In the Flesh exhibition
The exhibit shows a drawing instrument and a sequence of photographic drawings made by using it. The aim of the work is to make an indeterminate architecture, one where its meaning comes at least as much from the present occupation as from what is given in advance by the architect or other agencies involved in its production. The first obstacle to achieving this lies in the conventions of architectural drawing. The most common way we take partial possession of a drawing is through interpretation - the author allows a space in the work that requires our imagination to make some sort of closure. Architectural drawings need to be understood in the same way by the many agencies that come into contact with them. To achieve this they have established a sophisticated set of conventions to deny any interpretation other than that intended by the author.
Interpretation is a form of reading. To circumnavigate the conventions of relating to architectural drawings I have been looking at other modes of engagement. To achieve this I have been looking at ways of making drawings spatial, so that the observer becomes active through their positional and phenomenal relationship to the work. The two principle spatial devices used in the instrument are folding the picture plane and anamorphism. By folding the picture plane, the plane can establish a critical understanding of what is being projected onto it - a different fold provides a different understanding. In each of the drawings the picture plane is folded differently (but also the content that is projected onto it changes). When you look at the image on the plane your position changes the image through foreshortening or occlusion, just as the picture plane is active on the projections. The anamorphism of the image privileges certain viewing positions (where, for instance, the anamorphic image is resolved as normal), or provides a critical review of the image when seen from other positions. In the instrument the folding of the plane also creates anamorphic images of the projection.
To provoke the observer's imagination to engage with the critical potential of the image there is also a paradox built into the instrument. The origin of the projection is a three dimensional construction illuminated inside a box. The box has a lens through which the image of the construction is projected. A second construction, identical to the one that is projected, sits on the picture plane. The combination of mirrors and lenses in the projector means that the image it projects is normal to the construction on the picture plane so that the projection can meet it.
The construction is projected onto the picture plane to make an image. In the normal way, the image proposes a depth where the picture plane tries not to exist (or is completely transparent). The shadow of the second construction, cast by the projection of the first, lands on the picture plane registering it as a physical entity. Other than the straightforward understanding of the mechanics of the instrument, when the observer views the composite of the projected construction and the shadow of the second construction the paradox in the assembly (that makes sense of three dimensional objects on a two dimensional surface) tickles them to construct their own understanding.
The instrument is a prototype for a more complex version I am building at the moment to draw my own house on a site in Winnipeg. The drawings that it makes are both for the production of the house and its subsequent behaviour. The house can be redrawn during as well as in advance of its occupation. The new instrument will include a number of feedback loops between the original construction and the shadow construction as well as elements of the picture plane.
Photographic media is used to make the drawings so that the agency of the projection, shadow, anamorphism and folding is precise in the image.
Click each artist's name for an artist statement and images.
Nat Chard
