Nonknowledge and the Invisible Labor - Post #7
"The existence of any particular image isn't simply a matter of its having been taken. Instead, an image is the product of certain interests, functions, qualities and labors." -Jurgenson pg. 96
I know that Jurgenson is talking about social photography and the act of physically setting up equipment to take an image, but I feel as though this quote can be read in a way for it to apply to both analog and digital artwork. Last post I chatted a little bit about capturing essence in a photograph vs in a drawing, and how I related more to the drawing of myself than the selfie. I have been pondering this notion recently. As I finish up my senior exhibition work, I can't help but to think about the journey I have taken with my pedrolino (clowns). They are indeed a result of a very niche interest and many hours of labor.
I believe there is a conversation between "visibility and invisibility" (99) in a different sense. What I think Jurgenson would consider to be the visual is the end product, while the invisible is the labor behind the work. As an analog artist, I have a difficult time grappling with this concept. Instances where the invisible labor goes unnoticed is when artwork is often appreciated the most. Viewers would perhaps brush it off as "Oh, [insert artist name] makes it look so easy!". When the invisible is noticed, I feel as though the suspension of disbelief is broken and the work is no longer viewed as highly.
Apparently I can't stop thinking about clowns, here is an in progress NoteIt clown.
Maybe I am just projecting my own insecurities and fears as the deadline for the exhibition approaches, but isn't that what this blog is for?
ciao
sophia
silly clowns
ReplyDelete