• Home
  • Archive
  • About

Robyn Thomas

  • Home
  • Archive
  • About

MFA Dialogue with Claire Elizabeth Barratt and MPhil Presentation Slideshow and Notes

During the 2016 Summer Residency I am in the process of completing one degree program [MFA Creative Practice] and beginning another [MPhil/PhD Creative Practice]. During the first week of residency this involved two presentations that were in one way polar opposites yet in another where simply the continuation of the explorations I undertake with my art.

I don't want to write too much about either presentation at this point; however I want to provide here snippets of both for the readers of this blog to use as either a memory aide or a glimpse into those two moments.

The first is a link to a portion of the live video stream that was a part of the MFA Dialogue with Claire Elizabeth Barratt RAW/PORTRAYAL/MATERIAL/SELF/PORTRAYAL/RAW/MATERIAL/SELF/MATERIAL/PORTRAYAL/RAW on Tuesday, July 26 in Studio 14 of Ufer Studios, Berlin-Wedding. The video was recorded on an iPhone6 which through FaceTime projected the stream onto the wall at the far end of the space. A number of viewers of the performance/installation/dialogue used to film what was happening in the space.

The second is the slideshow with notes from the MPhil introductory presentation to my work and proposal at this stage in the process which I gave on Friday, July 29 in the same place, Studio 14, Ufer Studios.

Robyn Thomas_MPH presentation Summer 2016 _Friday July 29.001.jpg
Robyn Thomas_MPH presentation Summer 2016 _Friday July 29.002.jpg
Robyn Thomas_MPH presentation Summer 2016 _Friday July 29.003.jpg
Robyn Thomas_MPH presentation Summer 2016 _Friday July 29.004.jpg
Robyn Thomas_MPH presentation Summer 2016 _Friday July 29.005.jpg
Robyn Thomas_MPH presentation Summer 2016 _Friday July 29.006.jpg
Robyn Thomas_MPH presentation Summer 2016 _Friday July 29.007.jpg
Robyn Thomas_MPH presentation Summer 2016 _Friday July 29.008.jpg
Robyn Thomas_MPH presentation Summer 2016 _Friday July 29.009.jpg
Robyn Thomas_MPH presentation Summer 2016 _Friday July 29.010.jpg
Robyn Thomas_MPH presentation Summer 2016 _Friday July 29.011.jpg
Robyn Thomas_MPH presentation Summer 2016 _Friday July 29.012.jpg
Robyn Thomas_MPH presentation Summer 2016 _Friday July 29.013.jpg
Robyn Thomas_MPH presentation Summer 2016 _Friday July 29.014.jpg
Robyn Thomas_MPH presentation Summer 2016 _Friday July 29.015.jpg
Robyn Thomas_MPH presentation Summer 2016 _Friday July 29.016.jpg
Robyn Thomas_MPH presentation Summer 2016 _Friday July 29.017.jpg
Robyn Thomas_MPH presentation Summer 2016 _Friday July 29.018.jpg
Robyn Thomas_MPH presentation Summer 2016 _Friday July 29.019.jpg
Robyn Thomas_MPH presentation Summer 2016 _Friday July 29.020.jpg
Robyn Thomas_MPH presentation Summer 2016 _Friday July 29.021.jpg
Robyn Thomas_MPH presentation Summer 2016 _Friday July 29.022.jpg
Robyn Thomas_MPH presentation Summer 2016 _Friday July 29.023.jpg
Robyn Thomas_MPH presentation Summer 2016 _Friday July 29.024.jpg
Robyn Thomas_MPH presentation Summer 2016 _Friday July 29.025.jpg
Robyn Thomas_MPH presentation Summer 2016 _Friday July 29.026.jpg
Robyn Thomas_MPH presentation Summer 2016 _Friday July 29.027.jpg

MPhil Presentation Notes to Slides

1.    quick look at video of FaceTime live stream projected…https://youtu.be/t5mSzmxebys
2.   
3.  Who I am and what I’ve done. I’ll keep this brief as we’ve been together almost a
    week, had a chance to talk some, and hopefully everyone had the opportunity to
    attend the MFA Dialogue I had with Claire Barratt Tuesday which presented my
    recent work. For those unable to be present at the DIALOGUE the bit of video I
    showed before starting was part of the live stream we had set up during the
    performance-installation portion of the presentation. If you were not there and
    would like to know more about this, I’d be happy to talk to you later; and the
    same goes for if you were there and want to talk with me about it.
4.  This is where I spend most of my time; a section of my studio with an opposing
    easel and a wall.
5.  Here I am working at the wall on the third movement of my MFA thesis work
    Sonata: Allegretto. [the painted panels being configured and reconfigured in the
    space during the video at the start]. This was before this painting passage’s
    fragmentation.
    I am a painter. What this means is that my practice is centered around the act of
    painting and the object[s] which are a product of this act. Painting is the
    beginning and outcome, but never the end, of my research. Although a painting
    might reach a point of resolution where I let it go, I don’t believe a work is ever
    really finished; instead the point of resolution generates the next starting point in
    my process.
6.  Metaphors I frequently use to describe my process involve driving. Sometimes
    I’m behind the wheel; however more often painting is the driver, the vehicle and
    the main highway on the journey. There are side roads that enrich the journey,
    and this is when I take the wheel. Sometimes these are enforced detours,
    intentionally taken to obtain skills or information that is not obtainable along the
    main road, other times they could be a “Sunday drive”; taken for pure pleasure.
    I’ll discuss the side roads more momentarily.
7.  The past two decades in my practice I’ve explored the physiological,
    psychological, and cultural fragments that are the building blocks of identity; the
    spaces in which these parts are repeatedly constructed, combined, unfurled and,
    at times, concealed to form and re-form what we might consider to be the whole
    self.    The image I am showing is a photo of myself with a piece I’ve been working on
    for a number of months.

    My process involves taking an idea, a source image, through multiple iterations;
    fragmenting it; putting it back together in various ways using different [mostly
    paint-based] media and seeing what happens, what information is revealed along
    the way.

    This piece is two canvases, 40 x 50 cm mounted with a piece of mirror between.
    The canvas on your right [lighter] is an oil painting whose origins can be traced
    back to a series of photos I took of my flesh in a mirror and have worked with
    across various media for the past 18 months. The canvas on your left [darker] is
    a photo-print on canvas of the painting on the right. I’ve glazed in sections with a
    clear acrylic gloss varnish.

    I am showing this work as an example of a side road taken in the studio,
    exploring imagery, ideas and materials I was simultaneously applying along the
    main road, but in a different way. This piece may or may not develop into a
    ‘resolved’ work or become part of a larger body of similar works, but that was not
    so much the intention. The intention was to play with the idea and materials in a
    different way as a means of gathering knowledge which could be applied to the
    main works I was focused on at the time, or to future work.

    Let’s call this a ‘study’; and I spend a lot of my time playing with studies between
    my easel and wall.
8.  In my most recent work [TI-MFA: Self Portrayal] I explored individual identity
    through self portraiture. I looked at how the ever changing understanding and
    expression of the fragmented self, existing within the defined space of the
    triangular relationship formed between the artist, the object [painting-self portrait],
    and the spectator as described by Richard Wollheim in the first lecture in a series
    held at the National Gallery of Art in Washington DC in 1983, published in
    Painting as an Art (Princeton, 1987) functions with regard to the artist’s
    application and manipulation of truth in self portrayal.

    This image shows the three versions of artist books I’ve made using the thesis
    text and Sonata images as a basis. [seen on table in video] The format I chose
    for the artist book, the unbound text and images contained in a box outfitted with
    mirrors is a tactile expression the relationship Wollheim spoke of and the
    fragmented and reconfigure-able nature of identity I am addressing.
9.  Part of my thesis research included a closer examination of the self portraits of
    Marcel Duchamp. Seen on the left is the self portrait of his alter ego, Rrose
    Selavy in a photo executed by Man Ray under the direction of Duchamp in 1923.

    Looking at Duchamp’s work led to the development of the question of what
    happens to the value of ‘truth’ in representation of identity once the control of the
    artwork is ceded by the artist to the spectator, and ultimately leading to what I am
    proposing for the next segment of my journey.

    On the right is the self portrait Marcel Duchamp at the Age of 85taken in 1945
    under Duchamp’s direction by New York commercial photographer Percy
    Rainford to accompany a feature on the artist’s life in the magazine View.
    Duchamp was in fact 58, not 85 at the time. It was the backstory to this self
    portrait by Duchamp which sparked the question for me: What happens when the
    truth of identity is a fiction to begin with?
10. My recent research on identity led to questions pertaining to artworks produced
    by alternative identities of the artist; questions of how the production of an
    artwork in the guise of a fictional, or at times fictitious identity, impacts conceptual
    and formal aspects of the work as well as the complexity of the relationship of
    artist-work-spectator.

    In Eastern and Western traditions artists have for various reasons created
    artwork attributed to alter-egos, pseudonyms, altered identities, or heteronyms.
    Ex. include to escape a traumatic experience or memory thru the ‘other’; to
    create free from restrictions of gender, class or culture; or to enable the creation
    of art which differs conceptually or formally from the work for which the artist is
    already known, and otherwise could be unacceptable or damaging to the artist’s
    career or the value of previously produced works.

    Since Duchamp artists have increasingly explored the formation, manipulation     
    and questions of identity in their work instigated and in response to the expanded
    discussion of the politics of identity [race, gender, sexuality, class, and mental or
    physical abilities].

    Much of this work has occurred, or been recognized as being produced by artists working in   new media and performance genres, though the questions being     
    asked pre-date the recent interests in all things ‘identity’ and artists working in all     
    media continue to explore these questions as well.

    Whatever reasons an artist chooses to create art in the guise of an ‘other’,     
    characteristics of the identity from which the work is produced are a part of the
    work.

    Identity is a construct; art created and attributed to an identity separate from the
    artist’s own cannot be examined conceptually or formally without consideration of
    ho and h the artist chose to build the new artist-persona the way she did.  

    These choices impact not only the conceptual and formal manifestations of the     
    artwork created by the new persona, but also the materiality, a term I use to     
    encompass qualities of the object that are both formal and tactile, which as the
    basis of the works’ formal expression are important to defining an object as an
    object.
11. Returning to this image I showed earlier; Materiality and concept of the object/
    work intersect in a liminal space, much like the gap seen here between the
    original and its copy.

    This space, seen metaphorically, is also the type of space one could find the
    constructed identities of the artist-creator and the spectator.

    The interplay between the artist and her newly created artist-persona within this
    liminal space will be the focal point of the following questions I address in my
    research.
12. 1. Ho is the materiality of the paintings created by me, the artist, and my
    fictional artist-persona impacted by our interaction within this liminal space?
13. 2. Ho might the fictional character of a painting’s creator, who is also a work of
    art, manifest itself in terms of an artistic style in the paintings that is different from
    the style of mine as the artist who created this alternative persona?
14.  3A. How does the addition of the fourth entity, the fictional artist-persona, into the
    of artist-object-spectator relationship impact this relationship; and what relevance
    does the relationship’s occurrence within a liminal space have to the paintings
    occupying the space of the object in the relationship?
15.  3B. Is it possible to expand the relationship to that between artist-artist/object-
    object-spectator to exist in a non-liminal space; or is it by nature a relationship
    that only can occur between the gaps?
16.  This third question will necessitate a closer examination of liminality in the artist-
    object-spectator relationship, how it is manifested and defined.
17.  Finally to end this section, as artists we are creating art in a time that not only
    houses, but nurtures broad approaches to the exploration of personal and group
    identity within a wide range of individual and collective creative practices.

    Seen here is the cover of the current, Summer 2016, issue of Artforum featuring     
    the theme ‘Art and Identity’. The cover work is by Barbara Kruger and is a
    response to the letter she received requesting her participation in this issue.
    Kruger’s response was to mark up and question the language used to describe
    our understanding of identity today and how it is expressed.
    For the hyphenated word ‘post-identity’ Kruger chose to respond to ‘post’
    separate from and together with ‘identity’. Kruger writes, and here I’m reading the
    text for the whole word, ‘post-identity’:

    “So we might assume identity is malleable, fluid, shifting. Naming, pointing and     
    categorizing are no longer unexamined actions. Can you control the drive to
    name, assume or point? If you could do that, would you? How?”

    How?

    The questions I am addressing in my research will provide a solid foundation for
    future contextualization of the impact of fictional identities as creators of material
    objects to the objects and artist-object-spectator relationship within a liminal
    space.
18. Here I’ll attempt to speak of my proposed methodology and methods for the
    studio and written research.
19. Returning to my first slide:
    As a painter the place at the core of my artistic research practice is the studio.
20. The next few slides I’ll run through quickly as an example of one ‘side road’
    method I am currently employing not necessarily to create heteronyms but as an
    exercise to build my skills in developing character through image making. These
    are a series of mixed media works, approximately 18 cm x 24 cm on paper
    Arches hot press watercolor. They begun as collages in a bound sketchbook
    using imagery from fashion magazines, photo remnants from my past projects,
    as well as scraps of paintings, drawings and prints laying around in my studio to
    create portraits of persons encountered by one of my existing heteronyms while
    on she vacationed in Florida and which I based on the stories she told me. These
    collages are then taken through multiple iterations of scanning, printing, painting
    over, re-scanning…and each step along the way includes a digital scan of the
    image which then exists virtually.

    The current stage a few of these character studies find themselves in is a return
    to direct collaboration with my heteronym, Melusine van der Weyden, who has
    collaged text to the fifth iteration of the work. These can be viewed in person at
    the International Experimental Art Space organized by TI student miChelle Vara.
    There are events after this evening’s presentation, and the creative minds
    potluck dinner this Sunday at 7 PM to which all are invited to come see mine and
    Melusine [along with a other TI colleagues’] work.
21-25.
26. Development of heteronyms requires skills that I do not necessarily have access
    to through painting. Therefore I am looking to areas outside artistic research for
    methodologies which will lend themselves to this project.

    Two areas I am looking to are: Theater/Performance and Writing/Literature.

    Within the area of theater/performance I am looking to Stanislavski’s system for a
    ‘natural’ development of character. This involves familiarizing myself with his
    teachings, exercises, and application of concepts by a variety of actors and     
    schools; and from there formulating methods suitable to my own practice.

    In the area of writing/literature I am considering the of use qualitative research     
    methods via case studies from literature, specifically the experimental writings of
    twentieth century authors Fernando Pessoa and Robert Musil, to study how     
    these authors developed and expressed fictional characters, heteronyms and
    characteristics of identity in their writings which consist of prose, poetry and
    philosophy, what they were saying and why.

    I will then incorporate the information learned in my own experimental methods of     developing the paintings as well as in the written documentation and exegesis of     
    the process.
27. I will use a combination methods from art historical, psychoanalytical and
    phenomenological methodologies to build a basis upon which I’ll address these
    questions through the medium of painting, specifically the vocabulary of
    abstraction as applied to the genre of self portraiture; and through the written
    portion of the project documentation and dissertation. This will involve methods
    such as case studies of historical and contemporary artists working with issues of
    identity, alter egos, and abstraction; and the examination and interpretation of
    texts on identity, liminality and materiality.
28.  To end I’d like to summarize how I currently envision the form this research will
    result in.
        —The creation of a heteronym who paints.

        —A main exhibition highlighting the abstract self portrait paintings of the
        heteronym as well as my own painted self portraits created in parallel to     
        those of my heteronym; with the possibility of a smaller, exhibition
        featuring works I have done related to the creation of the heteronym as
        well as works created by the heteronym as side roads taken along the
        way.

        —A book in the guise of an exhibition catalogue, which forms the written
        portion of my doctoral thesis. This will contain the written defense of my
        thesis comprised of writings under my own identity as well as that of my
        heteronym.

Finally I want to add that this website is in the process of being re-conceptualized to better serve my MPhil/PhD research. Currently it is configured for the project Self Portrayal. Those pages will remain in an archive form on this website for the next few months until they move to their new home in the Transart Institute archive which is currently under development.

My initial MPhil/PhD proposal which is currently under revision is not posted here at this time in because of the current site configuration. Please use my presentation as a guide for the direction I am moving with this.

 

 

Thursday 08.04.16
Posted by Robyn Thomas
Newer / Older

Powered by Squarespace.