The theme of this work is "Parity Violation". When I try to output symmetrical things in my imagination to the... Read More
The theme of this work is "Parity Violation". When I try to output symmetrical things in my imagination to the real world, I have to choose one or the other at that moment. The work expresses the irreversible nature of such a transition from the ideal world to the real world. However, I do not want to impose this theme on the viewer. The problem is the traces of trial and error in trying to realize this.
In recent years, computers and machines have progressed at an astonishing speed, and have permeated our daily lives with such naturalness that it is almost as if they have always existed. On the other hand, the human body, which is the closest nature to us, is composed of many parts and looks like a complicated machine. In this work, I wondered if it would be possible to view the human body and machines on the same level, and tried to combine them as the same layer or extension without boundaries. Not satisfied with just imagining the machine as nature and the human body as machine at the same time in my mind, I tried to output them as paintings and find out what happened, what did not happen, and what could not have happened at that moment as an activity of painting.
A problem arises in the drawing of machines in the creation of paintings. There are many difficulties in drawing mathematical figures and their repetitive arrangement in paintings, and especially in oil paintings, where the drawing process is the exact opposite and nearly impossible. In addition, the content depicted is ambiguous due to the lack of experience in the fields of mathematics and mechanics. In order to overcome these technical and experiential shortcomings, I attempted to create an auxiliary machine for drawing and incorporate it into the creation of paintings. In making the machine, we considered using existing software and hardware, but since using them without understanding them would be contrary to the intention of the project, we tried to develop them independently as much as possible.
As a result, the accuracy of the drawing and the expansion of ideas by having a machine were obtained, and the production speed increased dramatically. However, as I continued to work with this method, it gradually became apparent that the machine could be an aid to conception and execution, but not much more than a tool. Furthermore, although there were infinite variations in this method, I began to fear that my ideas would be limited to what the machine could do, and that I would be about a drawing machine that could only mass produce works. Although I had gained a lot of freedom with the introduction of accuracy and speed, there was now a possibility that my ideas would be limited.
The reason for this limitation of ideas is the frustration of not being able to do trial and error on the canvas. Trial and error can be done on the display, but it does not leave any traces. The traces of trial and error on the canvas itself can become an element of the painting, and it is possible to get the next idea from it. The machine truncates the possibilities contained in these traces. For this reason, I felt uncomfortable with a painting without traces that had been executed as planned. As a final result of this experiment, I came to the conclusion that these traces of trial and error that have been eliminated are the main elements of a work of art.
I believe that this production using the machine has completed a certain role in my artistic activities, and I would like to continue my activities by shifting my policy to emphasize the traces of "mistakes" and "trial and error" in the future. In the past, the significance of the existence of painting was questioned due to the advancement of photographic technology, and in the same way, painting are now facing the threat of computer technology. It may be necessary for artists not only to use computer technology but also to digest it and move on.