“What we see, hear and enjoy is dependent on our expectations. The whole mystic of a work totally infuses the perceived result.”
Your work seems to require explaining. Surely the work should always speak for itself.
That is a worthy sentiment in principle. However the work will only speak with the vocabulary of its viewer. This can be misleading and limiting. The viewer will be forever reinterpreting their personal landscape, endlessly, with the same familiar references. I don’t see this as useful to anyone. I think that a piece of work could actually use all the help it can get, what ever the source. I’m convinced that what we see, hear and enjoy is dependant on our expectations. The whole mystic of a work totally infuses the perceived result.
We miss a lot of things because our expectations were not primed.
What was your method of approach?
First I started adding ‘false colour’ in a way similar to the Hubble photographs, then I went a step further and continued resonating with the data and including ‘false shapes’. I persist until overwhelmed by the intrusions the original becomes ‘the canvas’. That was my starting point.
Just the starting point?
That is simply a way in to the making process. There is no end, no final conclusion and no ultimate reward.