I would like to believe that William Kentridge is my contemporary...whether or not that is actually true may be a different story. I mean I consider him a huge influence on my work and aspire to have work that is in dialogue with him but the dialogue is probably one sided. Hence I'm not sure he is actually a contemporary because at least in my understanding of a contemporary is that each has to acknowledge both the existence of the other as well as talk to each other in a literal or perhaps more metaphorical sense.
I love how he works with text, moving image, and strong political themes that delve far outside the conversation that was occurring in art at time. I admire his treatment of the apartheid and though it is outside of the interest I study I want to be a change like him. His work really reached people outside the art world. But what I am more interested about him is his technique and mix of techniques. He doesn't work in one medium. He works in several and even combined them to create new forms. His animations are incredible and were so ground breaking at the time for their looseness and style. They are so incredibly distinctive and yet that is true for his sculptures and sound pieces as well. He has a style that is him. He has his mark. And it's poignant and messy and crisp all at the same time. He is precise and imprecise. True and fiction all at once.
I want to work in a way that comments on contemporary culture but is still beautiful. That is what I admire most. His work is political but also purely on an aesthetic level is beautiful. I want to make pretty things. Maybe that is bad to say. But it's true. I like working with text and symbols and religious iconography for both the power they hold through meaning but also visually. I think Kentridge does the same with the figurative language he uses.
I think I have ranted for long enough. Again I am not sure if he counts but for me he is at least an idol. But a tangible one at that so perhaps he is a contemporary of sorts.
I love how he works with text, moving image, and strong political themes that delve far outside the conversation that was occurring in art at time. I admire his treatment of the apartheid and though it is outside of the interest I study I want to be a change like him. His work really reached people outside the art world. But what I am more interested about him is his technique and mix of techniques. He doesn't work in one medium. He works in several and even combined them to create new forms. His animations are incredible and were so ground breaking at the time for their looseness and style. They are so incredibly distinctive and yet that is true for his sculptures and sound pieces as well. He has a style that is him. He has his mark. And it's poignant and messy and crisp all at the same time. He is precise and imprecise. True and fiction all at once.
I want to work in a way that comments on contemporary culture but is still beautiful. That is what I admire most. His work is political but also purely on an aesthetic level is beautiful. I want to make pretty things. Maybe that is bad to say. But it's true. I like working with text and symbols and religious iconography for both the power they hold through meaning but also visually. I think Kentridge does the same with the figurative language he uses.
I think I have ranted for long enough. Again I am not sure if he counts but for me he is at least an idol. But a tangible one at that so perhaps he is a contemporary of sorts.
No comments:
Post a Comment