Tuesday, April 24, 2012

{PLAY} simulacrum and the sub-real space

in talking about aesthetics i am always drawn back to how space is effected, because all art effects space.  in talking about play as an aesthetic we begin to talk about a sub-space.  a space that exists partly in the real world and partly in the space between your ears.  in the past, basic 3D sculpture asked it audience to consider the real space and physical, tangible beauty of the work.  installation art flipped that idea by addressing the space around the tangible work.  film eschews the real all together and in effect creates a virtual space that invites its viewer to leave one world and enter another.  play however, addresses a space that is somewhere between all of these.  in trying to understand the idea of the sub-space, i wrote a poem, trying to nail down and understand where sub-space exists, and how to effect it.

play is the most basic metaphor.
probably the first human experience of symbolism,
beginning in infancy.

play creates a space that is neither real
nor surreal
nor virtual.

play creates a sub-real space,
combining elements of
real, living, three dimensional space,
warped surreal installation space,
and virtual space that transports you,
the way film can transport you.

play involves its audience.
it asks you to participate.
it asks you to ignore many of the surroundings of the real space you live in.
it asks you to make choices about your involvement with the tangible work.
the physical structure, whatever that may be.

play is a state of mind.
a phony reality that exists in reality.
play is a simulacrum.
residing in things you recognize.
representing something you don't remember knowing.

play is a metaphor.
like art.
a symbol.
like language.
and real.
like the thoughts in your head.

art is a sub-real space.
art is play.
a phony reality that exists in reality.
art is a simulacrum.
and a state of mind.



These have been intriguing posts--art/play exhibits is a brand new concept to me, although I'm daily realizing that play is pretty much what I'm doing in the studio.
But my focus has always been the object I'm making, not the interaction someone may have with it. Sort of disturbing to me, that.

Zach Medler said...

this certainly is still just a theory i'm kind of talking through on here, but i do see this coming toward the forefront of a new way of thinking about the experience of art. and you're right. what i do in the studio is also 'play.' but to me the 'process' or 'play' of making things is the 'art' of what i'm doing. i find that the most enjoyable, energetic, mindful, and free that i can be is discovered in the process of creating. and if i can offer my audience access to that world that exists partly in the real world and partly between my ears, i can give them a true experience, an affecting experience. they connect closer to me because they are allowed to actually interact with the work on an intimate level. touch is a powerfully intimate sense. certainly more so than simply visually viewing something.

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...