Following my work in progress group meeting, it was discussed that perhaps the research was there by the way I am using it to create work is not consistent. In particular it was questioned as to why I was planning on manipulating my work (talking about the handle to the mop). I am beginning to doubt my desire to make my reproductions obviously distorted and playful. I want to continue making monuments but want to alter my own perception of what I think that is. So far I have considered that to be a stand alone object, but I am beginning to look at that much more in my objects original context. It could be interesting to create my reproductions in materials which take on a character and then plan that piece in the objects original context. So I am taking on Perecs concept of the everyday being overlooked and unnoticed, that is everywhere and nowhere at the same time. It was suggested being more subtle in my work, but for me I feel my work needs to be grand. I would like there to be a way where I could be subtle but still get my fix of being grand. The suggestion to use part of the original in my reproduction (for example the mop handle) is something I will explore because it fits into Perecs statement. The question of what my work is there to do or say I found difficult to respond to. I don’t any more than the reason to uncover our own experience and to show us how to look more critically, and to see and explore what remains hidden in our day to day lives.
Ideas and questions that have emerged from the session are:
Does the object remain hidden when replicated in a separate material (such as bronze) and placed back in its original place/context?
Creating work that encompasses both the original and the reproduced
Making casts several times in different materials to see how those materials effect that object
Paul Crompton artist 