I have always found the failures of communication to be tragic and captivating. I feel slightly dishonest phrasing it so academically, but I’ve come to understand more and more of my practice through the lens of my severe synesthesia. In one way or another, translation, sensory dissonance, and the fraught effort to describe one’s own experience have occupied me for most of my life, informing almost all of my work.
Please see "The Worst Possible Illusion" for more.
All the works below can also be found in my online portfolio: flash / html
Listed newest to oldest, annotated in regard to these ideas.
Artists’ statements are meant to answer the question “what does this artist do?” However, if they answer any questions or communicate anything at all, they usually only describe the most common aspects of the work that the artist wants to talk about. They exist mainly for viewers who either haven’t decided if the work is worth their time or those who aren’t sure what to say about it, so for those purposes a summary is appropriate. For almost all other purposes, including the attempt to communicate what an artist does, the contemporary artist's statement is nearly pointless. If an artist is worth your time, he or she will spend a great deal of his or her time doubting, being curious, or being surprised. The time and pedantry required to keep an artist’s statement current with such a process and what it produces would be monumental and draining. Unless the artist his or herself is brainwashed, which many are, artists' statements can only be approximations. At their best, they say what interests the artist most, and how they usually work. This is certainly useful information, but only when one stays aware of its limitations. Read statements with the work in mind, not the other way round.
Artists’ statements, like the law and bad art, skew towards what is easiest to put into words. For this reason, they are usually more about concepts than aesthetics, as we have a poorer vocabulary for looking than we do for thinking. As demonstrated by the impossible instruction, “Don’t think of white elephants”, things said are stronger than things unsaid. So it is tempting to say nothing to either side, to present the work and be done with it. The problem is that, while single works may stand on their own, they do not answer the whole question “what does this artist do”, unless the are by a boring artist. It is a terrible habit to expect individual pieces to be as summary and compliant with an artists statement as a billboard is with a brand name. That sort of thing should not be encouraged. Worse still is the sloppy habit of understanding the division of concept from aesthetics yet accepting one as a replacement for the other. This statement is my attempt to summarize the common threads which connect the sometimes disparate areas of my work, to describe my approach to different disciplines, and to introduce some of the things that fascinate me. Like everything else on this site, it is in-progress
Glasgow School of Art, 2008 - Ba(Hons)
Place 03 - Pastoral
Glasgow, Scotland
July 2008
Young Contemporary Artists
Glasgow, Scotland
July 11 - September 4th, 2008
Glasgow School of Art Degree Show
Glasgow, Scotland
June 12-21, 2008
Glasgow International 2008
Glasgow, Scotland
April 11-27, 2008
Two-person show
Royal Scottish Academy
Edinburgh, Scotland
32nd Annual RSA Student Exhibition
February 16, 2008
OFCOM Annual Event
London, England
February 4, 2008
New Work by Ním Wunnan
Victoria Union
Glasgow, Scotland
Solo Show
March 6, 2007
Panopticon Group Show
Panopticon Theatre, Trongate, Glasgow
April 18-23 2006
Cross Section
Glasgow International Festival of Contemporary Art
April 2008
Visual Studies Workshop Book Arts Residency
Rochester, NY
Autumn Season, 2005 Awarded but did not attend
This term comes from artist Vik Muniz. In James Elkins’ essay on contemporary artist Vik Muniz, The Most Interesting Thing that Can be Done with Representation, Elkins writes "...provisionally, representation is at its most interesting when it playfully demonstrates its insufficiency, in a particular manner which is related to magic, and in a mode that can be described as rudimentary or simple."
He adds four terms to a list of strategies for interesting representation (as introduced by cubism) which he has identified in Muniz’s work.
“8. Magic... The new magic is beleaguered: beset by carefully plotted evidence of its own impossibility, and teased by its own continued existence in pictures.
9. Illusionism "demonstrates its insufficiency,”... The best contemporary pictures... can be "fiercely committed" to denying their insufficiency, but in the end the denial cannot be deferred.
10. The "worst possible illusion" that Muniz mentions is actually the best possible illusion, the one where the image's possibilities are shown as the ruins that they have become...
He places special emphasis on his final point (11) “Contingency,” and identifies a “rigorous contingency” in Muniz’s work, saying that “ it remains fixed to the point of representation, to the material and strategy of the moment, in order to say the most interesting thing about representation that it is possible to say at each moment.”
These points reflect the eventual logic of the accumulation of choices that led to subject and style of my paintings. The hazards of communicating a “rigorous contingency” have preoccupied me for many years.