next piece which is related to a site specific-book project. The work is devised to be small (book size) from the start. The future piece will consist of panels, prints and bookwork.
2. At what point is the actual surface considered?
The surface is considered from the outset, as mark making is a constant procedure in my work.
These marks are not on the top of the surface but are really incisions embedded on the surface. I have to consider its thickness and consistency. I also need to make tests on the surface to see how much pressure, speed, etc. the laser machine has to have.
3. What factors determine the choice or creation of the surface in this new work?
The panel has to be light weight, so I selected canvas board and applied many layers of acrylic gesso to make it thick and strong. I wanted to cut the surface as I was doing before with gouges, but I also want do be able to reproduce the same gestures on two surfaces, paper and gesso panel. The possibility of using a laser cutter was the most appropriate solution.
4. How does working digitally contrast with other practises you have used?
Using laser cutter I depend on a technician. In my previous work I used also to work with assistants and printers – so this is not so different.
The digital moment (in front of the computer) is very clean and has no smell or texture (quite aseptic). Digital technology currently forms part of my process but I always leave space for direct touch on material.
My previous experience with printmaking showed me that the “original” marks are done on a surface (block, plate, stone, etc.) which is not the final work. The marks are transferred to a surface (usually paper). With digital technology the same happens, there is always a “translation” from one “space” to another. I see quite a similarity in the working process.
Information on new piece of work
Panel:
1. Title of the finished work: Untitled
2. Size: 25.4 cm x 20.4 cm
3. Process: see below
4. Material: canvas panel, gesso, acrylic and laser incisions.
5. Stages of the development of the work:
1. drawing
2. painted panel
3. laser on paper
4. laser on panel
5. final piece on panel
6. final piece on paper
3. Process:
- Marks are made with pencil on paper;
- the drawing is scanned and the image is treated to configure the requirements of the laser cutting machine;
- the panel (canvas board) is prepared with several coats of gesso;
- the panel is painted with acrylic (several layers);
- the panel is scanned;
- prints from the scan of the panel are produced using ink jet printer;
- the panel is etched with the laser machine;
- the prints are laser cut.
The outcome is 2 pieces (one etched panel which is unique and ink jet laser cut paper prints which may have an edition)
