I think I finally started to get somewhere with the business of concretizing an artist’s statement, tonight. More on that later (I have a really, really shitty first draft, but that’s a pretty huge first step for me), but I’m awfully tired, and I just want to keep a couple of terms in mind for a time when I have more energy to devote to things other than cleaning, packing, and freaking-the-hell-out about the logistics of the next two months:
The fort/da game of the prior post is one,
Reification Fallacy is another.
My own homebrew conception of “metonymic collapse” as a function of contemporary representation is another, closely tied with the aforementioned rhetorical fallacy.
I think I’m working through a broad trajectory concerning how one thing comes to stand in for another. The object-relationship engendered by stuffed animals as a stand-in for human interaction (potential and imagined); Chalk ground on a flexible support (upholstered canvas, crocheted birds) as a stand in for impermanence and the anxieties that it, in turn, engenders; oil on copper as a stand-in for something as unfathomable as “permanence”; in my camera obscura video, the image of my front yard projected on a hanging bedsheet, inverted and strange, as a stand-in for the outside world. “Fallacy” becomes a pretty compelling common thread. Perfect Lovers as a wholly-perfect/entirely-inadequate stand-in for two real people: two blackened copper saucers as a stand-in for a relationship between two people that is irreconcilably over.
To bed, to bed.
