Iezzi thing
Alexander (QUESTIONED BY KATHARINA : ) ) [steve's note: I played with the format (see view history). I like this way of developing on the 1st text]
My past work is an interactive sculpture comprised of a hand-tufted rug, an altered, found, dog-bowl and an audio piece which is connected to the bowl through headphones. To listen to the audio, one must lower themselves onto the rug, as the headphone cable is of a short length. The bowl and headphones sit in front of the rug, inviting the viewer to lie down.
The rug was tufted using a tufting-pistol which blasts wool through canvas. Various colored yarns were chosen to complete the design, which is an image of a dog’s brain as made by an MRI can. The wool of the rug is intentionally untrimmed giving the rug a shaggy appearance. The bowl is constructed of metal and earthenware clay and have been spray painted with a high-gloss black paint. The audio comes from an iPod which is hidden underneath the bowl. The sound in is a voice making indistinguishable mouth sounds and a Righteous Brothers song which has been slowed down 400%.
The viewer submits to the piece on their own terms and comes face to face very closely with the work. The audio is referring to the possible perception a dog would have when faced with our voice and music. This perception was created by me while studying various scientific studies done on dogs’ brains. The piece is meant to be friendly (by use of bright colors and the softness of the rugs) yet perverse (the sound and aesthetics of the bowl) at the same time.
[(do you think there is a hierarchy between humans and dogs here, in the way that the dogs perception has been examined through scientific methods? what would a dog conducted “science” be, how can our perception have anything to do with that of a dog, even if certain parameters, like sound, are altered to be experienced as more doglike? What ground could humans and dogs have a mutual relationship) This is probs a very human question :)]
{there is of course a hierarchy being performed here in the scientific investigation of dogs by humans, but in that sense as we see that their neurological patterns are very similar to ours, we are perhaps also more able to respond with dogs on a more even, mutual level. i think that humans and dogs can have this mutual relationship simply by human beings realizing that this life that may be present before them is as complicated and important as their own}
This work related to past works because I often deal with how people relate to objects and animals while considering the normative hierarchies which exist socially and culturally in my context. “My New Feelings Whip” is a piece which refers to a sexual love-relationship between a human-being and their vacuum cleaner, dealing with the structuralization of love and gender. This piece deals more with the relationship between humans, animals, and objects by facing them with a close work
[what is the close work?]
{i mean a “close look” both literally and figuratively, that being both as an actual nearness in proximity while investigating an object, but also the potential for deeper readings when interacting with objects in potentially new ways}and possible positioning similar to that of another being which has been oppressed by human structures.
This piece was inspired by such writes as Donna Haraway and Deleuze & Guattari. The Deleuzian concept of “becoming-animal” continues to inspire me, as does Haraway’s expansion of these theories in a contemporary setting. S&M culture comes to me as an aesthetic inspiration (black latex) and sound continues to motivate me as a potential immaterial expansion to sculptural modes of creation.
[Me too]
The Work combines digital imagery, digital songwriting, and hand-crafted materials in a way that can be related quite obviously to a mode of contemporary art making. However, there is a slight critique of purely industrial (digital) modes of materializing which comes to being through the use of materials which are overtly hand-crafted. The ideas of becoming-animal/becoming-object directly relate to a human’s reconnection to the earth and all of its inhabitants (living and nonliving
[are the “non-living” objects? and once they’re in the world, why do we distinguish (if we do) between stuff that has been made industrially or by hand? I guess I’m wondering sometimes about values/labels of inherently “clean” or “good” attached to modes of production. Obviously profit-driven production is almost always harmful to the organism and lives, but I sometimes think all of the poisons and all that shit is all around anyway and in all of us. Like there is no clean body, which shouldn’t keep anyone from fighting violent harmful systems, but we’re all in it or something, ugh I don’t know..]
{yes, i think that we have to deal with all the things which are on this earth, both because we have made them, and because we can not escape them or pretend that we could go back to a time in which objects exist. i do think the hand-crafted can almost always be seen as a mode of production which goes against capitalism (my own belief says this is the root of the current ecological, social, cultural etc. status of human-kind) therefore immediately making a difference in the sense that you can curb human and animal oppression in many ways by doing things yourself by hand rather than looking for cheap, fast modes of materializing your desires} and could be used to illustrate these theories in an ecological context as well.
My current work is an installation in a room and small attic-space which includes a video and a sculpture. The sculpture is a black wooden ladder covered in fur-like material which the viewer climbs to access the attic. The attic is pitch-black except for the light emitted by the video. It is a dark video of a moving, singing, mound of hair with a mouth [I imagine it to be a hand puppet, or is it computer generated?].{the character is actually performed by me and anni, hidden under a costume which resembles a formless, featureless mass of hair. there are holes in a few places of the costume where the mouth can come through, aand the skin around the mouth is painted a monstrous green} The hair sings a text which related to a human becoming a dog-like hairball. The ladder sits in the room surrounded by puppy potty-training pads, giving a clean area for the viewer to remove their shoes and climb the ladder. The work again relates to Haraway and Deleuze’s theories, this time offering a glimpse into a hidden space (through the looking glass) to bear witness to this person experience a strange type of becoming. The video includes a karaoke-like reading of the text, referring to the use of the medium as a way to shed social awkwardness. [really like that]
Similar to previous pieces, the sculptural piece invites viewers to experience the work only if they agree to the terms which I have set (as in the rug/bowl piece). Again the work is deals with a dog-like becoming experienced by the viewer. [Could/will they combine and become part dog, part human?] {in haraway’s theories, when we interact with dogs, we are both becoming each other simultaneously, so when viewing a work of an artist becoming an animal, it is possible that the becoming of the viewer happens as both becoming-me and becoming-dog} Both works utilize a sculptural practice mixed with a media practice, where the first leads the viewer towards the latter. Sound plays a vital role in each piece. Similar aesthetics are seen through the use of high-gloss black paint referring to an S&M submission set-up where people are invited to use the sculptures while submitting themselves simultaneously. Both pieces use soft fabric as a friendly way to attract this interaction. [Something about this reminds me of dog owners that put clothes on their dogs, because the dogs have been geographically misplaced, and are not equipped with enough hair to keep them warm. Like aren’t chihuahas an ancient breed from mexico?] {im not sure on the age of certain types of dogs, but i am interested in how humans have tranformed the species over 10s of thousands of years to suit their needs and desires}
The difference here, is that the new piece is site-specific while the past work is mobile. In the past work the participation of becoming animal is experience by the viewers themselves while in the new work, the becoming is only viewed from outside, as I am representing the becoming in the video. The explicit use of video and text also differentiates the new work from the old.
My peers and tutors can play a vital role in helping me to develope the text (through peer-review) in a way which is neither didactic nor nonsensical but rather vibrates in between the two. This text will come to inform the character's voice in the video. The thinkers who I am inspired by will help me to develop the theoretical and philosophical content of the work by exploring similar topics & fields of research. My peers can also help me develop this in the future by sharing their feelings on how they receive the work. I can also continue learning from material advisors who oversee the creation of my sculptures.
My future work could be a video, or similarly multi-media work which explores the history of people becoming objects (i.e. medusa turning men to sculptures) or animals (i.e. werewolves) otherwise read as “monsters”. I am interested in how the perception of this becoming could be dealt with or changed through different modes of representation. For example, can becoming a monster be put into a context in which this becoming is seen as positive and productive? [I think there is and I think this is super interesting. There are so many power relations in defining monstrosity but also potential for subversion. It’s a vulnerable and brave position to put yourself in, like to become monsterous to undermine normativity? It’s easier, too, in certain places than in others. Like a “monster” in a small town might be punished and has to hide, where as a “monster” in a city has the possibility to meet other monsters. What could invisible(as in not in the body’s appearance), positive monstrosity look like? {i also think that this idea of monstrosity can be used for such a subversive positioning, and i think invisibly the monster works simply as the force that is “other” and opposing the hetero-normative human-centric patriarchy under which we exist in a western context}This work could include “monstrous” sculptures such as the modified dog-bowl readymades which refer to a deeper human-object relation and connection. The work can employ this hand-made additional material (“customization”) to open up a conversation relating to the same theories and ecological interests of my prior work.
I find it necessary to make this type of work as I am interested to open up potentials for humans to foster a deeper connection to the world around them. Is it possible that we can come to see the “Transgressive” as something more constructive under the structures in which we live? Is it possible that this same transgression can lead to a greater connection with the self and others? [ hope so :)] My future work will continue to push me towards deeper understanding through continued research, more knowledge, more responsibility, more attentiveness, and more accountability in my practice as a move forward in my life. [Thanks for letting me read this!]