Response 1.2

Response 1.2
                                                                               (on green cutting mat)
So here is the 2nd response to the same photographic image.
Using ripping alone is more sympathetic with the subject matter but it adds confusion. The base image is a difficult composition on its own without the extra background noise. Despite this, this way of creating collage feels more natural to me than using the scalpel. I feel less constrained by the pieces, since any piece can be re-ripped without delay or fuss. I’m more able to make decisions regarding pieces quickly and as a result the creative process is more fluid than with cutting.
Both Response 1.1 and Response 1.2 are valid responses to the source material. Neither is superior. Both have their merits and their drawbacks in terms of process and final collage.
Neither Response…has helped me in deciding my which of my methods of destruction to use in this new series of work. Maybe that is no longer important. I’m now thinking that the methods of destruction and subsequent reconstruction are under scrutiny here rather than the final collages themselves.
Bryan Robertson [on Lee Krasner’s collage work] said “The strange density and presence of these works comes principally from their… design… but they have a different resonance because of their odd function as repositories of experience and second thoughts”.
I’m now having second thoughts about the nature of the resonance of my own collages.
Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s