Degree Show proposal of plans.

          A key element involved in my works is that of spatial representation, and through the entire making process it has become important that they interact with the spaces they are displayed in. Some pieces have gone through certain procedures that involve them interacting with spaces, then stretched back to their original state, leaving a trace of previous happenings. Others are specifically made to intermingle with rooms, such as corners of rooms etc. The specific folding method has allowed these works to be manipulated and stretched to blend with areas around them.

  With this in mind, I have not got a specific plan on paper of what I want my degree show to look like. I feel that keeping an open mind will allow my works to perform to their full advantage by naturally working in the spaces they are placed in. Certain pieces change every time they are displayed in different places, so imagining exactly what they will look like seems irrelevant to me. Having said this, I have some drawings of what I would imagine it to look like, if I was given a space of my choice. It may also be an option for my works to change on a daily basis, interacting with the area in different ways everyday.

  A large open space is probably most desirable to me, as I’m sure it is for most students with large paintings. As I have a final piece that I am considering scrunched up into a corner, it means it is a very bold piece that needs space around it to work effectively as it might overpower a more discreet painting alongside it. This piece can also be suspended from the ceiling and hang in the middle of the room. 

  With all this in mind, a smaller space could also be effective, with works physically taking up a large amount of the space, dominating and filling it.

How do we mentally process spatial information?

“Making Space – the development of spatial representation and reasoning”

The book notes that even though there are many theories, it spotlights three, those being Piaget’s, Nativist’s and Vygotskyan’s. Piaget’s theory implies that humans are born without spatial understanding, and it is through our natural development that we can grasp it via experience. It is explained through an example of children reaching for an object and whether it is “reachable” or “unreachable”, thus allowing them to determine and learn if something is far or near. Nativist’s trust that innate understandings of space are present at birth, and further aspects are advanced over time. Vygotskyan’s believe that social interactions as well as separate, individual ones are what provoke us to develop. It is discussed that a child interacting with a competent adult is more beneficial to their development than working alone, but other theories disagree with this. An example of this is human developement, from mammals that were hunters and gatherers, which involved knowledge and understanding of space around them in order to hunt efficiently. Thus being a comprehension spatially that was developed through experience and not learned from others. It also shortly discusses the use of maps and mathematical diagrams and how we visualise and process them. Being able to use a map and correctly interact with the spaces around us from it is interesting and also a more advanced understanding of spatial awareness. This theory also concludes that they believe it is up to the individual as to how much they wish to learn.

To put a city in a book, to put the world on one sheet of paper -- maps are the most condensed humanized spaces of all...They make the landscape fit indoors, make us masters of sights we can't see and spaces we can't cover. (Harbison, 2000, p162)

Using mathematical diagrams and figures to visualise a space, is thought to be an advanced comprehension of spatial understanding as investigations have proven many people cannot understand this without visual aids such as maps. Being able to understand spatial concepts without visual aids is an advanced technique and one that allows us to also manipulate spaces as well as imagine them. Harbison’s quote is one that also communicates the idea that it can be just as hard to reduce the dimensions of something as it is to increase them. Not only is it a challenge to put the three dimensional into a two dimensional form, it also needs to be understood by others and communicated in a precise manner. As discussed previously, there are many theories as to how we apprehend these representations. For example, will we ever be able to understand the fourth dimension if we cannot recognise how we understand the three dimensional ones that surround us today?

Deterioration.

As discussed in other blog posts, my work being time reliant as well as time based has become an important aspect of the creative process. This demonstration could be considered as a visual representation of the fourth dimension, and making a work that will consistently change over time is something I am keen to create.

Since making works that can peel and crack, deterioration is a process which springs to mind. In some cases it can be seen as a destructive process, but it is one that I find relevant and has a beauty to it. It reminds me of peeling back wallpaper to reveal older layers from years previously, and you can certainly unveil some shockers as you keep peeling. This trace of time element is appropriate to the idea of peeling back wallpaper layers, and the physical act of peeling paint not only reveals older, previous layers, but it allows the painting to move into a three dimensional space as sections protrude and hang from the flat surface.

Once the paint has been applied, the procedure of folding takes place, and it is this that kick starts the deterioration activity. Depending on what paint is used, the result of folding differs greatly between works. Below are two examples of this technique.

Above - "Disclosure" 2015.

Above - "Gradation" 2015.

Flatland: A Romance of Many Dimensions by Edwin A. Abbot.

          The book “Flatland: A Romance of Many Dimensions” by Edwin A. Abbot 2010 explains dimensions through the life of an object. For example, there is a chapter in which he describes what it would be like to live as a two dimensional square. This is an object which is completely flat, perhaps surrounded by other similar objects such as a triangle or circle. From a frontal view these objects are seen just as we would imagine them to be, but from the side they have no depth, so can only be represented by one another as lines. I compare this to a piece of paper, we can see it is a rectangle but from the side we can only see a thin line. Thus he concludes that in a two dimensional world it would be near impossible for a two dimensional object to imagine a three dimensional world as it is something they cannot comprehend and have never seen before. The two dimensional world has no depth. Abbot creates a scene in which a sphere goes to visit the flat square. The square at first does not believe that he is seeing more than just a line, and that he is for the first time experiencing depth. The square still refuses to believe that a world beyond the two dimensional one exists, so the sphere takes the square to a three dimensional world, and finally he understands. Abbot then discusses that the square asks the sphere if there is a world beyond the three dimensional, and the sphere does not understand. The sphere is confused and shocked, stating that he cannot grasp anything more than the world he lives in. Consequently he believes this theory is relevant to our lives in the three dimensional world, and that we cannot visualise a fourth dimension as we have nothing in our world that relates or is even close to the fourth dimension.

          My thoughts and attitude towards the unknown ideas of the fourth dimension after reading Abbot’s book have drastically changed. The specific chapter of the book discussing the life of the square helped me understand my own doubt as to why I cannot understand or visualise what the fourth dimension is. I do have visions in my head but they are only representational of what it could be. After wasting a lot of time before reading this book, I now know that it is ok to not understand and that I perhaps spent far too long a time being confused as to why I couldn’t grasp it.

          I began questioning what my reasoning was for researching the fourth dimension, because if we cannot see or understand it then how do we know if it will ever exist. Even if it does, it is not something that will ever effect us. But when working in three dimensions within my studio work, I wanted to know if I could take it any further and if I could incorporate any other dimensions or techniques that could take it to the next level. A basic three dimensional shape needs three things to be mathematically correct; length, width and depth. This allows us to figure out its physical mass, thus allowing the object to exist as 3D. The fourth dimension has been considered to be many things by numerous theorists, such as light and time, though any element I feel could help enhance my outcomes in studio practice, so this has proven a helpful topic to research.

Too many colours.

                As I am the worst decision maker in the world, and there are so many colours available, I decided to limit myself to a few in order to focus on other areas of the creative process. I spent a lot of time previously deciding on colours, and even when I did finally decide, there are so many variations of tone and shades within one colour. And I get far too excited for colours!

                Mondrian is a great influence within my work and my interest in the subject of spatialism. His limited use of colour in its purest form is clean and bold, only using primary colours (blue, red and yellow) as well as black and white. This is something I have decided to adopt this year as I thought it would allow me to focus on other aspects of my work such as the effects of different materials and the processes used to apply and manipulate them. Who would have thought that I still find it difficult to decide on which colour to use! But it has pushed me to make decisions and try a range of options such as what materials to use and how to apply them.

                I have found through using a wide variety of materials and different paints that each hold different qualities that have allowed my work to develop in ways I had not before considered. I have allowed paint to crack and peel, letting each piece react differently depending on what and how I used materials on it. Works have become time reliant, and change more as time passes, and others naturally changed as I folded and handled them.

                Below is an example of a piece which only involved one colour. I adopted a system based approach where aesthetic properties became second to preconceived ideas.