Constructivists…
Throughout the past year many people have likened my work to Russian Constructivism. The term ‘constructivism’ was applied to Russian avant-garde practices in art and architecture that largely took place during the 1920′s. Partly inspired by the Cubist movement in western Europe, Constructivism continually rejected the figurative form in favour of the shapes, colours and lines from which an artwork was built. Artists connected to the movement tended to move away from nature as a source of inspiration in an attempt to realise the fundamental structures upon which a work of art (art, design, architecture etc.) was built.
“The work of art ceased to be painted from nature, and began instead to derive its structure from the nature of the problems it treated.”
Aleksandr Rodchenko
Artists involved in Constructivism played a central role during the Russian Revolutions of the time. They carried their approach to painting into architecture, design, theatre and fashion. The structural approach they undertook embodied the notion that society needed to be reordered at a fundamental level. Like the Constructivist aesthetic, this meant breaking down the social order to its basic structures. In support of the Bolsheviks, the Constructivists applied their style to fashion items, posters, films and furniture.
Despite an interest in the way Constructivists carried their artistic ideas into a broader political and social sphere, I believe my work shares more in common with their aesthetic ideas. I consider my work to be more photography and moving image based, as in I take from what I see around me. However, much like the Constructivists, I try to break these images down into abstract forms, developing lines and shapes which collapse perspectives.
“Work on the creation of forms and a structural system for them gradually brought the line into the surface as a structural element”
Rodchenko
I have never considered the effects of lines within my images, but Rodchenko’s ideas here seem to give them more relevance. in cutting and slicing images together, I create new lines that connect elements of photographs that were perhaps otherwise seperate.
“On the one hand the line defines the structure as a whole, expressing the structural characteristics of the system – in this respect the line is the frame , the skeleton, the relationship of surface to each other.”
Rodchenko
Despite my collages containing the details within original photographs the lines created by the layering form new structural characteristics. I find that when I view my images my attention shifts between the sections created by these lines and the image as a whole. Between the illusion of the parts as a recognisable whole and the clear separation of sections created by lines. It is always the lines that split my attention. Excuse me if that’s a bit subjective.
“On the other hand the line captures the kinetic structural moments of both the whole and its parts – in this respect the line is trajectory, it is movement, collision, attachment, slicing apart and joining”
Rodchenko
I see lines in my images as cuts in time. They represent temporal as well as spatial shifts. Because of this, I consider them to represent journeys, if in an abstract sense.
Lines can also be considered as slices. According to Rodchenko, they reveal what has taken place – that an image or shape has been cut and positioned. It highlights the process of destruction and appropriation in the work. This idea reminded me of one or two of my images produced at degree level. At the time, I was making a conscious effort to blur lines and merge the shapes into one structure.
More unconsciously, I have refrained from going this far in my more recent images. Although I didn’t really notice it at the time, I think my reasons were similar to those described by Rodchenko. In highlighting the cuts within my montages, the process is more obvious. Instead of a new structure being created, an audience is able to see the original locations and interpret the way I have treated the images. This seems to ground the final pieces in reality, rather than taking on the more science fiction feel that was the purpose of my degree project.
The idea of retaining the reference to an original structure throughout my process (cutting, rebuilding, collaging)has been lost slightly in the production of my installation. Because there is a randomness to the way the image build and rotate, as well as the reliance upon a person’s movement, the structures become more abstract. The effect is actually more in line with the work of the constructivists. As seems to be the case whenever I come to a stage of resolution, I now have to decide whether or not this desirable. Do seek to develop this idea further? It would be interesting to present the shapes as monotone colours, rather than photographs and see if the effect was similar. I also would like to see if I can develop the software so that the images build a less abstract structure. This could work fairly simply by triggering animations similar to the motion graphics work I’ve completed. Both these ideas could work in the installation as it stands. Another alternative would be to develop the installation itself. The use of projections and acetate is fairly new to me, but I have already becun to consider ways in which I could take it forward. Rather than using constructivist shapes, could more simple forms such as squares and circles add something to the projected material? Could I work with the acetate in other ways and what other materials might I be able to use? Would using a more powerful projector give a greater amount of reflection?
I need another year.
